Archive for the ‘Environmental Hoaxes’ Category

The Electric Vehicle Scam

Sunday, October 30th, 2022

Warped Perception?

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” – Mark Twain

If you have a degree in the hard sciences, you already know what I’m about to discuss. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and there’s no such thing as perpetual motion machines.  If you want to do work of any kind, it requires energy.  One must create that energy, or at least convert it from another form, in order to do that work.  Most forms of energy production we do are chemical transformations of some sort.  When you eat food, your body chemically decomposes the meal into a form it can use to drive your muscles, and keep circulating your blood, and so on.  When you pour gasoline into your fuel tank, and it goes forward into your engine, where it’s ignited and turned into a forceful combustion, to push pistons that reciprocate, turning your crankshaft and so on, you’re also doing a chemical transformation.  When you store energy in a battery cell, then retrieving it to drive your electric motor(s), you’re again doing a chemical transformation, in reverse of the sort of chemical transformation that occurred when you charged the batteries.  Before you could charge the battery, however, the current with which you charged it had to be generated somewhere, and in a few cases, that was accomplished by nuclear reactions, or thermal, wind, solar and hydroelectric power generation, but throughout the world, the main source is through the burning of some sort of fuel in another chemical transformation into power to generate electricity.  This is reality, and even(and especially) Elon Musk knows it.  This poses a serious problem for the scam artists.  They can fool you on the front end, but in the long run, you’ll eventually convince yourself that you’ve been fooled.  Electric vehicles, as they’re being proposed to consumers, are a complete, utter scam, and every serious scientist knows it, and every engineer understands it.

I want you to watch the video below.  It’s just less than sixteen minutes, but it’s worth it.  I don’t know whether he’s exposing insanity or possibly suffering from it.  There are important lessons to be garnered here, but most importantly, you can finally put to rest the insanity of the electric vehicle scam.

The gentleman who made this video seems earnest enough.  My point here is not to criticize him, personally, but to confront what this video lays bare about electric vehicles.  His chief complaint with his Tesla EV seems to be that he doesn’t like the lengthy charging sessions, or the lack of availability of charging stations, but he also mentions his dislike of stopping to refuel a gasoline car.  i suppose he wants a forever-mobile, a kind of perpetual motion machine, that requires no charging, no refueling, and presumably, no maintenance or much of anything else.  He wants to be able to get in and drive until he’s ready to stop, to re-commence his travels at any time he pleases.  Who wouldn’t like that?

Obviously, he’s noticed that his Tesla requires recharging ‒ lots and lots of recharging.  If he only drove a few miles per day, he might well be able to subsist with his Tesla, at least until the very large, very expensive battery inevitably dies permanently, no longer able to be re-charged.  His solution here is to take a generator, driven by a 13HP gasoline engine, install it under the hatch of his car, in the area usually called “the trunk.”  Along with this, he’s also installed a gasoline tank, and all the plumbing and wiring to make this work.  He removed his rear window, created a weather-exposed zone in his trunk, hooking it all up so that the generator will charge his Tesla’s batteries, even while riding down the road, thereby extending his range, and giving himself a built-in charger.  I’ve seen others try similar approaches by simply pulling a small trailer with a generator bolted-down, accomplishing the same thing, but adding the problems associated with a trailer. I’ve seen others put a portable generator in the trunk that they can simply pull out and run to re-charge the car if they completely discharge between charging stations, but that cannot be run going down the road.

In the video, he takes this contraption on an 1800 mile journey of several days, the goal being never to stop for a charge.  Along the way, he stopped by a friend’s house, a friend who has a jet engine mounted on a pontoon boat(and I’d urge his friend to rethink the simple flat screen guard on that engine,) but a couple of things become apparent through the course of the video:

  • His generator is insufficient to keep up with his Tesla’s power consumption at highway speeds.
  • He is forced to refuel his “Cordless Tesla” several times, probably daily.
  • He has this noisy contraption running everywhere he goes, and must leave it running overnight while he sleeps in hotels.
  • It’s so noisy that people call the police.
  • The police stop him once because he’s driving too slowly on the highway as he attempted to match consumption to his insufficient generation.

