Category Archives: fossil fuels

Data Centers and Artificial Intelligence-Stop Energy Transition Part 3


ENERGY

The United States of America is built on energy. Primarily produced by fossil fuels.  The transportation area, cars, trucks, airplane, ships, etc. are propelled by gasoline, jet fuel, diesel oil, bunker fuel, propane, etc., all fossil fuels.  Transportation is 90% reliant on fossil fuels. About 60% of the Electricity is produced by fossil fuels.  Quoting Denny Ervin:   “Economies and standards of living hinge on having an adequate, economic, and reliable energy source—attributes that are non-negotiable for an optimal energy infrastructure. Our current trajectory risks creating inadequate, unaffordable, and unreliable energy supplies, which would devastate the U.S. economy and standard of living”.

Mr. Ervin has hit the nail on the head

Electricity Generation

The US generated 4.18Trillion Kilowatt hours in 2023.  A trillion Kilowatt-hour are called Petawatt hour.  That means that it is 4.18 followed by 15 zeros.  Because billing is usually done in kilo watts hours-,  it would be 4.18 Tera kilowatt-hours or as it is expressed in the  graph, 4.18 trillion kilowatt hours.   These vast numbers are here to stay.    Primer: Kilo is a thousand; Mega is a million; Giga is a billion; Tera is trillion and Peta is a quadrillion.

The primary source was thermals (natural gas, coal  and petroleum) at 60%, Nuclear added 18.6 %.   The renewables came in at 21.4 %.   Within that renewables list is Wind and solar and they are the rising sources.  They came sourced at 14.1%   They are non-dispatchable, meaning that their generation is a  wild card function of the weather.

Artificial Intelligence Creates Demand For Electricity

Power generation in 2023 was slightly lower than the 2022 generation.  Why? Due to higher price of electricity and use of power saving devices like LED bulbs.  But the demand is forecasted to increase soon and require a lot of additional generating sources, and transmission lines to carry the increase.   This increase is attributed to data center growth.  There are an estimated 2700 data centers in the US.  Data centers are the backbone of the digital world.  They host the internet from not only the US but a big share of the World’s internet.  It is in data centers where the Clouds store data for businesses and websites are housed. A large new power demand is forecasted for the Artificial Intelligence (AI).   DataCenterDynamics says that data center power consumption in the US is set to reach 35GW by the end of the decade, almost double its 2022 level.

Goldman Sachs posted on 13 May 2024, “AI is showing ‘very positive’ signs of eventually boosting GDP and productivity”.   That feeling seems to be universal.  The posting says: “Some of the academic literature and economic studies that have looked at the increase in productivity that we’ve seen following AI adoption, in a few specific cases, supports our view that large productivity gains are possible. The average increase in productivity is about 25%. Case studies of companies that have adopted AI imply similarly large efficiency gains. And so, you know, there’s a lot of reasons to be optimistic. It will just take a little bit more time to see these productivity gains realized.”

That is an incredible gain.  The nation must do what it takes to accomplish that goal. 

Techopedia predicts that the US gain the most:

Techopedia offers why the US will dominate.

The US leads the way, reflecting its size, private and public investment in research and development, and the talent nurtured by its higher education system”.

Techopedia offers why the US will dominate.

There are impediments to AI success.

The major impediment is the Energy Transition from thermal sources to renewable sources. 

There are 3 major actors in this transition.  First is the Administration putting up big subsidies to make solar cells and wind turbines installations to assure Crony Capitalist will make money.   Second is the EPA that writes regulations that force the demise of reliable thermal sources, particularly coal based.  And lastly are the States that write laws, that are ill thought-out, declarations of what sources are allowed, what percentage and the time line.  See here and here. This triple bogey is not escaping notice.  The grid operators have been telling everyone that their systems are headed for collapse.   FERC has been telling the same story.  But the Governmental bodies believe themselves to know more about the grids than the grid operators. The companies that are planning to spend vast sums of money to bring AI online seem to be aware of this huge pothole in the road to delivery.  They need electricity that is reliable, and they need it now.  That can only come from thermal sources. The WSJ front page on October 1, 2024 posted “AI fever abates in stocks’ latest quarter.” The stock market sees that AI is not unfolding as was forecast.  You can bet that China is going to provide the power to their AI plans.

