Did you happen to see the picture of the electric car “fast” charger being charged by the diesel generator? It’s Kodachrome evidence of the Moon-baying lunacy of this whole Electro-Kool Aid slurping.
Better to forget the EV charger, use the diesel engine to power a car directly – cut out the middleman – and be done with it.
Instead we are hectored about the virtues of the middleman – the EV charger. Which enables the EV owner to pretend – and posture – that his car is “zero emissions.” The picture makes it clear there are emissions – just usually emitted at a distance.
In this case, it’s just a few feet from the EV – which conveys the inconvenient truth pretty succinctly.
It’s easier to pretend – and posture – when the source of the emissions is farther away (wherever the utility plant is) and engage in magical thinking about the “clean” electricity being piped into one’s EV.
Maybe Elon will figure out a way to harness lightning and transmit it directly to EVs. In which case, hurrah – because electricity obtained that way would be free as well as emissions-free.
But wait a minute. Let’s examine this emissions business.
Anything produced as byproduct of combustion – whether for locomotion or generation – can accurately be described as an “emission.” Something came out of the tailpipe – or the smokestack. The salient question is whether what’s being emitted is harmful.
Certainly, things like unburned hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and particulates can be harmful. If emitted in large quantities. But they aren’t being. At least, not from the tailpipe. Emissions of these compounds from modern cars – actually, cars made since the ’90s, which was a long time ago – are a fraction of what they were circa 1970.
Many new IC cars built since the early 2000s qualify as Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles (PZEV) notwithstanding that they aren’t electric cars.
But they are very close to being zero emissions – by any meaningful standard.
About 95 percent of a late-model non-electric car’s emissions consists of water vapor and carbon dioxide – neither of which were even characterized as “emissions” . . . until just a few years ago, Suddenly Susan-style.
Which curiously coincides with the elimination – in meaningful terms – of the compounds which had previously been characterized as emissions. And which were a problem – meaningfully, in terms of smog formation and such.
The change in marketing was a necessary strategic move that had nothing to do with air quality or protecting people’s health – that mission having been accomplished. Which was becoming obvious even to the dull. The air was not opaque. People didn’t have to wear face masks. All was well.
Excepting the absence of a pretext for new and onerous regulations. The marketing change was necessary to justify the ongoing existence – and expansion – of the federal regulatory apparat.
Thus, carbon dioxide became – presto! -an “emission.” (It’s interesting to speculate as to why water vapor – also a potent “greenhouse gas” – isn’t of interest to the regulatory apparat. Maybe later.)
But is this “emission” harmful?
Potentially, yes. See Venus. But it’s the quantity that determines this – whether on Venus or on Earth.
Leaving aside for a moment the source of these emissions, the quantity of carbon dioxide in the mix (in the air) is currently about 400 parts per million – which is higher than 100 years ago. But it’s lower than it was 12,750 years ago – which was long before humans emitted anything except the biological stuff.
See here.
And C02 ppm levels have been even higher longer ago than that.
See here.
This implies C02 “emissions” are naturally variable – a real stumbling block for the proposition that we naked apes are responsible for the variations today.
Most people – not being scientists and so easily scared by propagandists – do not know that our geologic era, the Holocene, has been a period of unusually low carbon dioxide PPM levels. This unusually low level – around 280-300 ppm – has been used as the false premise to hystericize current slightly higher-than-recent (in geological terms) ppm levels.
Also hystericized has been the rise in temperature attributed to this. It has been about 1 degree in fact but that has been projected to increase by 3 percent or more in the very near future – over the course of the next 30 years – which has created the current “crisis” narrative.
Something Must Be Done. Now!
But the projected increase is based on computer modeling. Which is based on premises that are by no means established fact – and which leave out facts, such as historically low CO2 ppm levels in the Holocene and much higher ppm levels in the geologic past.
Also shoved under the rug – and the reason for the change in branding from “global warming” to “climate change” – is the inconvenient truth that the warming hasn’t increased as catastrophically projected.
In fact, it peaked back in the ’90s – when some will recall The End was also Nigh. And then wasn’t.
If “global warming” was correct, the warming should have inexorably continued; it didn’t. Instead of this being taken as contrary evidence that the “science” wasn’t “settled,” the “science” became overtly political.
But it is antithetical to the very idea of science to peddle a theory (a hypothesis, really) that can be made to fit anything. And that’s exactly what “climate change” theory does. It can’t be pinned down – fact checked – because the climate constantly changes. Its eponymous assertion – that the climate changes – can’t be questioned.
Such a person is a “denier” – an interestingly religious term.
Which is what we’re dealing with here. A Doomsday Cult, actually. Led by professional Jim Joneses, who aren’t interested in mass suicide but mass control.
Once you understand this, you understand everything else.
In any event, the “anthropogenic” emissions of carbon dioxide – whether by non-electric cars directly or indirectly, by electric cars, at the power-generating source – are literally fractional relative to the quantity emitted by natural sources we naked apes can’t regulate, such as volcanoes. So even if the climate is changing, there’s not much if anything that can be done about it.
