Here Are Even More Inconvenient Facts About Biden’s Magical Thinking On EVs

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  diablo-imperius  •  2 weeks ago  •  5 comments

By:   John Stossel

Here Are Even More Inconvenient Facts About Biden’s Magical Thinking On EVs
“Engineers are really good at making things better,” Mills responds, “but they can’t make them better than the laws of physics permit.”

What we are looking at here is a horrifying real life Idiocracy in its early stages.  Just as in the satirical movie of the same name where society decides to hydrate the crops with Gatorade because you know ...

256

We find our leaders promoting, touting, legislating the impossible notion that EV's are the future and will save the planet.

OMG!  WTF! 


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T






P oliticians praise electric cars. If everyone buys them, they say, solar and wind power will replace our need for oil. But that’s absurd.

Here is the rest of my list of “inconvenient facts” about electric cars.

“The future of the auto industry is electric,”   says President Joe Biden . He assumes a vast improvement in batteries. Better batteries are crucial because both power plants and cars need to store lots of electric power

But here’s inconvenient fact 3:

Batteries are lousy at storing large amounts of energy.

“Batteries leak, and they don’t hold a lot,” says physicist Mark Mills.

Mills thinks electric cars are great but explains that “oil begins with a huge advantage: 5,000% more energy in it per pound. Electric car batteries weigh 1,000 pounds. Those 1,000 pounds replace just 80 pounds of gasoline.”

But future batteries will be better, I point out.

“Engineers are really good at making things better,” Mills responds, “but they can’t make them better than the laws of physics permit.”

That’s inconvenient fact 4. Miracle batteries powerful enough to replace fossil fuels are a fantasy.

“Because nature is not nice to humans,” explains Mills, “we store energy for when it’s cold or really hot. People who imagine an energy transition want to build windmills and solar panels and store all that energy in batteries. But if you do the arithmetic, you find you’d need to build about a hundred trillion dollars’ worth of batteries to store the same amount of energy that Europe has in storage now for this winter. It would take the world’s battery factories 400 years to manufacture that many batteries.”

Politicians don’t mention that when they promise every car will be electric. They also don’t mention that the electric grid is limited.

This summer, California officials were so worried about blackouts they   asked electric vehicle owners to stop charging cars !

Yet today, few of California’s cars are electric. Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered that all new cars must be electric by 2035! Where does he think he’ll get the electricity to power them?

“Roughly speaking, you have to double your electric grid to move the energy out of gasoline into the electric sector,” says Mills. “No one is planning to double the electric grid, so they’ll be rationing.”

Rationing. That means some places will simply turn off some of the power. That’s our final inconvenient fact: We just don’t have enough electricity for all electric cars.

Worse, if (as many activists and politicians propose) we try to get that electricity from 100% renewable sources, the rationing would be deadly.

“Even if you cover the entire continent of the United States with solar panels, you wouldn’t supply half of America’s electricity,” Mills points out. Even if you added “Washington Monument-sized wind turbines spread over an area six times greater than the state of New York, that wouldn’t be enough.”

This is just math and physics. It’s amazing supposedly responsible people promote impossible fantasies.

“It’s been an extraordinary accomplishment of propaganda,” complains Mills, “almost infantile … distressing because it’s so silly.”

Even if people invent much better cars, wind turbines, solar panels, power lines and batteries, explains Mills, “you’re still drilling things, digging up stuff. You’re still building machines that wear out … It’s not magical transformation.”

Even worse, today politicians make us pay more for energy while forcing us to do things that hurt the environment. Their restrictions on fossil fuels drive people to use fuels that pollute more.

In Europe: “They’re going back to burning coal! What we’ve done is have our energy systems designed by bureaucrats instead of engineers,” complains Mills. “We get worse energy, more expensive energy and higher environmental impacts!”

I like electric cars. But I won’t pretend that driving one makes me some kind of environmental hero.

“There’ll be lots more electric cars in the future,” concludes Mills. “There should be, because that’ll reduce demand for oil, which is a good thing. But when you do the math, to operate a society with 5 or 6 billion people who are living in poverty we can’t imagine, when you want to give them a little of what we have, the energy demands are off the charts big. We’re going to need everything.”

That includes fossil fuels.












Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Diablo Imperius
Professor Participates
1  seeder  Diablo Imperius    2 weeks ago

IT'S NOT SATIRE ANYMORE!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
2  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

Yes, rationing is quietly being incorporated into policy planning.  Some estimates by European policymakers is that meeting targets will require reducing consumption of energy by a third.  Of course, government imposed rationing is really nothing more than involuntary conservation.

Is it time to get serious about including conservation in the discussion?  Apparently not since conservation won't be a money maker.  Conservation is about consuming less and spending less money.  And government sponsored climate change policy really is all about the money.

 
 
 
Diablo Imperius
Professor Participates
2.1  seeder  Diablo Imperius  replied to  Nerm_L @2    2 weeks ago

The mavens of the environmental movement appear to be hellbent on taking revenge on capitalism. 

Demonization of nuclear power and now natural gas, (another recent lunacy here in CA) run contrary to the explicitly stated goal of reducing the carbon footprint.

The mindset is essentially, if we have to doom the poor to destroy the system that enriched the lives of those we despise, then so be it.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Diablo Imperius @2.1    2 weeks ago
The mavens of the environmental movement appear to be hellbent on taking revenge on capitalism. 

That depends upon one's definition of capitalism.  Is exploitation for profit really what capitalism means?

Demonization of nuclear power and now natural gas, (another recent lunacy here in CA) run contrary to the explicitly stated goal of reducing the carbon footprint.

California only supplies about half of the electricity consumed in California.  That political accounting allows California to claim it is making great strides in converting to green energy.  But the reality is that electricity consumed in California is just as dirty as anywhere else.

California would either need to double its electricity generating capacity or cut its electricity consumption in half for the political claims of going green to be accurate.  

The mindset is essentially, if we have to doom the poor to destroy the system that enriched the lives of those we despise, then so be it.

California is an affluent state compared to neighboring states supplying electricity to California.  California is exploiting those less affluent states for its own benefit.  Is that capitalism?

 
 
 
Diablo Imperius
Professor Participates
2.1.2  seeder  Diablo Imperius  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

I don't equate capitalism with exploitation by definition.  Exploitation (assuming the negative connotation wherein there is something inherently unfair occurring) 

I understand the reference to in-state versus imported energy production, I am less familiar with all the circumstances that gave rise to that other than say Hoover Dam.

In any event, that wasn't the direction I was going with my post but rather the widespread adoption of a largely incoherent energy policy.

 
 

Who is online


Vic Eldred
evilgenius
devangelical
Ronin2
Tessylo


24 visitors