The Daily Caller posts: “‘Inevitable And Foreseeable’: Grid Operators Beg Court To Nix EPA Rules To Save Electricity System From Collapse”:

“The Biden-Harris administration says that its stringent power plant rules won’t harm long-term power reliability, but four grid operators stated the exact opposite in a legal brief filed Friday.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its aggressive emissions rules for America’s power plants in April, saying at the time that the regulations would “improve public health without disrupting the delivery of reliable electricity.” However, four major regional grid operators argued the exact opposite in an amicus brief filed in support of red states’ legal challenge against the rule, stating explicitly that the rules will jeopardize Americans’ ability to reliably secure sufficient amounts of power if they are enforced as is”

Specifically, the EPA’s rules will mandate existing coal plants to harness 90% of their emissions by 2032 if they want to stay open past 2039, and they will also require new natural gas-fired plants to do the same in order to stay open past 2039, according to the agency. The EPA is essentially requiring power plants to meet those emissions cuts using carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, which the four grid operators contend is too expensive and unproven to be mandated on such a tight timeline.”  

The EPA is setting up rules that require the operators to use unproven systems (CCS). Coal plants in operation now provide low cost energy. They provide dispatchable electricity.  They have a distinct advantage in that they usually have several months of coal stored at their site.  Gas units normally do not have a storage that could be used if there is an interruption in the supply line. Nuclear sourced electricity has many months, perhaps as long as a year on plant fuel

The Energy Bad Boys posted:” PJM, MISO, SPP, and ERCOT Join the Legal Fight Against EPA’s Carbon Rules”

The four— PJM, the Midcontinent Independent Systems Operator (MISO), Southwest Power Pool (SPP), and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)— stretch from New Jersey to parts of New Mexico and serve more than 156 million Americans in their respective service territories.

“The rules on carbon dioxide emissions are not the only regulations threatening the viability of the existing thermal fleet.  Under the Biden-Harris administration, the EPA has written or updated regulations like the Ozone Transport Rule, the Coal Combustion and Residual Rule, and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, all of which are designed to place enough straws on the backs of reliable coal-fired power plants to compel their owners to shut them down”.

 

AI builders Must Have Reliable Energy Sources

Here are some appeals for reliability:

Larry Fink, Chairman and CEO of Black Rock Investment Management Corporation said no to renewables. Fink spoke at the World Economic Forman that AI will be big and profitable.  He wants the suppliers for his operations to use only dispatchable energy sources because they are reliable sources of power 24/7. 

Dominion CEO Robert Blue said: “We’re going to continue to be a big builder of renewables. We’re building a big offshore wind farm. We’re building a lot of solar. We’re adding a lot of storage. … But we also recognize that we’re going to need some more natural gas in order to keep the lights on.”  In addition to developing more natural gas plants to balance power grids from expansions of intermittent renewables, rising demands are also delaying some retirement of coal plants.

Dominion wants to build a 1,000-megawatt natural gas plant in Chesterfield County, where a coal plant closed last year, stating that the addition is critically important for reliability.  Significant costs for these increased power demands — including transmission infrastructures — will be passed on to household and business consumers.

Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon, three of the largest AI data center users, have previously criticized a proposal by utility company Georgia Power to expand natural gas use at the expense of hurting their renewable energy programs. The problem is that those centers require huge amounts of reliable electricity to operate, and no nearly adequate hydrocarbon replacement exists. As former Microsoft vice president Brian Janous observes, whereas “No data center wants to be tied to the need for new fossil resources, that’s the problem… You can’t throw this much [data-center] capacity at the system and not have some degree of fossil resources to support it.”

Amazon states that their data centers are powered by renewable energy.  This seems improbable as the industry knows that renewable energy is not dispatchable. They are using a ploy that is provided to make companies feel good about themselves while using fossil fuels.  Its called RECs.  The RECs provide certified proof that you’re using renewable energy from the grid without installing solar panels or other renewable energy systems at your home or business

 Amazon invests in renewable energy projects that generate electricity, which is then fed into the grid. They then purchase or are allocated an equivalent amount of energy from the grid for their use. This is often done through renewable energy certificates (RECs), which represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource.