One of the few incidentally honest Climate Change priests, Andrew Yang, actually admitted this during the Democratic would-be-Decider debate two weeks ago. And was practically excommunicated for saying so.
The “crisis” must not only by hyped, it must be portrayed as something that can be prevented . . . if only we’ll do as we’re told.
By High Priests who will, of course, do very differently as regards themselves.
. . .
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
#1: Gatlin To: Deckard (#0)
Nah - I prefer to ask Deckard, a LF resident libertarian.
Thank you anyway ...
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-16 08:44:55 Reply Private Reply
#2: Gatlin To: Deckard (#0)
Let’s look at the true picture …
It takes 30 minutes to charge a Tesla P100D which is then able to run 337 miles on a charge.
The average for city and highway driving combined is 45 miles per hour.
At 45 miles per hour for city and highway driving, an EV can drive for 7.5 hours on a charge.
Diesel vehicle average 40 miles per gallon.
A diesel-powered vehicle use 8.5 gallons to travel 337 miles while it will take .25 gallons of diesel fuel to charge a Tesla to travel 337 miles. So, Eric, the question is not “zero pollution” – the question is [in your example] will an electric vehicle driving for 7.5 fours on a 30-minute charge from a diesel generator pollute the air far less than a diesel-powered vehicle driving for 7.5 hours?
Wait, we already answered that question.
So, Eric, the point never has been “zero emissions” – it has always been “fewer emissions.” Comprendre?
Damn, Deckard – You really need to start presenting truthful information instead of cherry-picking biased articles to support your libertarian hate agenda.Really …
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-16 09:38:18 Reply Private Reply
#3: sneakypete To: Deckard (#0)
I don't know how true it is,but I have been told they sell their excess electricity to the local power companies.
sneakypete posted on 2019-08-18 12:24:14 Reply Private Reply
#4: sneakypete To: Gatlin (#2)
Only partially true. The goal has ALWAYS been zero emissions,and will always BE zero emissions.
The fact that it will never be attained in any of our lifetimes is irrelevant. It is still the goal to shoot for.
MY best guess is the best bet is solar collectors build right into the skin of the cars,but who knows what the future holds?
sneakypete posted on 2019-08-18 12:30:50 Reply Private Reply
#5: Tooconservative To: Gatlin (#2)
I don't see where you get .25 gallons of diesel fuel for the generator. I didn't see it on the page link you included either.
.25 gallons just sounds too low.
Tooconservative posted on 2019-08-18 16:43:18 Reply Private Reply
#6: Deckard To: Gatlin (#2)
Attaboy! Got those leftist talking points down pat, don't you?
Deckard posted on 2019-08-19 05:52:01 Reply Private Reply
#7: Deckard To: Gatlin (#2)
Green Absurdity
The stationary generator here is being run by an internal combustion diesel engine which is just as inefficient as a non electric internal combustion diesel car which averages only about 30 percent efficiency in converting the energy stored in the diesel fuel into mechanical energy to move the vehicle. Because the stationary generator is only slightly more efficient than a car’s diesel engine it saves only 1 – 2 percent on the emissions level. But if you also factor in the 70 percent heat and electrical losses, then this system is just as polluting as a regular diesel car – so the clean advantage of the EV car is totally lost.
Now what would be really amazing is if they could shrink that stationary diesel generator down to a size that would fit entirely inside of the passenger car. A smart German engineering team headed by a guy named Rudolf could probably discover how to do away entirely with the electric motor and battery that drives the car along with the generator and electrical charging station parts and save considerable weight and space inside the car.
Then maybe after several years of research and development they could come up with a method of connecting the diesel engine to directly power the wheels by using some gears in a transmission and a drive shaft. If they put in a fuel tank to hold a few gallons of diesel fuel – then the car would be able to travel several hundred miles instead of the 60 to 100 miles that the EV does using its battery. It all sounds really complicated (I am not a mechanical engineer) but I bet they could do it. The Guru thinks that a non EV diesel engine car would really sell and thousands of people would buy one.
Here is a picture of an EV car being emergency recharged on the roadside by a gasoline powered van pulling a diesel powered generator. All kinds of non green pollution happening here.
Actually the polluting stationary diesel engine powered charge station does have a limited use in some remote areas. What if your GPS told you to make a wrong turn and you ended up in some remote desert or you found your shivering ass smack dab in the middle of Antarctica with a dead EV battery? In those situations this diesel charging station would save the day and let you recharge your EV battery – pollution be damned….
Deckard posted on 2019-08-19 06:21:24 Reply Private Reply
#8: Gatlin To: Deckard (#7)
It takes 30 minutes to charge a Tesla P100D which is then able to run 337 miles on a charge.
The average for city and highway driving combined is 45 miles per hour.
At 45 miles per hour for city and highway driving, an EV can drive for 7.5 hours on a charge.
Diesel vehicle average 40 miles per gallon.
A diesel-powered vehicle use 8.5 gallons to travel 337 miles while it will take .25 gallons of diesel fuel to charge a Tesla to travel 337 miles. So, Eric, the question is not “zero pollution” – the question is [in your example] will an electric vehicle driving for 7.5 fours on a 30-minute charge from a diesel generator pollute the air far less than a diesel-powered vehicle driving for 7.5 hours?
