GM is pulling back on EVs

[K4fxd]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-electric-cars-spy-britain-200000931.html

China ‘will use electric cars to spy on Britain’
Wonder what @Gregs24 thinks of this?

My best guess for now is the loads any BEV big trucks can carry will have to be smaller by the amount of extra weight the batteries add.

They are allowing an extra 2000 Lbs of total weight for EV's.

Sponsored

 

[Mitch03]

You seem to be just joining the conversation. We've been through this in the thread 100 times. If you don't want to search the thread, that is your problem. Try google for answers.

Sorry if I'm not going around in circles with K4.

Like I said, you can believe whatever you want. Free country where I sit. I'm fine with that.

Nope. I’ve read every post. You’re the one who joined the conversation late. Why don’t you find that graph you’re talking about. Then I’ll find another graph that proves it wrong. See how that works.

 

[K4fxd]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/uk-security-must-not-sacrificed-210000983.html
UK security must not be sacrificed to net zero
Banning new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 always seemed overhasty and illiberal. Now we learn it is also imprudent, unless urgent action is taken soon to safeguard British motorists and our national security.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kemi-badenoch-raises-job-loss-193852973.html
Kemi Badenoch raises job loss concerns over net zero car ban

Car manufacturers are warning they will not be able to hit a requirement that 22 per cent of new vehicles they sell in 2024 must be zero emission models that are completely electric.

A manufacturer will be fined £15,000 for every polluting car sold over the limit, unless they can somehow buy in extra allowances from another company.

Mrs Badenoch is understood to be concerned about the requirement, known as the zero emissions vehicle (Zev) mandate.

 

[K4fxd]

Last year's Hunga-Tonga eruption sent millions of metric tons of water vapor high into the atmosphere. At the altitudes reached the greenhouse effect of this gas is 284 times stronger than at the surface. It takes about a year for the gas to get distributed around the planet. There was a layer of water vapor in the Jurassic period.

Well, here we are. Mother nature just provided a massive warming event for planet Earth and the media ignores it. That's how you can tell these people are completely dishonest.


I wonder if I should start a climate hoax thread?

 

[Burkey]

Well, the media YOU pay attention to might have ignored it, but scientists were VERY interested in it -

“When Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai (HTHH) erupted in January 2022, it shot the standard volcanic cocktail of ash, gas, and pulverized rock into the sky. But the eruption included one extra ingredient that’s now causing climate concerns: a significant splash of ocean water. The underwater caldera shot 146 metric megatons of water into the stratosphere like a geyser, potentially contributing to atmospheric warming over the next 5 years, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change.”

Oh look, the scientists are ignoring anything that might upset their agenda……except when they’re studying it and reporting on it….but it’s their fault that you don’t know about it…. *shrugs shoulders*

It took one Google search to find the information. It was the first link that Google found. So hard to keep yourself informed in this modern world. If only they’d invent a device that would allow you to access information easily….

https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming#:~:text=of Warming - Eos-,Tonga Eruption May Temporarily Push Earth Closer to 1.5°,over the next 5 years.

For the record, eruptions can warm OR cool the planet depending on the particular composition of the eruption. This one happens to have warming potential. But don’t trust the scientists. What would they know?

 

[Gregs24]

Well, the media YOU pay attention to might have ignored it, but scientists were VERY interested in it -

“When Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai (HTHH) erupted in January 2022, it shot the standard volcanic cocktail of ash, gas, and pulverized rock into the sky. But the eruption included one extra ingredient that’s now causing climate concerns: a significant splash of ocean water. The underwater caldera shot 146 metric megatons of water into the stratosphere like a geyser, potentially contributing to atmospheric warming over the next 5 years, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change.”

Oh look, the scientists are ignoring anything that might upset their agenda……except when they’re studying it and reporting on it….but it’s their fault that you don’t know about it…. *shrugs shoulders*

It took one Google search to find the information. It was the first link that Google found. So hard to keep yourself informed in this modern world. If only they’d invent a device that would allow you to access information easily….

https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming#:~:text=of Warming - Eos-,Tonga Eruption May Temporarily Push Earth Closer to 1.5°,over the next 5 years.

For the record, eruptions can warm OR cool the planet depending on the particular composition of the eruption. This one happens to have warming potential. But don’t trust the scientists. What would they know?

When you only look at media sources that say what you want them too, then you will never find the truth. Discounting everything that doesn't fit your agenda doesn't make you right, it makes you ignorant.

