GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Rob Plant + 2,652]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Rob, you are a comedian. Your material is already hopelessly out of date and confused.

People do not die of CO2 emissions, get real. Toxic emissions have been drastically reduced in recent decades.

Here is your source, and it is already more than four years old when published, based on older data.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myth1

Here is more up-to-date estimates.

https://manhattan.institute/article/electric-vehicles-for-everyone-the-impossible-dream?utm_source=wsj&utm_medium=feature

"The trends that are knowable for the near future show upstream emissions rising for EVs, even if we don’t know exactly how much they will increase. Gaining clarity will be a challenge not least because, as IEA has noted, only a tiny share of players in that industry are cooperating with “emission pledges” made for the Responsible Mining Index."

Here are new approaches to assessing emissions data.

 

"EV manufacturing is incredibly energy-intensive,  mainly to build the battery. In Norway’s case, none of this additional energy is reflected in their domestic demand figures. China manufactures most lithium-ion batteries and 80% of all EVs. Coal accounts for 60% of their total energy supply.

We estimate an average EV consumes 60 MWh to manufacture, of which the battery represents half. Therefore, manufacturing Norway’s 579,000 EVs (all the EVs on the road today in Norway) requires 35 twh, equivalent to 25% of the total annual Norwegian electricity demand. Given that China emits 600 grams of CO2 per kwh (China is where almost all of Noway’s EV batteries are manufactured), we calculate Norway’s EV fleet would emit 21 mm tonnes of CO2. Norway’s gasoline and diesel consumption fell by a meager 3,200 barrels per day or 50 mm gallons per year. Assuming 9 kg of CO2 per gallon of gasoline or diesel, Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. Since an EV battery has a useful life of only ten to fifteen years, it is clear that Norway's EV rollout has increased total lifecycle CO2 emissions dramatically. 

Incredibly, this is true despite Norway having the lowest carbon hydroelectricity in the world. Even if China were to reach its overly ambitious targets for wind, solar, and nuclear power by 2035, we calculate that the carbon “payback” would still exceed twenty years. Realistically, the only way for EVs to reduce lifecycle carbon emissions would be with a widespread move to carbon-free energy in EV manufacturing. "

https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-norwegian-illusion

I have posted the numbers whereas your IEA post say they are guessing by their own admission! Cant you read?

Lifecycle emissions from FF cars are twice as bad as EV's, thats a fact not some guesswork. Keep posting your BS on this and your love for coal fired powergen and you will continue to be ridiculed by any sane person with an IQ above 80. Your love for coal means that you love the fact its use contributes to millions of early deaths from air pollution each year. That said it would make you worse than Hitler in a space of 2-3 years. Well done!

Its also noted that when faced with facts disproving your BS opinion all you have is a laughing face emoji to post as you have nothing else!

Edited April 25 by Rob Plant

[Rob Plant + 2,652]

20 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Your material is already hopelessly out of date and confused.

The article was posted on 23 Dec 2023

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

20 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

All emissions but as always I prioritize toxic emissions over greenhouse emissions.

There will be no elimination of personal; transport abilities.  Personal EVs are able to transport stuff - that you cannot deny.

If you electrify a train you can move LOTS of stuff.

Yes EVs and green energy might be more expensive than the fossil alternatives, you call this sub-optimal.  However, local clean air helps everyone - dirty air hurts everyone.

 

CO2 has nothing to do with clean air, that analysis is insane.

Toxic emissions are drastically falling towards zero even without restricting fossil fuel vehicles or energy sources, so that is clearly a red herring used to fool the average Joe into voting for Joe.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

The article was posted on 23 Dec 2023

The sources for that article were published in 2020 and used much older data, and the analysis is also out of date.

The studies I cited above were calculated within the recent calendar year.

Your people are hanging on to a fossilized mentality.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

10 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I have posted the numbers whereas your IEA post say they are guessing by their own admission! Cant you read?

Lifecycle emissions from FF cars are twice as bad as EV's, thats a fact not some guesswork. Keep posting your BS on this and your love for coal fired powergen and you will continue to be ridiculed by any sane person with an IQ above 80. Your love for coal means that you love the fact its use contributes to millions of early deaths from air pollution each year. That said it would make you worse than Hitler in a space of 2-3 years. Well done!

Its also noted that when faced with facts disproving your BS opinion all you have is a laughing face emoji to post as you have nothing else!

Your approach is really clueless, Rob, you have to take into account the entire lifetime fossil fuel profile of EVs to get a comparison with the equivalent fossil fuel vehicles.

Edited April 25 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

The energy transition is now essentially done and finished, the necessary funds for any realistic transition to Green are not coming forward.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/2-Trillion-Funding-Gap-Casts-Shadow-over-Energy-Transition.html

"As more and more analysts begin to issue warnings about the effects of higher interest rates on transition industries, investors are turning away, too, and returning to oil and gas."

