From BOE REPORT
Terry Etam
Summer is pretty quiet, thank you very much, but it’s time to jolt to get reengaged. There is no better way than to shout, so now let’s talk about a great recipe – Electric Vehicles. People who love EVs really love them, and talking about them in front of their fans is like asking them about the size of their children’s ears.
EVs play an incredible role in today’s cultural and economic landscape, in a strange way. They are considered the best hope for turning the tide of general consumer emissions. The government is throwing its weight behind it to an astonishing degree, legislating its predicted dominance with unprecedented (and as it turns out, insane) speed.
What makes EVs such a flash point is that they intersect with so many things that people love. For some, EV ownership feels like a major personal contribution to the global emissions problem, while owning one requires a significant personal commitment. For many, an EV makes total sense if it’s just for getting around town, or if you’re rich enough to keep one in your garage among the Astons and Ferraris so that it’s in a good position to make an environmental statement when needed. Some love simplicity, with few moving parts and lower maintenance requirements (low, but not zero). Still others love it because they can fill up with gas at home, at night. And then there is a group that feels angry at the oil companies with caution every time they drive to the gas station, people who believe that hydrocarbons bring nothing but death, no matter how much their lives have brought them so far. in heaven, including all living things. Pity them, a neutron-level boxing match between their ears is something no one would wish for.
On the flip side of the equation, and what brings it to the news, is the general public feeling “almost” towards them, 80 percent of which is the middle of the non-extreme. At the time of recovery, that is not a problem; the main changes are happening gradually for big ticket items, and it is common knowledge that certain parts of the economy work well like EVs – delivery fleet vehicles, forklifts, city taxis, etc. rise, as the price falls. But that change will be a multi-generational thing, especially with the necessary infrastructure changes.
Most consumers can see that Total And Rapid EV Dominance is not a sensible vision, even though the government has stated that this should happen within a dog’s lifetime.
Consumers know a good idea when they see one, and we can see that the popularity of hybrid vehicles – those with an internal combustion engine coupled with a small battery and an electric motor that gives a certain emission-free range before switching to gasoline. power.
There is a reason for this growing popularity – it makes sense on many levels. A hybrid removes some of the main reasons people are reluctant to open a full battery EV (BEV) – some anxiety, cold weather performance, etc. – and, as Toyota has wisely pointed out, the hybrid is actually better for the environment in general than. mass consumer adoption of EVs.
How so, you might be wondering. Here is Toyota’s calculation, in what is called the 1:6:90 rule. An excellent article can be found here, and the gist of it is: Because of the great challenges of finding, developing, mining, and processing critical metals and minerals (hundreds of new mines are needed around the world, with each new mine having a weaker level than the previous one. , and with many jurisdictions becoming more hostile to new mines), it makes more sense to use the BEV mineral requirements given to build 90 hybrids instead.
Since many trips are very short, hybrids can run on electric power for the most part, so the spread of these minerals to many vehicles creates a reduction in emissions. Toyota calculates that if the metals/minerals used to build one EV were used to build 90 hybrids, the overall carbon reduction of that hybrid over its lifetime would be 37 times more than one EV (and with that sentence, I don’t understand. helmets for shouting enter “Fossil Fuel Shill” – shout it).
Customers are asking for a hybrid. According to an article by Car Dealership Guy (an excellent car news site, from a dealer’s point of view), in August, 48 percent of Toyota sales were hybrids, Hyundai experienced an 81 percent increase in hybrids (although from a smaller number than Toyota), and Ford saw hybrid sales jump 50 percent.
Volvo, the company that promised to go fully EV by 2030 and thus banish the smell of gasoline forever from customers’ nostrils, recently backtracked on that promise to announce that hybrids will remain part of the equation indefinitely. “Everyone made a lot of assumptions two, three, four, five years ago, and this has changed,” the Volvo CEO said.
Then there’s the onslaught from China of affordable, high-quality EVs that policy planners are unaware of. Western countries announced bans on ICE in favor of full-EVs in the next decade, and lo and behold, China controls most elements of EV composition, and benefits from its dominance of the supply chain (plus extensive government support) to reduce almost everything. each EV west. Hey, you can’t do that, say the governments of the US, Canada, and the European Union, slapping huge tariffs on Chinese-made EVs because, well, we want to save the environment but not too much (cheap EVs are one of the catalysts that will accelerate the spread and adoption EVs rapidly among the masses).
Not sure where to go next. Consumers have spoken, car manufacturers have responded, and the strange thing is that the government is still paralyzed in 2019 while euphoric and nonsensical “environmental” policies are dancing on the grave of last century’s fuel. How they backpedal out of this is anyone’s guess, although there are signs, such as this headline: “Italy leads a rebellion against the transition of European electric vehicles”. If the memory goes from Italian traffic, they look good with virtually any kind of vehicle madness, so the automotive rebellion in the land that deals pretty big.
Like that, many aspects of the energy transition, if the whole process has not been hijacked by zealots, we will be further along the road, we will have consumers on the side, we will have the whole industry working properly instead of the failure we are doing. in the example of the car industry, and we will most likely have far less emissions.
Greenpeace USA on the ropes29dk2902lhttps://boereport.com/29dk2902l.html
In the grand scheme of things, seeing something that has the words “green” and “peace” in its name fails is disheartening; no sane person is against the environment or peace. But put those two words together and you have something else entirely.
In the US, Greenpeace once held the ugly end of the stick that has been used for jabbing at all dissenters. US energy pipeline giant Energy Transfer is seeking $300 million in damages for Greenpeace’s role in delaying the Dakota Access Pipeline. An ET victory will and will send shockwaves through a well-funded protest industry that has until now used every tactic in the book to achieve victory (and by ‘victory’ generally means ‘obstacles’ or ‘revenge’ as opposed to any kind of constructive progress. ). Big ENGOs spend hundreds of millions on staff and lawyers who really do nothing but bend the public to their will without bothering to go through the democratic process. Robert Bryce’s excellent Substack column tracks the staggering amount that US ENGOs churn through; Greenpeace US is a pipsqueak ($33 million annually) compared to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s astonishing $548 million grasshopper lawyer. With all that money, the group built nothing.)
It’s surprising that there haven’t been more lawsuits filed by failed companies and hydrocarbon producers dragged to court for the sin of providing the fuel that sustains us all. It’s really not a hard argument to make; the world that we know will collapse without the production of hydrocarbons, so should not thwarting production on the sometimes very flimsy grounds count for something? Shouldn’t blocking fuel from consumers who need it most (countless pipeline battles) be considered?
Greenpeace’s defense is pretty funny; suddenly he is insignificant, claiming to have only a supporting role in the protest, and the lawsuit, the funniest, is “an attack on freedom of speech.” Chaining yourself (or worse, sending some naive acolytes to chain yourself) to the bulldozer on the construction site, apparently, ‘free speech’, as tariff laws and endless slanderous comments about people and businesses that bring fuel. who continues to live an unhappy life.
Maybe your resurrected body, which you believe will appear if it is bankrupt, should begin with a soul search. Maybe peace means everyone working together for a common goal, not dramatizing villains as a means to motivate troops. Maybe ‘green’ should mean concern for the habitat, concern for air pollution, concern for a more intelligent use of resources, concern for the most logical global approach to progress, as opposed to a single war against the base of our very clear society. we cannot and will not live without it.
What the world desperately needs – energy clarity. And some laugh. Pick up the End of Fossil Fuel Insanity, aavailable in Amazon.ca, Indigo.caor Amazon.com.
Related
