We Don’t Need No Flaming Sparky Cars

It’s not about the emissions, it was never about emissions.

The rush to subsidize and mandate EVs is animated by a fatal conceit: the assumption that they will radically reduce CO2 emissions. That assumption is embedded orthodoxy not just among green pundits and administrators of the regulatory state but also among EV critics, who take issue with a forced transition mainly on grounds of lost freedoms, costs, and market distortions.

But the truth is, because of the nature of uncertainties in global industrial ecosystems, no one really knows how much widespread adoption of EVs could reduce emissions, or whether they might even increase them. (And no, this has nothing to do with the truth / joke that Teslas are coal-fired when fueled at night in many places.) While grid realities will indeed matter more than most realize, the relevant and surprising emissions wildcard comes from the gargantuan, energy-hungry processes needed to make EV batteries. This is one of those technical issues that tends to attract slogans, simplifications, and illusions of accuracy; a better understanding requires some patience.

That’s why “whose the biggest emitter” is a losing argument. The electrification of everything is fueled by rent seeking, political donations and naked cronyism. Emissions are just the cover story.

30 Replies to “We Don’t Need No Flaming Sparky Cars”

  1. EVs are a step towards the left’s 15 minute cities.

    Only the rich and upper middle class will have EVs. The rest of us will subsidize their purchase.

    The masses will have to take public transit to commute. And you’ll have to pay a fee if you travel more than 15 minutes from your abode.

  2. Carbon. The big bug-a-bo. Food shortage.
    Plants a source of food require carbon and give of oxygen.
    Not enough food? Need more plants. Need more carbon.

  3. More ecoMarxism – no facts, just modelling, no truth, just propaganda, no discussion, just bombast.

  4. Why would anyone want to reduce CO2 emissions?
    If anything we need more CO2.
    CO2 brings life.
    The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 1 half of 1%.
    People who want to reduce CO2 are either very stupid, or they are death culture.

    1. Warren

      Precisely..we are at what..? 390ppm..??

      We should be at a min 1000ppm and that should be the lower threshold.

      Greenland ice cores clearly show CO2 levels above 2000ppm…

      1. Yes steakman it is about 400 ppm. Of course it is not a pollutant, never was, it is not a climate driver, could never be, and the real kicker is if it gets too low we all die. That includes those who are stupid enough to try and reduce it.

  5. An average electric car uses the equivalent energy of 20 refrigerators. How much more electrical capacity in the power system would we need if every household started using 20 more refrigerators?

    1. If Justin gets his way, all new fridges will be the size of a small under the counter bar fridge.

      The ‘progressive’ idea is you’ll shop every day for what you need.

      All part of the 15 minute city.

  6. The carbon intensive life cycle of EVs are such that they require around 80,000 km (charged with a non-emitting grid) to break even with comparable ICE vehicles. Replace the batteries and you add much more. The free market chose ICE vehicles over electrics 150 years ago due to their carrying of high density energy source. EVs, unless tied to the grid (eg buses with overhead contactors) must carry high density energy “storage” and all the higher proportionate mass. At gun point and with subsidies, the physics doesn’t change. The discussion is moot in the absence of intelligent thought and appetite for doubling the grid capacity with high density reliable energy. They want your personal automobile to be no more.

    1. The free market chose ICE vehicles over electrics 150 years ago due to their carrying of high density energy source.

      I find that our latest wave of technological innovation … across all disciplines … is dedicated to change, for changes sake. Nothing more. I honestly can’t think of anything more idiotic.

      1. It’s progress to the golden age of the ’20s, you know, electric cars (like the detroit electric, range 180miles), rail transportation, walk-able cities, low crop outputs, low energy use, etc

        unfortunately, it’s the 1920s, not the 2020s

        1. Hint: the free marketplace walked OUT of the walkable cities that had become shit holes. It seems the free market decision-maker does things in HIS best interest … not the “collective” interests of Marxists.