While he was considerate enough to park it well away from the hotels so that it probably wasn’t too annoying to guests, he stopped at one restaurant, and I’m pretty certain that if I had been the owner of said eatery, I’d have asked him to shut it down while he dined.  At the end, he summarized his experience, and also displayed the mileage his “Cordless Tesla” was getting:

This is not MPGE, but actual mileage at the speeds listed

With all of this said and done, at the completion of his trip, he notes the shortcomings, and since along the way, he visited a Kohler Engines facility, I can only imagine that he intends to install an even larger generator in an attempt to improve his results.  What he may achieve is to extend his duration, but what he will not change is the left-hand column on the chart above, except perhaps to worsen it with a larger, heavier generator installed.  A larger generator will likely necessitate a larger fuel tank or severely reduced expectations, but what I must say is that I truly want to congratulate him.

He’s built an undisguised fossil-fuel-powered Tesla EV.

He undertook this project apparently to address the shortcomings of his Tesla, and all EVs in general.  What he succeeding in doing is to prove that only larger internal combustion engines can actually accomplish his desired outcome.  He still has the fuel stops.  He still has the noise(much more, actually.) He has a doubling of the expense. He still has a giant battery pack that when it dies, will cost more than his eventual final generator, fuel tank, plumbing, and wiring, and he’s still burning so-called fossil fuels for the pleasure.  I don’t think his rig would be legal in California, either for the noise, or for the fact that they’re banning all outdoor gas-powered equipment like chainsaws and lawn-mowers and generators, so not much use there.  And then there’s this:

My last long trip in our 2013 Ford F350 Crew-cab, diesel 4WD truck was around 1250 miles each way.  On the highway, I averaged 70-75mph, depending on the speed limits, of course, but on that trip, the diesel truck managed to get 19.3 MPG.  I stopped twice for fuel, each way, topping-off a little before hitting the road for the return trip.  At roughly the half-way point on the way home, after topping off, my range said 647 miles.  Of course, it also sips diesel exhaust fluid.  That’s a truck that likely weighs well beyond double what the diminutive Tesla weighs.  I made the same trip a couple years before in my Mustang GT, which is probably closer to the same weight.  I averaged, well, let’s say “the same speed.” In that car, I managed 23.7 MPG, though in honesty, if I’d made more judicious use of my accelerator pedal, I might have done somewhat better.  The point is, neither of the vehicles I mention are “fuel misers.”

The truth of all of this is that you can’t hide from reality in the end.  Physics is.  Chemistry is.  Math is.  Some people need to spend a good deal more time at all three.  The truth, however, is more plain when it’s undisguised.  That’s the one thing this gentleman, the owner of the Youtube channel Warped Perception has fully exposed.  I’m not sure if that had been his motive, but if so, he’s succeeded.  His other Youtube channel is called Matt’s Lab, where he describes himself this way: “I’m an Engineer, lover of Science and Mechanics and also a Filmmaker.” If he’s an actual engineer, he surely knows all of this, but again, that may have been his point:  All EVs are at least in part powered by fossil fuels.  That’s because the electricity being generated elsewhere to charge the EV is probably burning fossil fuels.  You can’t escape it.  The idea that we can replace internal combustion engines in any practical sense with EVs is simply madness.  In his attempt to make his Tesla EV more practical, what he’s done is to simply unmask the whole EV scam.

The one thing that actually is more efficient about his mobile power-generation, at least theoretically, lies in the fact that there aren’t many miles of cabling between the source of the energy and its destination in the Tesla’s batteries.  You see, much energy is lost in the transportation of energy because of a little thing called “resistance.”  Measured in Ohms, it’s a measure of how much impedance a given current encounters while traversing a given conductor or device.  Rubber is a very poor conductor, which is why it’s often used as an insulator on cabling, while copper and gold are excellent conductors, as are most metals.  Aluminum is common in transmission lines, but one of the problems with aluminum is that it has higher resistance to current than copper, but because it’s lighter and much cheaper, it’s used there.  Chances are, the power cable that runs from the transformer on the pole near your home is aluminum.  In any event, for every mile and foot of cable between the power plant and your home, energy is being bled-out by this resistance in the form of heat and electromagnetic radiation.  It’s one of the costs of an extensive, lengthy distribution grid.  You’re bleeding energy all the way from the source to its point of use.  In this sense, his “Cordless Tesla” exposes another problem people don’t understand in this discussion generally:  In most instances, it is far more efficient to generate power where it’s being used, rather than to generate it at a distance, transmit it over miles of cable, through transformers, and ultimately into a chemical storage device(battery) from which it will be again transformed back into current on demand.  At each transformation along its path, and in the process of storing it and then pulling it from storage, there is a certain amount of loss built into each step.

