Tuesday, April 18, 2023

Is It Wise For Those In Power To Push EV Demand?

We would like to think that many of the better trends and changes that have taken place in how we live have been determined by logic and governed by choice. The sad reality is that many of our preferences as  a society are not organic or even the best choice when put under a microscope. Our choices or how we handle a problem often fall short. Outside influences such as politics and money often override what is best for us overall. 

If this were not the case the world might be a much better place to live. It is not uncommon for those with an agenda to shape our future. Today this is evident in the area of electric vehicles (EVs) and how they are being touted as the answer to our environmental woes. While there is an argument that EVs do have a role in certain areas of our transportation infrastructure, the idea they will solve our problems is ludicrous.

It seems the decision to move rapidly towards EVs is being chosen for us and those in power are determining EV demand. This is being done by the carrot and stick method. This is a technique that achieves the desired actions from others by offering a reward (carrot) and a negative consequence  by smacking them with a stick. Pain and negative sanctions can be strong motivators. 

In this case, the stick is the new rules proposed by the EPA and White House to tighten carbon emissions. These aggressive tailpipe emissions standards will impact car model years 2027 through 2032. While the White House touts the changes will result in carbon emission reductions of nearly 10 billion tons by 2055 as well as save consumers an average of $12,000

EVs Still Charged By Electricity From Fossil Fuel

Right now, those that are hellbent on burying the internal combustion engine are cursing my stand. While I say to them, you are being deceived by those conveniently forgetting that most electricity is still generated by fossil fuel. To those that scream about freedom of choice or how climate change is a hoax, my message is self-indulgent, and self-centered, people with the attitude the world is their oyster and the hell with everyone else should consider that how we conduct our lives may have some effect on the climate.

Gas Guzzlers Are Often Used As Family Cars
As a strong environmentalist, I get tired "of hearing that EVs are good for the environment. While my stand may rile those promoting EVs my attitude towards the four-door pickups driven by average citizens may anger and appall others. The fact is vehicle manufacturers maximize profits by prioritizing these big-ticket gas guzzlers. These trucks are not used for work and should carry a heavy "poor mileage tax." High-horsepower petroleum vehicles that fill our streets with engines able to get from stoplight to stoplight in the blink of an eye and the huge low MPG vehicles often occupied by one person are the bane of environmentalists.

An argument can be made that policies incentivizing electric-car production will lead to the creation of more carbon emissions during coming years than if we were to instead encourage the use of efficient gasoline engines. Electricity demand is still rising across the world, most nuclear plants getting very old, and the most ecologically friendly sources are running full out. This means the slack is being taken up by fossil-fuel-generated plants. Under the idea of, last in first out, this would mean that almost all the juice being pumped into EVs comes from fossil-fuel-generated juice.

To make matters worse, other issues exist. Below are a few comments, or parts of comments, about EVs that have been gathered from different articles. I have not fully researched all these but they do add to my doubts about these vehicles.

*The Greenwashing Industrial Complex is one of the evilest and most fraudulent scams of the 21st century. The pollution and environmental destruction created by the manufacturing and disposal of EV batteries, and also the magnets for power-generating windmills, is 10X worse than pollution created by fossil-fuel vehicles.

*In Germany about 40% of the energy mix is produced by coal and 30% by renewables - a mid-sized electric car must be driven for 125,000 km, on average, to break even with a diesel car, and 60,000 km compared to a petrol car. The case is similar in the U.S. but less pronounced in nuclear-powered France

*Battery production causes more environmental damage than carbon emissions alone. Consider dust, fumes, wastewater, and other environmental impacts from cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; water shortages and toxic spills from lithium mining in Latin America, which can alter ecosystems and hurt local communities; a heavily polluted river due to nickel mining in Russia; or air pollution in northeastern China, as mentioned above.

*There isn't enough cobalt in the world to replace even half of the current ICE vehicles.  Never mind the fact they have kids mining the stuff in the Congo. InsideSources, says, every EV battery contains cobalt, with most of it mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This area has been an ugly mess for years as the Congo government and armed militants duke it out over the control of mines. Much of the DRC cobalt is then hauled to South Africa and shipped to China for processing.

Also flowing into the issue of " less damaging to the environment" is something recently brought to my attention, and that is, EVs tend to rapidly eat through tires. While many people may not think this is a big deal, it is. Since electric car batteries are heavier than petrol engines they need a more robust tire. Also, because of their accelerating faster from a standstill. If you want to take advantage of that without too much wear then you need a more robust tire, these cost more, and it has been said, you are lucky if you get 20,000 miles out of a set of tires. All this is addressed at, https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-electric-cars-wear-out-tires-faster-than-fossil-fuel-cars

Pollution From Tires Is A Growing EV Issue

Like many people, I had brushed aside the thought something as common as the tire is also an environmental factor. This should have been high on my radar because years ago I was given a building simply because it had been filled with tires. The officials in my city were all over the owner to get rid of them. It cost me a bit of money and a lot of work to have them hauled away and properly recycled. With that in mind, below are a few of the many articles voicing pollution issues concerning tires.