To attract investment in Green, energy regulators would have to drastically increase the price of electricity to consumers, which is a politically impossible move.

Edited April 25 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,096]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Your approach is really clueless, Rob, you have to take into account the entire lifetime fossil fuel profile of EVs to get a comparison with the equivalent fossil fuel vehicles.

You are still babbling BS  do take a few minutes to read ( or have someone read it to you)

only an idiot would believe anything you say as you never back up your BS with anything

 

PS the info in the article is all up to date.........

 

FactCheck.org

Electric Vehicles Contribute Fewer Emissions Than Gasoline-Powered Cars Over Their Lifetimes

Q: Are electric cars really better for the environment than gasoline-powered cars over their lifetimes? A: Yes. Electric vehicles typically...

.

Feb 7, 2024

 

Jarod C. Kelly, principal energy system analyst at the DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory, co-authored a 2023 study that analyzed cradle-to-grave greenhouse gas emissions and economic costs of electric and conventional cars. Kelly said the study found that under current conditions it would take an electric car 19,500 miles, or less than two years of typical driving in the U.S., to pay back the increased emissions of the manufacturing process and break even with a comparable gasoline car.

[Ron Wagner + 649]

On 4/23/2024 at 9:38 PM, notsonice said:

your graph shows it peaked in 2013/14 and in 2022 it matched the peak, after 10 years of moving down and sideways and then it shows it is flat again today. So much for the Coal consumption is increasing babble that Ecochump keeps touting

..............Reality it reached a peak 10 years ago and it took 10 years to match the peak again... The expectation is China consumption peaked in 2023 and flattened out this year is now heading downhill in 2025........Reality Global Coal consumption is now set to have very minor declines in  2024 and 2025 and the declines are getting bigger every year after 2025

 

Thanks to the Green agenda it brings you 

Better Air quality...........reduction in carbon emissions

 

Carbon Brief

Analysis: Global CO2 emissions could peak as soon as 2023, IEA data reveals

Global carbon dioxide emissions from energy use and industry could peak as soon as this year, according to Carbon Brief analysis of figures...

.

Oct 26, 2023

China May Soon Hit Peak Coal

Foreign Policy

https://foreignpolicy.com › 2023/11/01 › china-coal-en...

 

 

 

 

Nov 1, 2023 — In a major turning point for the world, China's fossil fuel use is projected to decline starting in 2025.

The improvement in air quality is due to the replacement of Western coal plants with natural gas plants, wind turbines, and solar. It has nothing to do with fewer coal plants worldwide. There is more coal being burned than ever before. 

[notsonice + 1,096]

Just now, Ron Wagner said:

The improvement in air quality is due to the replacement of Western coal plants with natural gas plants, wind turbines, and solar. It has nothing to do with fewer coal plants worldwide. There is more coal being burned than ever before. 

the chart that your referenced does not show  more coal being burned than ever before....

once again old man pay attention to what you are posting or have someone read it for you

[Ron Wagner + 649]

5 minutes ago, notsonice said:

the chart that your referenced does not show  more coal being burned than ever before....

once again old man pay attention to what you are posting or have someone read it for you

You don't know a fact when you see it, and dispense propaganda from the anti fossil fuel industry. Natural gas is the best answer for transportation, eliminating coal where possible, and providing base electrical power. Wind and solar should be used as secondary helpers when they are cost effective. 

[notsonice + 1,096]

8 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

You don't know a fact when you see it, and dispense propaganda from the anti fossil fuel industry. Natural gas is the best answer for transportation, eliminating coal where possible, and providing base electrical power. Wind and solar should be used as secondary helpers when they are cost effective. 

Natural gas is the best answer for transportation, eliminating coal where possible, and providing base electrical power. Wind and solar should be used as secondary helpers when they are cost effective...??????

Natural gas is not the best answer.............this is BS that you keep promoting  Transportation???? yeash how is your Nat gas vehicle running these days?????

Nat gas is better than coal . yes but is not the final solution. You keep thinking it is the solution and it might be in your lifetime, Not mine

Wind and solar should be used as secondary helpers?????? not anymore , times have changed and now they are Cost effective against Coal and nat gas........

get with the times old man we are not in 2017 anymore.....

PS that old dude that started crying that Wind Turbines cause cancer??? how is his BS holding up these days????

[Ron Wagner + 649]

Who was that old dude?

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

5 hours ago, notsonice said:

You are still babbling BS  do take a few minutes to read ( or have someone read it to you)

only an idiot would believe anything you say as you never back up your BS with anything

 

PS the info in the article is all up to date.........