 

[sk47]

Last year's Hunga-Tonga eruption sent millions of metric tons of water vapor high into the atmosphere. At the altitudes reached the greenhouse effect of this gas is 284 times stronger than at the surface. It takes about a year for the gas to get distributed around the planet. There was a layer of water vapor in the Jurassic period.

Well, here we are. Mother nature just provided a massive warming event for planet Earth and the media ignores it. That's how you can tell these people are completely dishonest.


I wonder if I should start a climate hoax thread?

Hello; I see this morning that gregs and burkey have made critical responses to your post. Such is not unusual to be sure.
Burkey tried to do a spin about how the scientists have been aware of the climate effect of the eruption. Fair enough, but the two points you made were that this "natural" climate affecting event took place without media coverage and that such "natural" events are now and have been ongoing throughout time.

The agenda needs for climate change to be "human" caused in order to have the boogie man effect. Natural events such as volcanic eruptions, swamp gas and termite emissions have to be pushed to the back of people's minds. Not reporting natural events such as the eruption which hurt the agenda and then over reporting common weather events as due to global warming are become par for the course. I saw recently that "global warming" is to lead to more snake bites.

I imagine gregs will throw out a personal insult at me again for the umpteenth time. Perhaps he will call me ignorant as he did you.

 

[sk47]

EPA is ignoring the glaring problem with dang dirty electric vehicles (msn.com)

“…(EPA) has launched a new regulatory effort to force a massive transportation shift to electric vehicles (EVs) with its proposed “multi-pollutant emissions standards” for light- and medium-duty vehicles beginning with model year 2027.”

Hello; (my comments) been reading about this for a little while. Seems a bit of overreach. Perhaps like declaring that bees are fish in order to apply a rule that does not exist for bees.

“The harsh realities of EVs are the reason regulatory agencies have tried so hard to force ever more such vehicles upon the market in ways insulated from democratic accountability.”

“The EPA justifies its proposed rule on the grounds of what it refers to as a climate change “threat.” Under the explicit assumptions and estimated effects asserted by the EPA in the proposed rule, the temperature effect of the rule in 2100 would be about 0.023°C. This is calculated applying the EPA’s own climate model under assumptions that exaggerate the future effects of reduced emissions of greenhouse gases.”

Hello; (my comments) Perhaps exaggerate is the more important word in the sentence.

“As a crude generalization, EV batteries weigh a half ton or more. Each contains roughly 30 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of cobalt, 130 pounds of nickel, 190 pounds of graphite, 90 pounds of copper and about 400 pounds of steel, aluminum and plastics.”

“By his estimate, each battery requires the extraction of 20,000 pounds of lithium brines, 60,000 pounds of cobalt ore, 10,000 pounds of nickel ore, 2,000 pounds of graphite ore and 12,000 pounds of copper ore.”

Hello; (my comments) As many already know, 60,000 pounds of cobalt ore will not yield 60,000 pounds of cobalt. The amount of useable cobalt will be much less once refined.

“This tally excludes three to seven tons of what is known as the “overburden” for each ton of ore — that is, “the materials first dug up to get to the ore.” It also excludes the environmental burden involved in extracting and refining materials to produce the steel, aluminum and other less uncommon materials that go into EV batteries.”

Hello;(my comments) I know about overburden. I was raised and lived in coal country. I have seen massive piles of slate and other material removed to get at the coal.

“…Mills makes an obvious point that the proponents of forced EV adoption have avoided. “The variables and uncertainties in emissions from energy-intensive mining and processing of minerals used to make EV batteries are a big wild card in the emissions calculus,” he writes. “Those emissions substantially offset reductions from avoiding gasoline and, as the demand for battery minerals explodes, the net reductions will shrink, may vanish, and could even lead to a net increase in emissions.””

Hello; (my comments) My take on this in several of my posts has been and continues to be that one form of pollution/emissions are being exchanged for a different form. Mills goes even further suggesting the BEV associated emissions/pollution may in fact become worse than fossil fuel emissions. This will be a sort of Greek tragedy twist to the story if true.

“At a global level, scale diseconomies in the production of such minerals are a certainty, as production expands toward mineral resources less concentrated — that is, ores more costly to exploit.”

Hello; (my comments) This one is easy. As the already rare minerals needed to make BEV parts (are used up) (batteries especially) the deposits become less lee dense and will take more effort and overburden to get at. A good example often used to criticize fossil fuels is the use of Canadian tar sands. The easier to get at oil is already had so the oil the the tar sands is now being used.

“Direct purchase subsidies in the U.S. are subject to several conditions; far from reducing costs, they merely shift them onto taxpayers. The indirect subsidies take the form of higher prices on conventional vehicles, the inexorable implication of the mandated market shares for EVs. And EVs’ operating costs do not differ by much from those of conventional vehicles, once depreciation is included in the cost comparison.”