Meanwhile, the Biden Administration, largely through the perversely titled “Inflation Reduction Act” (IRA), is providing massive and unsustainable economic incentives to move the electric generation market towards virtually exclusive reliance upon renewable energies (wind and solar in particular) plus batteries.  However, such forms of electric energy pose inherent problems; especially to the ultra-high electric energy “purity” requirements of AI/data centers. Data centers and AI generally require nine-nines reliability and quality metrics such as voltage, frequency, harmonics, etc.

Summary

The US electricity generation is forecast to have a large new demand to power data centers.

Major grid operators are going to court to cancel EPA rules.  They said this must be done or their girds will collapse. 

Data center owners/operators recognize that their systems must have dispatchable,  reliable electricity.  Renewables are not dispatchable.

Next part will examine the non dispatchable  wind and solar .

cbdakota.

 WE MUST REVERSE ENERGY TRANSITION, NOT JUST STOP IT.


Subscribe to continue reading

Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.

The Grids Reliability Is Endangered By EPA “Climate Change” Regulations And State Ordinances.   


There are a number of grids servicing the US. The  Pennsylvania, New Jersey Maryland grid (PJM) is well managed.  It is the largest grid in the US. It services 13 States and the District of Columbia.  It is the grid that provides my electricity and it has managed to avoid brownouts and blackouts.  The reason is that the ratio of fossil fuel (thermal) energy generation to wind and solar generation is 20 to 1.  If Nuclear is included the ratio is 26 to1. 

The chart shows the PJM Existing Installed Capacity.

The issue PJM is facing is how to make their way through the EPA and States forcing an energy transition. The following explains their fear of losing enough spare capacity to continue to make their Grid reliable:

“Maintaining an adequate level of generation resources, with the right operational and physical characteristics , is essential for PJM’s ability to serve electrical demand through the energy transition. Our research highlights four trends below that we believe, in combination, present increasing reliability risks during the transition, due to a potential timing mismatch between resource retirements, load growth and the pace of new generation entry under a possible “low new entry” scenario: · The growth rate of electricity demand is likely to continue to increase from electrification coupled with the proliferation of high-demand data centers in the region. · Thermal generators are retiring at a rapid pace due to government and private sector policies as well as economics. · Retirements are at risk of outpacing the construction of new resources, due to a combination of industry forces, including siting and supply chain, whose long-term impacts are not fully known. · PJM’s interconnection queue is composed primarily of intermittent and limited-duration resources. Given the operating characteristics of these resources, we need multiple megawatts of these resources to replace 1 MW of thermal generation.”  (My highlighting added).

According to PJM this is what it will look like if the State and Feds current plans are not adjusted.

Completely unworkable. Solar, the major electrical source, only available in the day. 

The “Storage” at 55,037 watts, is at present, nonexistent.  Even if it were charged by excess solar wattage, it, along with the other electrical generators, would not be enough to satisfy peak demands.      

PJM management wants everyone to note that the States, not PJM, have the responsibility to maintain resource adequacy on their electric systems.

The EPA has several regulations that will cause a loss of significant reliable capacity of coal based and Natural gas (Thermal Plants) plants. The following are from the PJM’s study:

EPA REGULATIONS

Effluent Limitation Guidelines: will force closing 3,400 MW thermal based capacity.

Coal Combusting Residuals: Will force closing 2,700 MW thermal-based capacity.

Good Neighbor Rule:   Will force closing 4,400 MW thermal-based capacity.

STATE ORDINACES

Forcing retirement of the following thermal based capacity.

Illinois:  5,800 MW thermal-based capacity.

New Jersey:  3,100 MW thermal-base capacity.

Virginia-North Carolina: 1,533 MW of thermal-based capacity.

Indiana: 1,318 MW of thermal-based capacity.

Maryland: 305 MW thermal-based capacity.

PJM has avoided system blackouts  because they maintain a 22% reserve but the 2030 projected reserve based upon their study will only be 3% . 

