Share this discussion
Electric vehicles are an unfolding environmental disaster – too many policy makers are incapable of understanding economics, maths, the environment and science
peterhalligan.substack.com
|
© 2024 Peter Halligan
Substack is the home for great culture
"The Pandemic was planned for 2016 and the food and water shortages were planned for 2020, but now have been moved to the year 2025."
- Calin Georgescu – fmr. United Nations Executive
https://allanmacrae.substack.com/p/the-oligarchs-who-rule-our-world
The depopulation agenda has three main components:
- The Climate scam, to starve you of energy;
- The Covid scam, to vaxx-poison you to kill many, injure more and destroy human fertility;
- The Starvation scam, you figure it out…
Note how the food shortages are being initiated:
- Limit fossil fuel energy to limit crop planting and harvesting.
- Sri Lanka reduced fertilizer and created widespread starvation.
- The Dutch government and Canadian diva Justin Pedeau are also reducing farmland and fertilizer, allegedly to save the planet, but really to starve you..
James and others. The oil in the ground is not a fossil fuel. It is not old dinosaurs and decaying vegetation. The oil is made by planet carbon earth.. It is manufactured down there. The earths magma gives off a gas. The condensate is oil. Through a chemical bacterial action oil can turn into coal. Fact.
It aint running out. There is a trillion barrels off the coast of New Zealand.5
https://rense.com/general67/oils.htm
"To begin with, oil is not a fossil fuel. This is a theory put forth by 18th century scientists. Within 50 years, Germany and France's scientists had attacked the theory of petroleum's biological roots. In fact, oil is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter. And oil, for better or for worse, is not a non-renewable resource. It, like coal, and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth. This is the real and true science of oil. Read all about it."
Let's not forget The Fremantle Highway burning off the Dutch Coast.
400+ EVs burning toxic gas and destroying 3500 plus cars and the ship itself. This is happening at an alarming frequency. These fires are impossible to suppress. Think of the Sydney Opera house with a chain reaction in the garage right under the theater.
Or my neighbor blowing his electric panel. Started a fire while charging both his EV's *IN THE GARAGE.*
Fortunately, it ignited at 6PM when all of us are walking our dogs and kids. We had the fire out with dry suppressants before the fire department showed up.
Had it had been at midnight?
What's the cost of that?
No ‘BAU’, electric vehicles, or no electric vehicles?
‘Most’ ‘economic thinking’ is ‘short run’ and ‘redundant’? ‘It’ ignores the ‘supply side’? ‘Growth’ {and ‘civilisation’} depends upon ‘cheap’ F.F. – those so called ‘halcyon days’ are ‘over’. ?
“The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . . That system has been on the life-support of quantitative easing and near zero interest rates ever since. Indeed, so perilous a state has the system been in since 2008, it was essential that the people who claim to be our leaders avoid doing anything so foolish as to lockdown the economy or launch an undeclared economic war on one of the world’s biggest commodity exporters . . . And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders – at least within the western empire – have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union.” ?
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2022/07/01/bigger-than-you-can-imagine/
https://www.facebook.com/cosheep
Yes. Nuclear is about the only electricity supplier that makes sense, unless we tap into plate tectonics or come up with some way to better harness hydro from fresh/sea water (currents -sic, and flows). A long while ago, I saw some work being done on the conversion of human waste, via bacteria, into energy - or at least hydrogen or other gases that could produce energy. Seems to have died a death.
There is a problem with nuclear, it is only ideal for base load. It cannot be ramped up and down like hydro and coal. Simple explanation. When a city rises in the morning for work thousands of people switch on appliances, jugs and toasters and in winter a kitchen heater. That massive demand for power has the effect of slowing a generation turbine and to compensate a hydro will release more water and coal will release more steam.
And while on the subject one can now begin to understand why wind turbines are useless and solar farms cannot power the grid.
Great article. Also nobody( or very few) know how to fix them. Husband is an auto tech of 30 years. Says most don't or won't work on these EV's. They know how dangerous they are too. Not to mention they can't keep or find help.
Peter, I completely agree that this is crazy, but I’m afraid it’s not about economics or the environment. It’s all about control plus some greedy corrupt scavengers (like ‘hero’ Elon Musk) who are in bed with the Deep State making lots of money from this. A regular ICE car you can easily refill using a jerry can of fuel that you keep in the garage or in the trunk.
