Why There Are So Many Skeptics Who Doubt The Viability/Validity of Electric Vehicles As A Solution to Reducing Emissions

Global Warming Alarmists Are Misleading the Public On a Number of Fronts:

1. Batteries are NOT a source of energy.  They store chemical energy and convert it to electrical energy.. They are NOT the solution to reducing harmful  emissions from fossil fuels. Batteries need to be charged frequently (3 to 4 hours/charge) from a source of electricity that comes from fossil fuel public utility power plants.  Batteries notoriously have unreliable life spans and too often prematurally run out of energy.   

prematur

2. Automobile emissions are exaggerated by global warming alarmists – accounting for only14% of  the total global carbon emissions.

3. Global warming alarmists are unwilling to talk about all of the facts such as the enormous societal cost of their war on both fossil fuels and the working class, the cost of ownership and negative environmental impact of battery operated vehicles. There are many global warming climatologist skeptics whose scientific opinions are never published. They are not invited to the global warming summits. They are frequently ridiculed as “deniers” – yet most are genuinely concerned about protecting the environment from human caused global warming. 

4. Global Warming Swindle: "Global warming has become a story of huge political significance;  environmental activists are using scare tactics to further their cause; scientists adding credence to secure billions of dollars in research money; politicians after headlines and a media happy to play along. No-one dares speak against it for risk of being unpopular, losing funds and jeopardizing careers."

The Folly of Windmills and Solar Energy As An Alternative to Fossil Fuels  (Topic for larger discussion in another Blog post)

1. Government initiatives in California and Western Europe that have mandated investment in solar and wind energy sources have resulted in significantly higher monthly electricity bills and periodic brownouts. The lesson from these failed initiatives is -- ordinary folks need electricity when the sun  isn’t shining and the wind has died.   

2. Institute for Energy.org:  "Despite Germany being the poster child of Europe’s renewable future the country’s Energiewende—transition to wind and solar power—is not working. The Germans have found. that dependable, dispatchable coal can work in any weather and is the savior during these cold months"

3. Tech Commentary - James Meigs "On February 26, 2022, as Russian tanks rolled somewhat haltingly toward Kiev, Germany was fighting a battle of its own. It was trying to keep the  lights on. Since 2000, Germany has spent 500 billion euros on its Energiewende  program, a campaign to replace fossil fuels and nuclear power mostly with wind and solar energy. That Saturday was a typical winter day in northern Europe, with temperatures in the thirties and forties and light winds. But as the sun settled toward the west, Germany’s vast phalanxes of  wind turbines and solar panels performed exactly as they so often have in the past: poorly. By 5:15 p.m., wind and solar combined were producing less than 7 percent of the electricity the country needed. Coal and natural gas made up most of the balance."

The Global Cultural Divide – Democrats love electric vehicles - Republicans love real cars. Both care about the environment. This is pure politics - not science!!

1. The large population of the global working class sees no need for an electric vehicle. They are very happy with the vehicle they have. They will be forever skeptical of the Ruling Class (including the private sector fat cats) PR campaign to support electric vehicles. The Ruling Class NEVER mentions the huge societal price being paid  by the global working class (while the elitist proponents of government intervention are insulated from economic harm) in transitioning from internal combustion engines to battery/fuel cell operated vehicles. The primary driving force behind promoting the electric vehicle is political ideology – the belief that only big government intervention and edicts, not private sector technological innovation, will save us all from destruction from human caused global warming.

 2. Forbes – “Not surprisingly, electric vehicles are much more popular on the coasts   than in flyover  country, as Bloomberg recently quantified. Add this contrast to the   regional polarization  that defines many other things in America these days –   some economic, others cultural and  social, an increasing number political. It's a   difference that isn't likely to be bridged soon no matter how many TV commercials   for EVs ran during the Super Bowl.  The problem is, more  than 76% of EV sales last year were in states that Joe Biden carried in the 2020 presidential election, according to Bloomberg.”

3. Wall Street Journal – “Governments often go overboard when responding to new threats, and  policy makers’ response to Covid mirrored their continuing overreaction to global warming. In  both cases they have failed to pursue mitigation strategies that minimize total harm to  society. The initial policy response to Covid caused social and economic harms that, in the  aggregate, proved worse than the disease itself. Likewise, discussions about the total harm from rising global temperatures often ignore the costs associated with preventing warming.  Instead of focusing on innovation, which would actually bring the cost of green energy_down, the White House stresses prevention."

The Fossil Fuels $2 Trillion Global Infrastructure Investment; Hundreds of Thousands of Global Fossil Fuels Businesses; Millions of  Global Jobs (many very specialized) in Fossil Fuels

The investment in the fossil fuel global infrastructure is huge and growing in spite of the free world Ruling Class war against fossil fuels. This excludes the unreported investment in millions of independently owned gas stations and related jobs. The transition to a predominantly electric vehicle world will be very costly to the middle and poor class - hiking the cost of owning personal automobiles and trucks operated by millions of global independent truckers

No amount of taxpayer subsidies can create a huge alternative energy sector that is not dependent on fossil fuels. Any significant move away from fossil fuels will be based on real market demand – not government hyperbole and intervention.