Homeguides.sfgate.com claims; Toxins released from tire decomposition, incineration, or accidental fires can pollute the water, air, and soil. While 42 states regulate tire disposal to some degree, eight states have no restrictions on what you must do with your discarded tires. Even with laws in place, illegal dumping still occurs, presenting negative environmental impacts.

Tiretechnologyinternational.com states; Air pollution from tire wear particles can be 1,000 times worse than what comes out of a car’s exhaust, Emissions Analytics found harmful particle matter from tires is a serious environmental problem. What is even more frightening is that while exhaust emissions have been tightly regulated for many years, tire wear is not. With the increasing growth in sales of heavier SUVs and battery-powered electric cars, non-exhaust emissions are a growing problem.

And, www.politico.eu/article/tires, delves into how driving affects the environment in ways beyond the well-known pollutants spewing from tailpipes and leaking from engines. Tires shed tiny pieces of plastic as they wear down, accounting for about 10 percent of the microscopic pieces of the pollutant found in the sea, according to one estimate. Tire waste was addressed in the European Commission's Plastics Strategy earlier this year. The EU executive is looking into how to cut down on microplastics that may be coming from tires and is considering regulations.

Considering increased regulations, it seems unlikely that combustion vehicles will be able to reclaim much of their lost market share. It must not go unnoticed that the President and those trying to crush the internal combustion vehicles are also playing right into the hands of the Chinese. Currently, China is in the middle of an EV price war gone wild Partly due to its desire to own the global EV market. (https://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2023/04/chinas-auto-price-war-is-now-out-of.html) The other part of this price war is rooted in the reality that China must move cars to keep its people employed and take up some of the slack it is experiencing in its housing and export markets. Regardless of what you decide is the reason for selling vehicles at cost or below, it spells bad news for American and European automakers.  

(Republishing of this article welcomed with reference to Bruce Wilds/AdvancingTime Blog)


  1. >These trucks are not used for work and should carry a heavy "poor mileage tax."

    Since those trucks are already expensive and people are buying them, adding some tax to them may not have much effect, and may even have the opposite. I suppose if there was a law classifying them as commercial vehicles, and commercial vehicles could only be sold to companies, that would have some deterrent effect. But then, politics as they are, you can't trust politicians to pass useful laws. I suppose that as more and more people come to hate gas guzzlers, especially those that can't even afford a scooter, those sort of cars may become more and more often targets of random scratches and vandalism. Besides, being so big, who would be surprised that they get scratched?

  2. "To those that scream about freedom of choice or how climate change is a hoax" ...straw man argument.... you should do better than that. Serious question... I can never get anybody to address it. What is actually going on in the world? Emissions from the EU and the USA have gone down. Roughly 25 percent in the EU from the peak. 10 to 15 percent in the USA. A 30 year trend in the EU and a 15 year trend in the USA. Unfortunately energy use has decreased in the EU over that time period and has remained stagnant in the USA for 20 years. During this time period emissions in China have increased to more than overshadow any reductions in the West. Infact emissions have increased so much that they equal the combined total of the EU and USA. Today energy use in China is approaching twice that of the USA today. Looking at energy mix it would appear that reductions have been achieved by using more natural gas than coal. With a smaller offset from more solar and wind... but largely relying on natural gas to make the difference. In the meantime... about half of China's energy production comes from coal. Nearly equaling the total output of energy use of the USA just in coal! This is remarkable! Peak coal use in the USA averaged about 6.4TWh from coal. Today china in using 4 times that amount! Doing a couple google searches US has increased coal shipments to China and China is till building new coal plants. Meanwhile the US gets lectured by Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab about net zero.. yet Gates says China should play a stronger role? Klaus Schwab says China is a role model? Do you even know this bigger picture as I point to below? How can this be? The USA and EU are emitting less and trending downward. China has more than made up for it...as shown in that world emissions are increasing. Yet the only countries reducing emissions are told they need to reduce more. A cynical person would wonder if climate change is a hoax to allow China to accumulate all the energy dense resources. Especially with leaders like Gates and Schwab ignoring China emissions. It can't be that they don't know this. With decreased use in the West China gets to snap up the coal at a bargain. I don't know.. maybe their leaders are just that much smarter than ours but after 20 years of this trend it is hard to believe they aren't in on it. It was brought up before... they pooh poohed it off saying China will try to do better... 5 years later from that article the charts have only widened. We are told we need to eat bugs and Ireland is working on culling its cow herds.. meanwhile in China... LOL. Take a look at that last line... Do you think it makes sense for Ireland to cull its cow herds? China gets to have a high powered dynamic economy. We get to eat bugs. LOL.