 

FactCheck.org

Electric Vehicles Contribute Fewer Emissions Than Gasoline-Powered Cars Over Their Lifetimes

Q: Are electric cars really better for the environment than gasoline-powered cars over their lifetimes? A: Yes. Electric vehicles typically...

.

Feb 7, 2024

 

Jarod C. Kelly, principal energy system analyst at the DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory, co-authored a 2023 study that analyzed cradle-to-grave greenhouse gas emissions and economic costs of electric and conventional cars. Kelly said the study found that under current conditions it would take an electric car 19,500 miles, or less than two years of typical driving in the U.S., to pay back the increased emissions of the manufacturing process and break even with a comparable gasoline car.

You did not bother to read your own source? Nothing here is related to the studies which I posted above.

Your study does not apparently use any data on Chinese production and emissions related to Chinese use of coal, this appears to be simply a review of American production. There is nothing here which challenges the Norway study posted above.

https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2023/12/186487.pdf

This only looks at LDVs (light duty vehicles), does not consider anything above small SUVs, while the medium and large SUV numbers are ignored. Ridiculous.

Using a 2016 study as the basis?

"This study is intended to provide a better understanding of the GHG emissions and costs associated with the vehicle and fuel combinations described in (Elgowainy et al. 2016). Note that in this context cost represents the cost to a consumer to purchase the vehicle and energy for the vehicle; it does not include maintenance, insurance, and other costs necessary in vehicle ownership."

Here is the conclusion with respect to greenhouse gas emission reduction, read carefully,

"Large GHG reductions for LDVs are challenging and require consideration of the entire life cycle, including vehicle manufacture, fuel production, and vehicle operation."

Read before you spout more nonsense.

Here are the conclusions from the Norway research, for which your cited work above is not even relevant.

"Given that China emits 600 grams of CO2 per kwh (China is where almost all of Norway's EV batteries are manufactured), we calculate Norway’s EV fleet would emit 21 mm tonnes of CO2. Norway’s gasoline and diesel consumption fell by a meager 3,200 barrels per day or 50 mm gallons per year. Assuming 9 kg of CO2 per gallon of gasoline or diesel, Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. Since an EV battery has a useful life of only ten to fifteen years, it is clear that Norway's EV rollout has increased total lifecycle CO2 emissions dramatically. 

Incredibly, this is true despite Norway having the lowest carbon hydroelectricity in the world. "

Edited April 25 by Ecocharger

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,550]

I truly am astounded at the acumen of the Green Dream brain trust. Truly at a loss of words...so with that being said..default mode come to mind...meme time let your imagination run unchecked.

[Rob Plant + 2,652]

13 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Your approach is really clueless, Rob, you have to take into account the entire lifetime fossil fuel profile of EVs to get a comparison with the equivalent fossil fuel vehicles.

Thats exactly what is did, you clearly cant read!

Go back and look again you dimwit

[Rob Plant + 2,652]

13 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

You don't know a fact when you see it, and dispense propaganda from the anti fossil fuel industry. Natural gas is the best answer for transportation, eliminating coal where possible, and providing base electrical power. Wind and solar should be used as secondary helpers when they are cost effective. 

Ron I disagree

Electric or H2 is the best form of transportation for the masses.

What I would agree is that NG can play a part in powergen and the transition away from coal in particular.

Edited April 26 by Rob Plant

[Rob Plant + 2,652]

8 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I truly am astounded at the acumen of the Green Dream brain trust. Truly at a loss of words.

Thats because youre truly clueless

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,139]

48 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Thats exactly what is did, you clearly cant read!

Go back and look again you dimwit

Well dimwit, 21,000,000/450,000 =~45 years per link nobrain posted as "proof" of GHG "savings"

🤡😁😜👍

Edited April 26 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Rob Plant + 2,652]

47 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Well dimwit, 21,000,000/450,000 =~45 years per link nobrain posted as "proof" of GHG "savings"

🤡😁😜👍

That was Eco's post not mine I was referring to my post

I suggest remedial reading class is in order for you.🤡🤡

Maybe you have air pollution poising from all those tunnels you like so much?

Please note below graph is for LIFE CYCLE ie vehicle production, battery production and driving.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

Norway’s Oil Demand Hasn’t Crashed Despite Record EV Market Share | OilPrice.com

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Thats exactly what is did, you clearly cant read!

Go back and look again you dimwit

Rob, you have to look at the details, there is nothing in your source which challenges the Norway numbers I posted above.

Here is your source, quoted in the Guardian article.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myth1

And notice the qualifier which they add to the graph.

"Estimates shown² from GREET 2 2021 are intended to be illustrative only. Estimates represent model year 2020. Emissions will vary based on assumptions about the specific vehicles being compared, EV battery size and chemistry, vehicle lifetimes, and the electricity grid used to recharge the EV, among other factors."