Wait, we already answered that question.
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-19 08:03:43 Reply Private Reply
#9: Gatlin To: Deckard (#6)
Not surprisingly is the fact that you simply can't handle the truth when it goes against your libertarian cult beliefs, can you?
I repeat:
Factually dispute that, can you?Gatlin posted on 2019-08-19 08:09:40 Reply Private Reply
#10: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#8)
A K A Stone posted on 2019-08-19 08:12:14 Reply Private Reply
#11: Deckard To: Gatlin (#9)
And your liberal views.
Deckard posted on 2019-08-19 08:12:18 Reply Private Reply
#12: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#10)
Great! I'm sure even you can see the absurdity of using a diesel generator to power an EV charging station.
Using 8 gallons of diesel on average per charge defeats any "eco-friendly" gains that might be made by the car itself.
Deckard posted on 2019-08-19 08:18:49 Reply Private Reply
#13: Gatlin To: Deckard (#11)
I do however believe in the natural causal attribution of current biological trends that do – and always have – occur in climate change. That is complicated and something your pea brained would never comprehend so I shall not waste time trying to explain it to you.
While I do not believe in the “climate change myth” I do know that pollution is occurring and it is something that needs to be controlled.
In Beijing – which I look upon as the pollution capital of the world – vehicle exhaust emissions have been the major source of PM2.5, accounting for 45 percent of the total. Even the Chinese recognize the problem and doing something about it. During this year, their capital will phase out 300 manufacturing and pollution-intensive enterprises, and gradually replace diesel-powered vehicles with new energy ones.
It is apparent that you do not support the libertarian non-aggression principle that prohibits all pollution – why not?
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-19 09:15:31 Reply Private Reply
#14: Gatlin To: Deckard (#12)
Show the source and justification for such ...
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-19 09:17:09 Reply Private Reply
#15: Deckard To: Gatlin (#13)
Yet your posts use that myth as a legitimate reference.
I pity you.
It is apparent that you do not support the libertarian non-aggression principle that prohibits all pollution – why not?
Pulled another one out of your ass, didn't you Greenie?
Deckard posted on 2019-08-19 09:18:04 Reply Private Reply
#16: Deckard To: Gatlin (#13)
Hooray! Let's base our policies on what China is doing.
Putz!
Deckard posted on 2019-08-19 09:19:20 Reply Private Reply
#17: Gatlin To: Deckard (#12)
It takes 30 minutes to charge a Tesla while the diesel generator uses on a quarter gallon of diesel fuel. That EV can then travel over 300 miles during 7 hours driving. On the other hand a diesel powered vehicle would burn 8 gallons of diesel fuel to do the same thing.
Now you show me the absurdity of which you speak – please.
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-19 09:22:58 Reply Private Reply
#18: Gatlin To: Deckard (#16)
Why is using scientific facts something you libertarians refuse to do?
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-19 09:25:35 Reply Private Reply
#19: Gatlin To: Deckard (#15)
Answer the question - Can you ?
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-19 09:26:41 Reply Private Reply
#20: Gatlin To: Deckard (#15)
Your responses show that you suffer with a dire comprehension problem.
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-19 09:28:24 Reply Private Reply
#21: Gatlin To: Deckard (#12)
I am waiting for you to show the source and justification for this - can you?
Get back to me if you can ...
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-19 09:29:56 Reply Private Reply
#22: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#13)
Wouldn't you agree that liberals are a whole lot worse than Libertarians. I would.
A K A Stone posted on 2019-08-19 09:41:37 Reply Private Reply
#23: Deckard To: Gatlin (#21)
I went with an average of 8 hours to recharge a car. 1 Gallon of diesel needed per hour. Even more depending on the car battery size.
Look it up, and try not to use your usual bullshit math.
Deckard posted on 2019-08-19 09:47:35 Reply Private Reply
#24: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#22)
I can in most cases easily answer a direct question. Here I cannot because I feel it best to provide real world concrete examples of how these views materialize into actual belief systems. Hypothetical discussions are neat but I rather put it in concrete terms.
Even libertarians cannot agree on what libertarianism is.
Look at this and you will see that even libertarians cannot decide “What Kind of Libertarian Are You?>]"
They divide up among themselves into categories of:
Libertarians are a bunch of fucked up thinking individuals who cannot even decide among themselves what to believe. Their beliefs are so diversified that they must divide themselbes.So what I see when a person calls themselves a libertarian, I see someone who selfishly and personally decides what is right or wrong and how things should operate and then says he/she is a "libertarian" – even when disagreeing with others who also call themselves libertarians.
Probably not an answer to your question – but the best I can offer in a limited space.
You question is kinda like asking is it better to be bitten by a “saw-scaled viper” or a “king cobra” – the worlds two deadliest snakes.
Not that I am calling liberals and libertarians “snakes.”
Well …
Hmmm …
Maybe I am …
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-19 10:29:43 Reply Private Reply
#25: Gatlin To: Deckard (#23)
Gatlin posted on 2019-08-19 10:42:45 Reply Private Reply