He could make his generation more efficient by getting an even larger generator, and just driving the electric motors directly from the generator. To get the acceleration he sees now, however, he’d need a really large generator to produce the bursts of current he’d need, and transformers, as well as more weight and more fuel.  At that point, he’d be better off simply getting rid of the generator, keeping the motor, and hooking it directly to his transmission, and then do you know what he’d have?  A standard gasoline-powered car.  In the end, you have a vehicle just like the ones we’ve been driving for generations.  Problem solved.  Genius!

The most efficient solution that would also be as practical as gasoline or diesel engine is something else entirely, assuming you’re dead-set on getting rid of fossil fuels:  Hydrogen.  You can even keep the internal combustion engines.  All you need is hydrogen, which is in every molecule of water on Earth.  The problem is storing it.  You can derive hydrogen by simply using an electrical process to split the water molecule into its constituents, using electrical current.  The tricky part is that hydrogen in any quantity is quite combustible, and explosive.  There are methods for storing hydrogen that would be completely safe, or at least as safe as gasoline.  If the society used primarily nuclear power, augmented by wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric, the problem becomes much easier to address.  You could have a hydrogen station anywhere you have a supply of water and electricity, which means they could be as widely distributed as gasoline, diesel, and other fossil-fuels. Gas stations would be replaced/upgraded to hydro-electrolysis stations.  The best news is that the exhaust from your car would be heat and water vapor. Quick fill-ups, back on the road in minutes, with the convenience and range to which you’re accustomed, with the added benefit of a mostly clean exhaust stream, all of which could be yours without the EV scam, and reliance on China for rare Earth minerals and the ecological catastrophe of battery disposal for the cells used by EVs. You’d still need your common lead-acid batteries, just like the ones you use now, but that’s not an obstacle.

People buying into the Electric Vehicles are being scammed.  There are many hidden costs people don’t yet see, although the impracticability of these EVs becomes pretty plain to most folks who buy them.  Early indicators are that many people who buy one EV are unlikely to buy a second. This is a bit like Biden voters: Having chosen him once, many aren’t apt to do so again. Obviously then, while it’s harder to convince people they’ve been fooled than it had been to fool them in the first instance, it’s clear that one’s wallet is a powerful persuader.

 

 

Advertisements

Viral Video: If I Wanted America to Fail

Monday, April 23rd, 2012

I had this video passed along to me, and I must say that it’s very much in line with what I’ve been saying on this blog since its inception. Those who want America to fail are indeed following this model, and while the Obama administration fiddles, America is burning.  This video was published by www.freemarketamerica.org, an organization that says it exists to fight for free markets and against the environmental extremists.  Take a look. It’s well done:

The Obama Volt – Video(Humor)

Friday, March 9th, 2012

Change?

Somebody did me the kindness of forwarding me this video, created by Ben Howe.  It’s clever and straight to the point.  Best of all, it was good for a laugh. It’s a short video that makes a point about the entire Chevy Volt fiasco through the lens of we who have been shafted to pay for it. If you’re an Obama fan, or simply an environmentalist who believes in all of this “green energy” nonsense, you may not want to watch. Hopefully, sane Americans will find it entertaining.

Enjoy:

Chevy Volt – Building a Better Tomorrow from Ben Howe on Vimeo.

 

 

GM Temporarily Halts Volt Production – Blames Politics

Monday, March 5th, 2012

Cutting the Cord

The Hill is reporting that GM is putting a temporary halt to its production of its Chevy Volt, an electric car promising wonders, but failing to convince customers.  Volt sales are already heavily subsidized by the Federal government, but the problem with the car isn’t merely its price.  It has a short range, it’s impractical, and its design can lead to fires stemming from its batteries even after relatively minor collision damage.  Of course GM and the Obama administration promise this will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but I don’t see how that’s possible.  GM complains that the Volt has gotten a black eye from the politics, but the truth is that the Volt suffers another problem:  Consumers don’t want it.  For most Americans, the prospect of buying an expensive Volt with all the associated hassles is roughly as inviting as a root canal.  They have good reason to balk.