In other words, results are different according to location of production. China is a different location than the UK, that is among the "other factors" ignored by your study.

Edited April 26 by Ecocharger

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,550]

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Thats because youre truly clueless

You are one odd duck, clueless you say? Your country is under financial siege and there is no end in sight

Household bills rise sharply despite easing energy costs

Rates for phone, broadband and water will increase from Monday and other rises are in the pipeline

Despite inflation easing, Monday will see the cost of a host of bills and taxes increasing, adding further pressure to household finances more than two years after bills began to rise significantly.

 

Rates for phone, broadband and water services will increase from Monday, while consumers also face rises in the TV licence fee, vehicle tax, dental charges and council tax.

For water, the average customer’s bill will rise by 6%, equating to an increase of £27 for the year, to £473. Bills will vary across the country, with Wessex Water customers paying the most at £548 a year, up £59 from last year. At Thames Water, which serves 16 million customers across London and the south-east, bills will increase by £15, with the average customer paying £471 a year.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/01/household-bills-rise-sharply-despite-easing-energy-costs

Edited April 26 by Eyes Wide Open

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

6 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

That was Eco's post not mine I was referring to my post

I suggest remedial reading class is in order for you.🤡🤡

Maybe you have air pollution poising from all those tunnels you like so much?

Please note below graph is for LIFE CYCLE ie vehicle production, battery production and driving.

Again, Rob, there is nothing here which challenges the Norway results. Further, your source does not distinguish between mini-EVs and large EV SUVs, so that makes the data worthless in terms of the current marketplace.

"Given that China emits 600 grams of CO2 per kwh (China is where almost all of Norway's EV batteries are manufactured), we calculate Norway’s EV fleet would emit 21 mm tonnes of CO2. Norway’s gasoline and diesel consumption fell by a meager 3,200 barrels per day or 50 mm gallons per year. Assuming 9 kg of CO2 per gallon of gasoline or diesel, Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. Since an EV battery has a useful life of only ten to fifteen years, it is clear that Norway's EV rollout has increased total lifecycle CO2 emissions dramatically. 

Incredibly, this is true despite Norway having the lowest carbon hydroelectricity in the world. "

 

Edited April 26 by Ecocharger

[Rob Plant + 2,652]

6 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

You are one odd duck, clueless you say? Your country is under financial siege and there is no end in sight

Household bills rise sharply despite easing energy costs

Rates for phone, broadband and water will increase from Monday and other rises are in the pipeline

Despite inflation easing, Monday will see the cost of a host of bills and taxes increasing, adding further pressure to household finances more than two years after bills began to rise significantly.

 

Rates for phone, broadband and water services will increase from Monday, while consumers also face rises in the TV licence fee, vehicle tax, dental charges and council tax.

For water, the average customer’s bill will rise by 6%, equating to an increase of £27 for the year, to £473. Bills will vary across the country, with Wessex Water customers paying the most at £548 a year, up £59 from last year. At Thames Water, which serves 16 million customers across London and the south-east, bills will increase by £15, with the average customer paying £471 a year.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/01/household-bills-rise-sharply-despite-easing-energy-costs

The quickest way to increase costs across the board is inflation, currently US inflation is 3.48% up from 3.15% in March.

The UK is currently 3.2% compared to 3.4% last month.

Looks like we're heading in the right direction and the US isnt!

Enjoy the ride.

[Rob Plant + 2,652]

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, Rob, there is nothing here which challenges the Norway results. Further, your source does not distinguish between mini-EVs and large EV SUVs, so that makes the data worthless in terms of the current marketplace.

"Given that China emits 600 grams of CO2 per kwh (China is where almost all of Norway's EV batteries are manufactured), we calculate Norway’s EV fleet would emit 21 mm tonnes of CO2. Norway’s gasoline and diesel consumption fell by a meager 3,200 barrels per day or 50 mm gallons per year. Assuming 9 kg of CO2 per gallon of gasoline or diesel, Norway’s entire EV fleet mitigates a mere 450,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, compared with an upfront emission of 21 mm tonnes. In other words, it would take forty-five years of CO2 savings from reduced gasoline and diesel consumption to offset the initial emissions from the manufacturing of the vehicles. Since an EV battery has a useful life of only ten to fifteen years, it is clear that Norway's EV rollout has increased total lifecycle CO2 emissions dramatically. 

Incredibly, this is true despite Norway having the lowest carbon hydroelectricity in the world. "

 

Eco we've been over this mant times and debunked your post until we're blue in the face.

Frankly I cant be bothered to go through it all again and clearly 45 years is utter madness and even the brain dead can see that.