There two organizations that are commissioned to make the Grids reliable.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. 

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is a nonprofit corporation that ensures the reliability of the bulk power system in North America, including the continental United States and Canada.

FERC and NERC have launched a joint review of the performance of the bulk power system during recent winter storms that brought Arctic air across much of North America. The review will look at winter preparation activities and gather information to help guide future winter storm preparations and operations.  .The review will look at progress made since FERC and NERC completed joint inquiries into two recent winter storms, Uri in 2021 and Elliott in 2022.  The team plans to deliver the results of the review no later than June 2024.

FERC, in my readings, appears to know that renewables are not reliable.

It is obvious that the transition from thermal based electricity to renewable based electricity is not under control. The PJM grid may be the most reliable large grid in the nation. And if corrections are not made, it’s reserve will be only 3% in six years, and that will spell blackouts

cbdakota

EV Battery Charging–Its The Battery, Stupid. Part 3


The Alliance for Automotive Innovation says there are approximately 100,000 public charging ports in the US. The Federal Government is attempting to provide more.  The Fed’s target is 500,000 charging ports. If there were more charging stations, there would be less range anxiety.

The rough number of gasoline/diesel filling stations is 145,000.  Well, if it feels like there is a filling station almost anywhere, why would there need to have 500,000 charging ports?  The answer is because it takes so long to recharge the battery.

The Biden Administration’s plan to put up 500,000 charging ports will probably take a while to accomplish.  Currently, the plan is for each State to install a charging station along their major highways, 50 miles apart. Further, a charging station must be within a mile of an on and off Interstate intersection.

A private party that wants to operate a charging station picks a site for the station.  The site is approved. The Feds will pay up to 80% of the cost and the private party must pay 20% or more.  These stations can cost up to $1million.  Each station must have a minimum of 4 charging ports.

The API says that the average fill-uptakes 2 minutes for an ICE vehicle. Then that vehicle could go 300 to 400 miles of highway driving. 

Examining the EV owner’s options for recharging the battery so as it has range of 350 miles.  (Hour charge to miles range from US Department of Transportation-Charger types and speed.)

Level 1 Minimum cost using house AC outlet.  One hour provides 2.5 miles of range.  So about 6 days to get charged to 350 miles range.

Level 2 Purchasing a charger/installation required. 240-volt system, a home installation.  One hour provides 10 to 20 miles of range.   Using the 20 miles per hour charge would need 17 hours to get 350 miles range.

Level 3 Fast DC.  The public stations are mostly at this level.   One hour charge provides about 180-to-240-mile range. Using 240 mile per hour charge would take about an hour and a half to get 350 miles range.

Tesla Supercharger. Dedicated Tesla charging points.  One hour would give 1000 miles range. The 350-mile range would be done in about 20 minutes.

 Some thoughts:

  • Anyone that buys an EV and uses a level1 must have more money than that sense. For certain, that person has an ICE car in the garage.  The EV is for show.
  • If you buy an EV and you live in an apartment, where you only have street parking, you would have to go to public charging stations.
  • Level 2 requires a professional  installation with costs that can be steep, often a thousand dollars or more.  The charger itself isn’t free.     
  •  Level 3.  If you use FastDC you will spend more money for charges than if you use a level 2 installed system using your cheaper home electricity.
  •  Very important: routine charging with Superchargers and Fast DC degrades the batteries to the point they won’t be able to hold their charge as long.  The fast chargers heat up the battery and that can cause loss of battery range. Tesla says that you should use these fast chargers sparingly.
  • Every charge degrades the battery’s capacity a little.  From Wikipedia:

Capacity loss or capacity fading is a phenomenon observed in rechargeable battery usage where the amount of charge a battery can deliver at the rated voltage decreases with use.[1][2]

In 2003 it was reported the typical range of capacity loss in lithium-ion batteries after 500 charging and discharging cycles varied from 12.4% to 24.1%, giving an average capacity loss per cycle range of 0.025–0.048% per cycle.[3]

  • Public charging stations are often not close to an available place that you can retire to, while you wait for your battery to get charged.  Think of sitting in your car in inclement weather, either hot or cold.
  • Public charging stations are not always reliable. The following is from

. Findings from a 2022 University of California, Berkely study showed that one-quarter of public chargers in the San Francisco Bay Area didn’t work due to “unresponsive or unavailable screens, payment system  failures, charge initiation failures, network failures, or broken connectors”. 