    1. Glad to read I'm not the only one with these observations. Wish we had more clout in the world besides talking about the issue.

  3. Currently EVs are not green at all . They increase the total carbon footprint worldwide .

    It is true that we can greatly polish the green image of EVs in a direct comparison with a diesel o gasoline powered car so that it shines since we can always say that the electricity that charges Evs is renewable exclusively . But this is less than half the truth and quite off a really green agenda .

    But the generated electricity , sometimes and depending on the day it may be almost 50% renewable , is only a part of energy requirements covered by energy mainly from other sources such as fosiles . And a broader analysis of the situation shows that unless we hit almost 100% of green renewable energy a EV based on Lithium batteries does not improve a nations carbon footprint but makes it actually worse as a EV with a big lithium battery with a capacity of 80-90-100 kwh require much higher energy input to produce the whole EV . Because of this a big battery’s CO2 foot print is according to experts almost 8 tons worse than 1 car without a battery .

    The whole truth lies in the sums of the CO2 footprint of EVs and not in a direct individual isolated comparision .

    A countries primary energy requirments

    Germany for example , similar to other countries except for the Nordic countries such as Norway , has approx. a 17% share of green energy of ALL PRIMARY ENERGY on a yearly basis ( 20% if we include nuclear energy but last week the remaining nuclear stations were switched off there :( ) but the remaining 83% of energy still comes from fossile sources such as gas , coal , crude oil etc. for shipping , aviation , heating , industries etc. . Natural (methan) gas (mainly from Russia) being the cleanest with less than 50% pollutans compared to coal . (So the destruction of Northstream was a direct and indirect blow to green policies ).

    Here is a simplified calculation WITHOUT the production of EVs with the example of Germany:

    I think that everybody can understand that the 17% of renewables could also be spent or used without problem, for example in industries , in homes ( people there are switching -and soon be forced - to use heat pumps to heat their homes which are powered by electricity) or businesses, etc. (so no EV needed really) .

    The relative new big EVs since the success of Tesla are in a way a competitor to the rest of elecricity users which will and has driven up prices but with let’s say a backpack of 8tons more green house gases which politics aim to avoid .

    So one can state that if the total primary energies in Germany represents the sum of 100 and we subtract the 17% of renewables, we are left with 83 of “dirty” energies ( year 2022) .

    Here a simplified calculation WITH EVs for example let’s say 1.000.000 newly produced EVs .

    To the sum of 100 of all energy we would have to add the additional energy ( the cause for the 8 additional tons of CO2 required by the batteriy production ) let’s say is in the region of +5 ( just an example not the reality . Just for the purpose of illustration) if we substitute 1.000.000 none EV cars .

    So if the primary energy requirements of a nation of 100 becomes 105 and if we dedicate 17% of renewable energy to charging these cars ( or not) , we would be left with 88% of the dirty energy due to EVs compared to 83 without EVs .

    In other words, a large scale EV production does not improve the problem of a country’s CO2 footprint , rather it makes it worse.

    So currently EVs with heavy lithium batteries do not really make sense . Only if all primeray energy requirements can be covered by renewables .

  4. "There isn't enough cobalt in the world to replace even half of the current ICE vehicles." I tried to fact check this and it appears to be false. The estimates I found say there's enough cobalt in known reserves to replace all ICE vehicles 70 times over. Do you have any more details to support this claim?

  5. THE BIG EV LIE. Why They Won't Save the Planet & All About Dirty Electricity | TheCarGuys.tv
    See the video, view this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sytWLB4-W-M

  6. Have you ever seen someone driving under a blanket? It may sound unbelievable, but it's happening in China. To address the issue of electric vehicle battery range in winter, some drivers have come up with a clever solution: driving without the heater on and instead using a blanket. This is not about saving money, he says, but about covering more miles. If he uses the heater, he's either on his way to charge or stuck charging.

  7. China's economy is in trouble. After seeing a video claiming much of China's Electric Vehicle industry was built on subsidies that are now gone, I'm forced to ponder the legacy of these policies. Subsidies are more direct and worse than creating incentives or giving encouragement.
    Subsidies are a transfer of wealth. Without a doubt, many "false booms" are the result of scams created through subsidies. We should consider whether the use of subsidies has created a situation where other governments are rushing down the same wrong path in an effort to spur growth. This possibility should not be discounted.
    https://Subsidies Corrupt Economies, China, A Cautionary Tale.html

  8. The idea Electric vehicles are less damaging to the environment has been broadly accepted by many people as fact. The notion EVs are good for the planet is a key factor for many of those deciding to buy an electric car.
    The article below argues they are, mostly not, in fact, they have the potential to cause more harm than good.

  9. This video screams more problems for EVs ahead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7XbYl0gXaA