I’m visiting Russia now, and even here I see many more EVs compared to the last time (2019) I was here, while Russia has a HUGE amount of oil and premium petrol (100 octane) only costs 60 Rubles per liter. (That’s about €0,60 or $0,65 per liter)
I hope you are good at "drone dodging"!
I think gas costs 2 cents a litre in Venezuela and 6 cents in Iran.
What's the betting that every "enemy" of the US has cheap gas?
The US has more oil than Saudi? Costs 4 bucks a US gallon = a buck 5 cents?
To paraphrase George Carlin: “it’s a big SCAM, and we ain’t in it!” 😉
Well, energy makes the world go round. We need affordable energy, and let’s be honest: with the exception of nuclear power, electricity (solar, wind, coal) is no real alternative, and I’m not even considering the difficulty (+ enormous environmental impact!) of storing electricity in toxic batteries.
Maybe one day there will be a technological breakthrough, but so far ‘electrifying’ the entire world doesn’t make a whole lot of sense...with the exception of the CONTROL factor.
Contrary to popular belief by so-called “contrarians” who love Musk, Putin and Trump (they think that they will ‘liberate’ us) Russia also seems to be moving (albeit slowly) towards this goal of control by electricity.
Much easier to control the sheeple by flipping a power switch, instead of having to search every garage and shed looking for a canister of diesel or petrol, or stopping by a black market in fuel.
In Western Europe where I live, all high kW charging points (also the ones in private homes or underground parking garages in apartment buildings) HAVE to be connected to the government controlled electricity grid.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/exxon-about-become-lithium-kingpin
hmmm..
from wiki
"Albemarle, Sociedad Química y Minera, and FMC Corporation collectively produce just over half of the world's lithium and lithium storage products, while just under half is produced by China.
"Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile (SQM) is a Chilean chemical company and a supplier of plant nutrients, iodine, lithium and industrial chemicals.
FMC? presumably not For Motor Ceridt or the UK dentist.
https://www.fmc.com/en/search/LITHIUM
!an Agricultural Sciences Company and began to separate its Lithium business. 2017 FMC acquires DuPont crop protection … for controlled-release dosage forms. 1994 FMC develops new lithium resource in Argentina. The company forms … Command soybean herbicide. 1985 The company acquires Lithium Corp. of America, world's largest producer of …
They're a nasty disposal hazard, too. Just about every part of a standard combustion car is either inert (glass) or recyclable (metal).
But also, we are completely missing the problems of lifespan and the secondhand car market. Most of the emissions caused by a car (or truck, or motorcycle, or whatever) happen in the manufacturing process. This means that totally apart from fuel efficiency, or type of fuel, or any of that, the longer you can keep that car running (instead of replacing it with a new car), the more eco-friendly it is. The new electric vehicles, AFAICT, are expensive even *with* government subsidies, but look down the chain at lifespan, and they're a disaster-- your average gas-powered Honda CR-V can keep chugging for 300k miles. Even if you buy it new, and you're image-conscious and need all the shiny new shinies in a car, you can drive it five years, then turn around and sell it to someone else, and there it is, still on the road, 20 years later. I see the '99 models on the road everywhere, still. What happens when your EV gets funky and you resell it? Well, at that point it needs new batteries, which cost $30k. Some schmo who just needed to get to work was happy to buy your old Honda for $10k. Not your EV though-- whatever he pays for it, it's gonna cost more than a brand-new CR-V in the end, because he will not enjoy any government subsidies for the mandatory refurb work. Q: will the fancy electronics in these things even be usable after five years? What about the sensors? Can you do the routine maintenance yourself, or is it non-optional to pay a credentialed professional for that?
For all of these reasons, EVs are garbage on the secondhand market, and because of the nature of manufacturing emissions... that alone makes them an environmental problem far worse than gas vehicles.
If we were truly serious about reducing emissions, and the environmental impact of cars, there are a few much simpler, more effective, cheaper things we could do:
1. Change the EPA's emissions standards to match everybody else's: emissions per mile, NOT emissions per gallon. The way that works out IRL is, we don't have access to the super-fuel-efficient cars (and motorbikes) available in Europe and Asia.... but schlumpy gas-hogging minivans, trucks, etc, are fine, because even if they only get 15mpg, their emissions-per-gallon are great because they hold their farts in or something.