China, Russia, India Combined Create The World’s Largest Carbon Footprint

Newsweek:“China, Russia, India, Worlds Top 3 Methane Emitters, Won't Pledge to Cut Emissions”

https://www.newsweek.com/china-russia-india-worlds-top-3-methane-emitters-wont-pledge-cut-emissions-1646010

Russia, China, India--  committed to expanding their own oil and coal energy generation, are cheering as the free world countries pursue the fruitless cause of promoting the electric vehicle as the path to reduce carbon footprint.

Conflicting Predictions/Questions Create Uncertainty – Will We Run Out of Lithium? Will We Have to Depend on China As the Primary Supplier? To Name Only Two Very Important Questions

Any rational person with a basic understanding of investment risk, knows that uncertainty of a positive outcome is a downer. If Lithium availability is in question going forward – let’s say over 5 years, there is no way that any significant actual investment will be committed (key word) by the automobile manufacturers. So far, we only have private sector lip service in support of electric vehicles. Addressing these concerns NOW should be a primary priority of the global warming proponents – but they are hell bent on pursuing their dream without considering uncertainty and potential adverse societal consequences.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/will-the-lithium-shortage-put-the-brakes-on-electric-car-plans-1.4638774

https://www.dw.com/en/is-e-mobility-going-to-crash-over-lithium-shortages/a-58214328

The Promise of Electric Vehicle Predominance Is Based On Unfounded. Mis-Informed Predictions - Not Facts of a “Technology Breakthrough” That Will Reduce Cost and Improve Performance

The sources of raw lithium are quite remote from the population base that drive automobiles, trucks and buses. Over 50% of battery cost is in the raw materials extracted from the earth and transportation of the raw materials and finished product. These costs cannot be reduced by a ‘technology breakthrough”. They are likely to increase – subject to inflationary pressure. 

Most car buyers are notoriously focused on the total cost of ownership – mostly purchase price, but also maintenance and replacement cost. Warranties offered by the car companies eventually expire so the replacement cost of expensive parts is a serious consideration for car owners who can't afford to buy a car every 4 years. Electric vehicles are far more expensive than internal combustion cars – in some cases 2x. The current replacement cost of batteries and controllers for the most popular electric vehicles is approximately $20,000. The cost of replacement of internal combustion engines is $6,000. There is no certainty that this huge gap can ever be closed.

The high cost of ownership is a valid reason for postal vehicles and commercial delivery vans (an ideal application for electric vehicles) to be 100% powered by inexpensive internal combustion engines. There is no certainty that the huge cost difference can ever be reduced.

 

Lithium Batteries Cannot Be Recycled – They Are Disposed of in Landfills

This huge potential problem is never mentioned by electric vehicle proponents.

Check these quotes from Science.

“The battery pack of a Tesla Model S is a feat of intricate engineering. Thousands of cylindrical cells with components sourced from around the world transform lithium and electrons into enough energy to propel the car hundreds of kilometers, again and again, without tailpipe emissions. But when the battery comes to the end of its life, its green benefits fade. If it ends up in a landfill, its cells can release problematic toxins, including heavy metals. And recycling the battery can be a hazardous business, warns materials scientist Dana Thompson of the University of Leicester. Cut too deep into a Tesla cell, or in the wrong place, and it can short-circuit, combust, and release toxic fumes.” 

“Complying won't be easy. Batteries differ widely in chemistry and construction, which makes it difficult to create efficient recycling systems. And the cells are often held together with tough glues that make them difficult to take apart. That has contributed to an economic obstacle: It's cheaper for battery makers to buy freshly mined metals than to use recycled materials.”

Why Not Work Together On a Free World/Free Market Solution?

Most Americans agree - there is potential long term global harm from human caused global warming. There is only widespread disagreement on whether it an existential threat to mankind. Since in the minds of the Ruling Class, it is a fact, that global warming is an existential threat,  the leader of the free world – the President of the United States of America, should convene a one week gathering of the leaders of the free world major global fossil fuels energy producers private sector; the government leaders of the OPEC countries crude oil producers; the leaders of the free world major electrical utility providers; heads of the large population free world counties (US, Germany. UK, Canada, France, Japan, South Korea) government environmental bureaucracies;  an even mix of global climatologist scientists – pro and con on the question of the threat of human caused global warming. All of the international climate change summits to date – going back 30 years have failed because they have been politically charged.  This should be a convention of the free world government and private sector leaders. China, India and Russia should NOT be invited.. The stated purpose should be for each of these leaders to listen to each other - not come to win their side of the argument.

Granted – there is no way that such a gathering can come to a consensus on how best to address the potential threat of human caused global warming. There can only be hope that each attending constituent will leave convinced of the need to begin to work together on a solution.