The electric current to re-charge the volt comes from power plants using a variety of sources including coal, natural gas, petroleum products, and nuclear energy. Transmitting power over a network of lines to your charging station is inefficient, because the longer the lines, the more energy is wasted along the way.  I blame much of the hype surrounding the Chevy Volt on people who understand only buzzwords, but do not understand science, or engineering.  One of the other concerns is what happens when one experiences a power outage at home.  You’re stuck if your car is not fully charged prior to the outage.  More, having to leave the car plugged in means time.  Filling a gasoline tank takes a few minutes.  Charging a Volt?  Plan on hours. Up to ten.  That means that when I leave for work at 6am, if I had arrived home at 9pm the evening before(and that’s not uncommon,) the silly thing may not be fully charged.  Most Americans can’t afford that kind of inflexibility.

In total “carbon footprint,” including its manufacture, its batteries, and its use of electrical energy from some source, an electric car is no more friendly to the environment.  The simple truth behind all of these green schemes is that until we come up with an entirely different energy source, you still have all the same basic problems.  Sure, you can burn residual fuel oils at electric generating stations, and therefore centralize the pollution, but by the time you calculate all the inefficiencies of generating electricity in one location, transmitting it many miles to another location, losing some energy every inch of the way, only to be placed in a storage cell where some is lost both charging and discharging, never mind the cost of providing outlets all over the place, and the reduced range of most of these vehicles compared to fossil-fuel powered vehicles, what you may find out is that the total impact on the environment is even greater with electric vehicles.

The only way electric vehicles become substantially better is for their source of energy to become substantially better.  At present, the best hope of so doing is to perfect nuclear fusion.  No worries about radiation or waste(or only a tiny, tiny fraction.) No worry about meltdowns.  No worries about finding new sources of radioactive materials.  Nuclear fusion promises the power of the sun, but the real obstacles are in how to technically do it.  Many programs, mostly funded by government, are carrying out designs studies and experiments.  If ever the technical difficulties are overcome, cheap and abundant electricity will be a reality, making electric cars much more practical.

Meanwhile, as GM spins its wheels chasing a technology that is not much more than a nifty science fair project in terms of its practical application in the lives of most Americans, we’re missing the big picture.  The answer lies not in how to move cars electrically, but instead how to create electric energy more cheaply.  That is what our economy fundamentally needs, and it’s a goal that may be achievable if we want it.  The problem is that at the end of the day, the environmentalists don’t want it.  What they want is a contraction in the amount of energy available to humanity, so as to suppress humanity. What that means for you is what you have seen under Barack Obama: A reduction in your standard of living and an escalating cost for every form of energy.

If you wish to make the Volt or its successors a reality, the best answer is to find the way to make electricity more cheaply.  We’ll always need the highly portable energy source that are fossil fuels, because electrics really aren’t feasible in some applications, but if we can convert most of our energy uses to electric in a environment of inexpensive electric generation, we can make that supply of fossil fuels stretch many millennia. Chasing electric cars in the near term is as frivolous as opening a baseball factory when there are no bats or ball-players.  That’s why the Volt is so heavily subsidized.  That’s why it will remain No Sale with the  American people.

 

Deaths From Global Warming Hoax Soar

Tuesday, February 14th, 2012

Political Hoax Engulfs Globe

The Canada Free Press has published an article that aptly makes the case that the Global Warming Hoax is now responsible for a growing number of winter deaths among Europeans and others who have succumbed to the cold due to the expense of heating their homes, particularly amongst the elderly.  This makes perfect sense, as the elderly on fixed incomes struggle to pay for their medicines, heat their homes, and buy groceries.  The UK and others in Europe have been closing down coal-fired power plants, driving up the cost of electricity, and generally diminishing the standard of living. We will soon experience this same phenomenon here in the US, even in summer, as Texas will lose three coal-fired plants this year, to be shut down in accordance with EPA mandates.  Instead of freezing to death, our elderly will bake in their homes come high summer, and you can bet the death toll will rise here too.