The cause may be lack of income the company gets from charging EVs. The US numbers of EVs on the road are not as many as was predicted.

Charging time is very long.  Charging stations are inadequate for even the small number of EVs on the road.  The fast chargers are desirable, but their use shortens the life of the battery.

cbdakota

Most of future Electrical Productiion will not be from Wind and Solar, So EVs will be powered by fossil fuels


 Economically developed Nations around the world are pushing the idea that the global temperature is rising unabated to a point where it will become an existential threat to mankind. The problem, they say, is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the use of fossil fuels.  They think that CO2 emissions created by the use of gasoline, and diesel, along with natural gas and coal must be discontinued.  I think that these Nations are planning to subjugate you under the guise of saying they are just following “science”.

A part of their plan is to accomplish this by using electricity produced from renewable energy sources—Wind Turbines and Solar Cells— and make people buy electric vehicles (EV). This plan will not work.  But it will spend trillions of dollars before it is revealed as a failure.  Their plan will not be accomplished because wind and solar are not dispatchable.  Meaning, the Electric grids must provide, unfailingly, power 24/7.  This is accomplished by the use of fossil fuel power that can be ramped up and down to meet requirements. The renewables are not dispatchable because grid operators cannot ramp them up and down.  No wind, no sun, no renewable power. As they are today, EVs will continue to run on electricity made mostly by the combustion of fossil fuels.

Nevertheless, the government will try to force you into buying an electric vehicle (EV).

The EPA announced the new standards require a 49 mpg fleetwide average by 2026, a 33% increase over model year 2021 standards. The EPA said that these tough new tailpipe emission standards are designed to effectively force the auto industry to phase out the sale of gas-powered cars

The target cars are those powered by Internal Combustion Engines—  aka ICE.

And then they are enacting laws that no gasoline or diesel car can be manufactured and sold after some certain date.

California, always the leader in penalizing the people living in that state, has a  new law that it will be illegal to sell  new gasoline-powered cars after 2035.  Nothing from the Biden Administration yet but they are playing with a date to match California.

 Washington Free Beacon carries this story:

“All CARS ARE BAD” Pete Buttigieg’s Equity Advisers Want You To Stop Driiving

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is appointing a group of “leading experts” to advise him on “transportation equity,” including several who argue that cars cause climate change and promote racism and therefore should be phased out. 

And wouldn’t you know it, they make this issue, “racism”

So the Government is going to phase out all ICEs.   Let’s see how that will work.

Hedges and Company say” Need to know how many cars there are on Earth in 2023? Here is how many cars there are in the world, including trucks, broken down by world region?

1). Asia: 543 million vehicles on the road
2). Europe: 413 million vehicles (288 million in EU plus 125 million in non-EU countries)1
3). North America: 358 million vehicles
4). South America: 84 million vehicles
5). Middle East: 50 million vehicles
6). Africa: 26 million vehicles
7). Antarctica: about 50 vehicles

That totals up to about 1.5Billion.

Basically only the North American and EU are making rules to get rid of gasoline and diesel vehicles. North American and EU vehicles are less than half of the world’s vehicles.

My guess is that the developing nations will not ban ICE vehicles as they will not have much available electricity to power EVs.

How effective will that be?

What does the vehicle situation in the US look like? 

Statistica says:  In the first quarter of 2023, there were around 286 million vehicles operating on roads throughout the United States. 

From a Heartland posting we learn the following:

Historically, internal combustion engine (ICE) car sales in America are upwards of 55 million annually with about 15 million or 27 percent being new and 40 million or 73 percent being used car sales.

With a total of 50 to 55 million ICE vehicles being sold annually for new and used, it’s obvious that the auto industry and the economy has been benefiting and prospering in the used ICE car market.