2. Lower the speed limit on the interstates. It would slow shipping and piss everybody off, but it would save a ton of gas.
3. Lower in-town speed limits and find other measures to make motorcycling and bicycling safer. A good 50-100cc motorbike uses *far* less fuel than any comparable four-wheeled vehicle with just one person chugging around in it. But because everybody here drives obliviously at 10 over in their climate-controlled soundproofed pod, it's not a sane choice right now. I know, I grew up with a motorcycle enthusiast. From a sheer $$$ perspective, right now the gas savings will never make up for the medical expenses. Sure you save hundreds, maybe thousands a year a the pump, but you'll blow it all paying to have your spleen removed, knee replaced, and face wired back together. That's changeable. We could actually make our roads safer for smaller vehicles... if we wanted to. But American drivers vastly prefer the self-righteous assholery of being able to scream "donor-cycle" out their windows as they force a hapless motorcyclist off the road.
3a. One of the reasons two-wheeled vehicles are still the standard family car in places like southeast asia, is that vehicles are taxed based on their engine displacement. More CCs=higher taxes. On a macro level, this greatly reduces fuel consumption, because absolutely nobody buys a truck unless it is necessary for their business. Cars with tiny engines are a thing over there for the same reason. They're not street-legal in the US because they can't do highway speeds and also the weird EPA standards. Americans would balk at the measures that would make such things possible here-- we LIKE being able to drive 80mph and commute 60miles to work every day.
But hey, Teslas look cool and advertise how rich you are. So that's totally the solution we're gonna go with.
I didn’t see one of the most dangerous facts mentioned here: Spontaneous combustion. These EV vehicles are extremely dangerous.
Correct Peter.
My primary expertise is energy and climate, and I'll match my career achievements with anyone on the planet.
We published in 2002, more than 20 years ago, and nothing has changed:
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
– by Dr Sallie Baliunas (Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian), Dr Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist, Carleton U), Allan MacRae (Professional Engineer - now retired, McGill, Queen’s, U of Alberta)
After more than two decades, I would not change a single word of the above.
.
NO EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CRISIS
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 23, 2022
https://www.worldcommercereview.com/html/macrae-no-evidence-of-a-climate-crisis.html
“To conclude, the alleged fossil-fuel-caused Global Warming Crisis does not exist in reality. The only real, measurable impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is improved crop yields – which are hugely beneficial.”
GREEN ENERGY DISASTER
Green energy has proved such a costly disaster that people in Britain and Germany could not afford to heat their homes this winter, I predicted that debacle in 2013 in an Open Letter to the British Undersecretary of Energy and Climate - I wrote that they would hit the wall in ten years. Nailed it to the year. Nobody listened.
I no longer assume that these politicians are innocent imbeciles. They have an anti-human, depopulation agenda. Climate and Covid frauds are their tools to destroy us.
When you hear anyone droning on about global warming and green energy, you are hearing the prattling of scoundrels and imbeciles:
The scoundrels know they are lying; the imbeciles believe them.
Crop yields. That is the problem and the controllers know this. They want a billion people, servants, slaves living in little feudal villages.
Excellent observation! I agree 100%.
We've known for generations that electric motors have a much better torque-speed characteristic than internal combustion engines.. That means there is no need for a transmission and electric cars have much faster acceleration.
The problems with electric vehicles are:
- the need to use scarce minerals from slave-labor source countries
- inadequate electric generation,, transmission and distribution lines for a large market share
- limited range and cold-weather problems
- electric cars currently do not pay their fair share of road taxes
- electric cars also get other unfair subsidies enacted by idiot green politicians
- that means that electric cars are limited to a small market share
- electric car fires are extremely destructive - don't park in a garage or you'll burn down your house or apartment building
Best regards, Allan
Thanks for calling out the hidden costs associated with electric vehicles, which are inefficient and inconvenient as well as restrictive of movement . But the micro-plastics threat is serious and doesn’t get nearly enough attention. The people yammering incessantly about climate change would be better off working to reduce micro plastics pollution.
I agree whole heartedly.