“The very fact that massive subsidies are needed to make EVs even marginally competitive suggests that the lack of enthusiasm on the part of consumers is no accident. EVs cannot satisfy a wide range of consumer needs, and they also create their own set of environmental problems.”

 

[K4fxd]

For the record, eruptions can warm OR cool the planet depending on the particular composition of the eruption.

Struck a nerve I see

 

[K4fxd]

https://media4.manhattan-institute....ehicles-for-everyone-the-impossible-dream.pdf

The above is very long but accurately breaks down BEV's

Some key points. There are so many I will not post more. Read it.


the energy equivalent of about 300 gallons of oil is used to fabricate
a quantity of batteries capable of storing the energy contained in a single gallon of gasoline.

The ore grades for each mineral dictate the quantities of rock that must be dug up and
processed to produce minerals needed to fabricate one battery; thus:
• Lithium brines contain @ ~0.14% lithium, so that entails ~20,000 pounds of brines to yield 30 pounds of pure lithium
• Cobalt @ ~0.1% ore grades means ~60,000 pounds of ore dug up per battery
• Nickel @ ~1.3% grade, means ~10,000 pounds of ore
• Graphite @ ~10% leads to 2,000 pounds of ore
• Copper @ ~0.6% yields about 12,000 pounds of ore
These five elements total ~100,000 pounds of ore to fabricate one EV battery.
To properly account for all the earth moved, there’s also the overburden, the materials first dug up to get to the ore; depending on ore type and location, it averages three to seven tons of overburden removed to access each ton of ore, i thus ~500,000 pounds total. The exact number varies for different batteries and mines. Note that this doesn’t include large quantities of chemicals to process and refine the ores, or the mining/refining for the other 400 pounds of battery minerals used (e.g., steel, aluminum).

 

[sk47]

‘I Don't Believe There Is A Climate Crisis' - Nobel Prize Winning Scientist Criticized For Statement He Made About Climate Change (msn.com)

“At a lecture at Quantum Korea 2023 Seoul on June 26, 2023, esteemed Nobel Prize winner and physicist Dr. John Clauser told the audience and the world, “I don’t believe there is a climate crisis.””

“So when such an educated and respected physicist like Dr. John Clauser publicly denounces the problem, it certainly makes headlines. But he’s not the only one to do so; Meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, has also spoken out, stating that there is “no significant man-made global warming. Climate change is not happening. There is no significant man-made global warming now, there hasn’t been any in the past, and there’s no reason to expect any in the future.””

“Now, it’s not just on social media that Dr. Clauser is being so-called “canceled.” He is also facing challenges in his career because of the comments at the Seol forum. In fact, exactly one month after giving his speech on June 26, 2023, Dr. Clauser was set to present a detailed seminar on the climate to the International Monetary Fund, but directly after hearing his comments, his lecture was immediately canceled. “

“…those who do not believe in the problem are often known as “deniers” and have been subject to censorship in the mainstream media. However, more and more data is being collected that may eventually turn the tide.”

“For example, in 2022, a study by The European Physical Journal Plus reported that there have actually been many unconfirmed claims about the apparently apocalyptic climate crisis in the media which have no scientific support. “

“Dr. John Clauser finished his thoughts on the climate issue with these important words: “In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.””

 

[K4fxd]

Dr. Clauser was set to present a detailed seminar on the climate to the International Monetary Fund, but directly after hearing his comments, his lecture was immediately canceled. “

More proof they don't want the truth, just the agenda.

 

[sk47]

More proof they don't want the truth, just the agenda.

Hello; Much like what happened on this site during the covid back and forth. Several, including myself, were kicked out of the main discussion thread for posting opinions/information contrary to the "official" agenda of the time.
The title of that thread was modified to say members kicked off for politics, when it was mainly for disagreeing with the dogma.

 

[sk47]

More proof they don't want the truth, just the agenda.

Hello; we and others might fill pages of rebuttal information the next days. Then in a week or two jtmat or Burkey doo one of their memory loss things and pretend the information never happened.

 

[jtmat]

Nope. I’ve read every post. You’re the one who joined the conversation late. Why don’t you find that graph you’re talking about. Then I’ll find another graph that proves it wrong. See how that works.

All I see is you going around in circles. I'll say it one last time: go find the post yourself. If you can't remember, that is your problem. If you want to know more, try google, ask someone else, etc. That is how it works.

More proof they don't want the truth, just the agenda.

It is an opinion piece, don't get carried away.

Sponsored