The average life of an American vehicle is 13 years. For example, the California rule that no new ICE vehicle can be sold after 2035, would be mostly ineffective in that for years there will be grandfathered ICE vehicles on the road. Of course, California  might get really draconian and try to make ICEs illegal own and drive.

The next blog will examine the new and used EV market.

cbdakota

Projected Renewables Two to Five Times More Expensive than Natural Gas Power in New York


Wall Street Journal posting reports:

“New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (Nyserda), large offshore wind developers are asking for an average 48% price adjustment in their contracts to cover rising costs. The Alliance for Clean Energy NY is also requesting an average 64% price increase on 86 solar and wind projects.”

The WSJ goes on to say that:

“The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) includes hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for green energy, yet now renewable developers want utility rate-payers in New York and other states to bail them out.”
“The climate lobby says power from wind and solar is cheaper than from fossil fuels, but that’s true only with generous subsidies and near-zero interest rates. Price adjustments that renewable developers want in New York would make solar and wind two- to five-times more expensive than natural gas power.”

“Don’t be surprised if the state eventually asks New Yorkers to turn down their thermostats or turn off the lights at some hours of the day. The green energy crunch and bailout are coming.”

And this does not seem to be a problem only in New York.  

“Nyserda adds that “requests for inflationary relief on clean energy projects” have also been submitted in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Rhode Island, among other states. Electric customers will get no such relief when their bills increase.”

cbdakota

The Wall Street Journal posting is behind a paywall. But if you are a subscriber the link is       The Coming Green Energy Bailout – WSJ

China’s CO2 Emissions Are About Triple US Emissions


First thing you should see is the following  chart showing CO2 emissions by nations and by continent.  It looks at major contributors.

The chart tells us that China is the primary source of CO2 emissions.  The chart also shows what the two other major industrialized contributors, the North American continent and the European Union.   The North American Continent is made up of Cananda, Mexico and America with the America being the biggest emitter.  

These numbers are a little dated as the US emissions continue to decrease and the Chinese and Indian emissions are increasing.

Asia, consisting of China, India, Japan, Korea, Australia, etc.  are already emitting twice as much as North America and Europe combined.  Leading the Asian nations are China and India.  They are not going to stop building coal based plants. Their rationale is that they need this to bring the living standards of their people up to our standards.  China and India’s populations are each more than 1 billion. They are on their way to more than triple the emissions difference.  Excluding Japan, Korea, and Australia , many of the other Asian nations are underway with plans to use fossil fuels to create wealth for their people.

China has said that in 2030, they will begin to reduce CO2 emissions.  I doubt that they will, because for years they have announced they were through building coal based power plants.  Rather they continually change their mind and announce they are building more of them.  They are the world’s largest manufacturer of solar cells. So, it is not that they do not have renewable energy access, but rather they are enlightened enough to know that solar and wind will never replace fossil fuels.

And what are we doing?  Why, we are spending trillions of dollars on wind and solar energy sources.   The idea of replacing fossil fuels is an illusion.  Certain factions are touting a future where wind and solar are the sole sources of energy. No North American or European nation have ever been able to supply their customers on a 24/7 basis and it is doubt full that they ever will.  For example, Germany, with wind and solar nameplate capacity in place, that exceeds the nation’s electrical demand, have been unable to run without their fossil fuels plants.

And now, a couple of quotes:  

Even if the United States were to get rid of all fossil fuels, this would only make a difference of two-tenths of one degree Celsius in the year 2100, according to Heritage Foundation chief statistician Kevin Dayaratna.”

And a quote from President Biden’s Climate Tsar, John Kerry.

“The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what — that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world,” Kerry said in 2015.

So, why are we doing this?  

cbdakota

The Basis for a Significant Amount of Global Warming Research has become Untethered from the Real World.


.

On November 30, 2020 Roger Pielke, jr  posted “The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science”. It was subtited : “Much of climate research is focused on implausible scenarios of the future, but implementing a course correction will be difficult”.  

It is almost a year and a half since posting but the problem still exists. 

If 2035 Car Sales are 100% EV, 83% of All Cars on the Road Will Still be Gasoline or Diesel Fueled.