  7. Read this

    https://www.tesla.com/en_ca/impact
    This is all 3rd party audited.

    And then decide if you want to believe the maniacal ravings if a right wing lunatic or real science and amazing tech

    Meanwhile the world moves in leaving you backwoods morons in the dust alone, confused and feeling inadequate in the face of change.

    I don’t expect any of you to read the link. You would rather stay safe in your little group here comforting yourselves with your lame lamentations. I mock you. I use you as examples as to how stupid people think and behave. Please go ahead with your replies. You clowns.

    Love

    Jenn

    1. Jenn,

      Love and Mockery don’t go together. I looked at the report – low on fact, high on doctrine. As to the 3rd party auditing, I looked at it as 3rd party and was not convinced (Electrical Engineer with 35 years experience) and why? Because I know scientific, and in particular, electrical theory, Jenn, and I would hazard a guess that you don’t. Computer models don’t impress me either because I have been programming for 50 years and know what it takes to make a model work (reflect reality and not my wishes). It is more about what isn’t said in these kinds of reports, than what is.

        1. Can you tell us HOW all the power for these battery cars are getting to the consumer.
          Many grids are running around 95% capacity as things are today.
          There just isn’t more room for voltage, Sugar Tits.

      1. Nothing more. A slick brochure for the virtue signaling eco-left. I esp. liked Tesla’s claim that 67% of their workforce is people from “underserved” communities. That’ll keep BLM from firebombing Tesla’s mega-factories. Right?

        Throughout this brochure … claims without facts. Broad claims … no detail. Unlike Jenn, I am capable of reading comprehension. I know when I’m reading a sales job as opposed to a “science” document. If reading a sales brochure makes you FEEL as though you are politically “progressive” … then good for you … you’re capable of self-delusion. Living on that kind of a shallow plain usually makes one “feel” comfortable and “superior”.

    2. According to the impact report, a Tesla 3 RWD costs $0.49 per mile for 5 years and 60,000 miles, versus $0.46 per mile for a Toyota Corrolla.

      Also, can you identify who the third party is that audited it, and the terms of the audit?

      1. This ignores the fact that if EVs replace ICE vehicles, electricity taxes will be imposed. Have to replace the fossil fuel taxes somehow.

  8. This article, like every other article posted by otherwise well-meaning folks who are not unhinged lefties, ignores the underlying assumption that “dare not be mentioned”.

    What climate crisis? Why do we need to reduce CO2 emissions?

    Of course, we all know why this happens; to paraphrase the famous quote ” you can’t argue a man out of a position when his pay check requires that he maintain that position”.

    This author is just another person at a job that requires lockstep with the prevailing orthodoxy, to whit, we’re all gonna die if we don’t do something.

    Personally, I would be happy to “do something”, just as soon as someone can provide me with incontrovertible proof that something actually needs to be done. No, models from Dr. “Hockeystick” Mann or from Phil “you don’t need to see my data” Jones or rantings from Manbearpig just don’t meet the burden of proof.

    That’s all I want. Show me some absolute proof that there actually is a problem. Or show me where I can find that proof, I’m happy to do the work.

    Yeah, I know. Good luck with that.

    1. I want them to show us the Time Machine they evidently invented, as that would be the only way to take the new measurements required to scientifically change the data for the early 20th century as they have in recent decades.

      Absent a Time Machine, there is no explanation other than fraud for the “adjustments” they made to the historical data to get the 30’s and 40’s to be cooler than the 50’s and 60’s, because as late as 25 years ago the opposite was the case.

  9. EVs are not meant to work.

    They are signs of eco-piety.

    Once people realise their uselessness, people will assume their places walking.

  10. It’s ABSOLUTELY about the emissions for all the good little Tesla drivers in Palo Alto! It’s about THEIR children (read: themselves) not having to breathe tailpipe exhaust. However they don’t give a shit about the children living next to the power plant. Ohhhhhhhh mommaaaaaa … they say about the poor children … ohhhhhhh mommaaaaa.

Navigation