This is all the result of a logically and scientifically bankrupt notion of “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” that is being pounded into the heads of your children at your local public schools, despite the fact that much of these theories have now been debunked, and the science upon which these government actions have been taken demonstrated as biased and fraudulent.  Much of this is based on the mistaken theory that Carbon Dioxide(CO2) drives temperatures, when it now turns out that the opposite may in fact be the case.  Rather than exhaling and adding to Global Warming, it seems, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is highly dependent upon the temperature of the oceans, since they sequester a large amount of the world’s CO2.  As temperatures rise from any cause, the oceans’ carrying capacity for CO2 rises.

The question remains: While we experienced some minor warming over the last two centuries, the cause of that warming remained unclear.  We actually experienced a “little ice age” that tapered off through that period, leading to another question:  What is the actual “normal” mean surface temperature on planet Earth?  That turns out to be a rather more difficult question to answer, particularly because there are overlapping cycles that may even have a cosmic source, such as our solar system’s relation to the spiral arms of the Milky Way.  What this implies is that our climate may indeed be dominated by factors well outside of human control or influence, and that our contribution to any alleged “climate change” is incidental to the natural processes at work.

Naturally, the biggest single driver of climate on Earth is our own Sun.  It too goes through cycles of activity and relative inactivity in terms of sun spots, solar flares, and other phenomena that directly affect the way our world is heated, just ninety-three million miles away.  Meanwhile, right here at home, the masterminds who wish to command us have been looking for excuses to control our activities, and in the 1970s, they happened upon the climate as a good excuse.  First, they said we would go through an ice age, when during the latter half of that decade, parts of the country experienced record snowfall, blizzards, and cold spells.  When the cycle began to reverse in the 1980s, they quickly went off in search of a new bogeyman, and of course they found one:  Human activity, they alleged, was causing the Earth to warm.

According to their most ludicrous predictions, Florida should by now be under water, along with all of Louisiana, and other coastal regions globally.  The polar ice caps should be all but non-existent, and yet the polar ice has returned with a vengeance, leading some to wonder what was all the fuss all along.  The human policy tinkerers are never discouraged, because they keep ginning up new science to support their claim of the week, and of course the ruling by the EPA that they can now regulate CO2 means they will.  This has spawned shut-downs of coal-fired plants, and driven up energy prices globally.  This is the result of an Obama administration unrestrained by the doubt now cast on the questionable science, forging ahead with its regulatory scheme because in truth, none of this is about the environment. No, it’s about you.

What better way to claim the authority to regulate all human activity than to claim dominion over the question of Carbon Dioxide, and the various energy sources that produce it?  All life requires energy, and modern civilizations require gobs of it, but by shutting down energy production, not only do they restrain and restrict your individual endeavors, but also the enterprises that allow you to sustain yourself.  Businesses require energy, and to make it more expensive is to reduce the productive capacity of the entire private sector.  More, since government is the single largest energy consumer by far, its weight adds to the cost.  There’s no desire or even real concern for the environment among policy makers pushing this garbage.  They’ve always viewed it as the method by which to regulate our lives.

Meanwhile, real people are losing their lives around the globe to this miserable policy, predominately in Europe and North America. It’s a terrible shame, but then we’re talking about politicians who have little of that, and as they posture as saviors of the planet, as the death toll from their schemes increases significantly, at some point we ought to ask the question: “For whom are we saving it?”  After all, they are discouraging human reproduction by every available means, and the elderly are being baked, euthanized, frozen, starved.  If we’re not reproducing, and we’re shortening our life expectancies, the population will at some point begin to shrink.  They’ve been after that goal since Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb, and yet not a single one of their dire predictions has ever come true, so instead, they’re now imposing them.

At some point, as Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security scours lines in airports and other venues for those who would carry out “man-caused disasters,” at some point she might be inclined to turn the focus on government. Slowly now, at first, but in escalating fashion, the ultimate results of these policies will be a disaster in human terms.  We must regain control over this runaway government, and we must begin to tear it down.  It’s maniacal policies are now poised to kill us faster than any “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” ever could.