President Biden has called for 50% of all new car and light truck sales be Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) by 2030. Even more draconian laws from States like California say:

“…….. all new cars sold in the state by 2035 be free of greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide”. 

That means no gasoline vehicle sales can be made in California after 2035.

What is the outcome of these proposals that only allow ZEV to be made? The Fuels Institute, a proponent of the man-made global warming, posted “Reducing carbon emissions effectively-now and tomorrow” has the answer.   The charts premise is that of California’s pathway, meaning 100% of new car sales are ZEVs and no new fossil fuel powered cars can be sold.

As the chart shows, in a hypothetical scenario in which all U.S. light duty vehicle sales are required to be ZEV in 2035, the market would likely only convert 16.5% of vehicles in operation to ZEV by that time. This would leave 83.5% of vehicles in 2035 still operating primarily on liquid fuels used in combustion engines with a potential life expectancy of longer than 20 years. This means that BEVs and a cleaner electricity grid will not be able to significantly cut transportation-related CO2e emissions for many years to come, resulting in increased atmospheric concentrations that will linger for another 100-plus years

It might be possible for the manufacturers to make enough ZEVs, but it may not make any difference if the manufacturers can. The cost, the range anxiety, the charging time, fires, etc. have turned off the common man buying ZEVs so far.

cbdakota

The Great Reset Demands MONEY


Last week the Great Reset group gathered in Davos Switzerland to continue contriving the destruction of capitalism using global warming as the vehicle. These so-called elites arrived using an alleged 1200 private jets. If they actually believed that carbon dioxide (CO2) is pushing the planet ultimately to an apocalypse, they would do these meetings by Zoom . But instead, they choose to create large amounts of jet engine exhausts of CO2 into the atmosphere. No, they believe that they should govern the planet. To do that they need to spark fear that global warming will bring on extinction. And only these elite can save you by turning governance over to them.

A Washington Times https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/23/editorial-for-select-at-davos-money-is-key-to-stay/?mc_cid=cc44f4808d&mc_eid=557687911 editorial focused the money as follows: (posting is behind a paywall)”

Beware of the individual who refers to his ilk as “we select group of human beings.” It’s the unmistakable mark of the elite who believe their concern for climate can save the world. Mindful that those who guaranteed the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines now associated with disturbing health anomalies derive from the same exclusive class, Americans should regard the purveyors of climate change remedies with studied caution.

The most self-assured of this sort have a habit of showing up for the World Economic Forum’s annual gathering, which recently concluded in Davos, Switzerland. With his “select group” puffery, President Biden’s special envoy for climate, John Kerry, gathered his fellow discussion panelists and audience into a league of their own.

It is all a part of forum founder Klaus Schwab’s plan to “master the future” through climate change activism. Eager to oblige, Mr. Kerry urged all within earshot to rebuff any self-image of “a crazy tree-hugging lefty liberal” and embrace their identity of the “almost extraterrestrial” breed who are “saving the planet.” He made the case that the key to staying cool is “money, money, money, money, money, money, money”: The denizens of Davos want $3 trillion annually to finance greenhouse gas reductions.

By contrast, climate guru and former Vice President Al Gore showed little hesitation in personifying the crazy tree-hugger. Referring to human-caused atmospheric emissions, the Davos forum regular claimed, “That’s what is boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers and the rain bombs and sucking the moisture out of the land, creating the droughts and raising the sea level and causing these waves of climate refugees predicted to reach one billion in this century.”

All this “settled science” from a self-appointed climate expert who, according to The Washington Post, could not quite manage a gentleman’s C in his Harvard science classes.”

I think that this man-made catastrophe theory will only be abandoned when the cost to fund this program becomes too high for the average citizen and/or explicit examples of failures become so common that people will no longer put up with it.  A major failure would be a long stretch of global cooling.  High priced electricity and frequent black outs will be a trigger too.  And ultimately when it becomes known that renewables are useless without backup nuclear and/or fossil fuels.

When politicians are faced with being voted out, we will be able to drop this crap.

Real science will then out the charlatan’s “settled science” and they will be defamed.  

The average citizen may become distrustful of any scientist, unfortunately because of this.

cbdakota