EVs to stall mass transition from fossil fuels to renewables in the years to come
 Asking ChatGPT, or any other source of artificial intelligence (AI), for help is like asking an enemy to help on a project he opposes.
When asking, as we did, for the pros and cons of electric vehicles (EV), as we did, AI produced more pros than cons and the cons were not the most convincing.
Ten years ago EVs first appeared at Shenzhen's Shekou container terminal in the form rubber tyre gantries (RTG) that moved and stacked boxes. In those early days, RTGs ran like trams constantly in physical touch with their power source. Battery power was to come later.
Proponents made much of how clean they were, how little on-site pollution they caused compared to the dirty diesel burning machines they had replaced. A journalist asked about the source of the electric power. The terminal manager said it came from a coal-fired power station miles away. Asked if coal burning produced any net increase in pollution against the reduction offered by the electric RTGs. No one seemed to know.
Ten years later one was again impressed with the silent smooth ride of a electrified Singapore taxi, but did not bother to ask whence the power came.
Yet such questions continue to arise. The EV's undisputed benefits appear to be entirely environmental. Quoth the AI article: "EVs contribute to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved air quality, and reduced dependence on fossil fuels. The positive impacts range from decreased health costs due to air pollution reduction to reduced carbon footprints, aligning with sustainable development goals."
But there are enough unchallenged expert proofs casting doubt on the validity of the entire "climate emergency" narrative that supposedly justifies the existence of EVs. But instead of a cost/benefit analysis run on EVs, there is a blithe assumption that this questionable course ought not be questioned contrary evidence notwithstanding.
The AI essay continues: "EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, leading to reduced air pollution and improved local air quality. In areas with high levels of pollution, such as densely populated cities, the adoption of EVs can have a significant positive impact on public health."
This last public health claim is laughable.
The claim may win bureaucratic approval, but it cannot be proven because there has not been enough EVs sold in "densely populated cities" to have an impact on public health.
But one trucker at a legislative committee hearing, said expectations that trucking can switch from fossil fuel to renewables are impractical. First the renewables are not renewables. Hydro and nuclear power are genuinely renewable or very nearly so, and electricity generated by wind and solar is about 13 per cent of what is produced in America.
All weather-dependent sources are unreliable, and inconveniently located in areas of abundance. Nor are there enough charging stations to meet present needs and not nearly enough nozzles that the ones' that exist to serve a small customer base.
What's more, filling a big rig with diesel fuel takes 15 minutes that will provide it fuel for 1,200 miles of travel New York to Omaha. A big EV rig will take 10 hours to charge and will provide fuel for 300 miles. That's New York to Richmond, Virginia.
Long haul truckers would have to stop 10 times for each of the 10-hour re-charging stops, necessitating the hiring of a second driver, now entangled in Hours of Service mandated rest periods as these trucks are often charged with transporting perishables, there is also battery power consumed by the refrigeration, necessitating longer and more frequent stops in order to deliver a service that was clearly inferior and far more expensive than the one offered before in days of unrestricted fossil fuel use.
The AI essay continues: "The development of a robust charging network remains a significant hurdle for EV adoption in several regions. Building charging stations requires massive investments, and the lack of availability or accessibility can discourage potential buyers."
The one thing the opposing fuel sources share is that the costs of fossil fuels and the benefits of EVs lie far off in the future. Said the AI essay: "Although the initial purchase price of an EV may be higher, the cost of operating and maintaining these vehicles is lower over their lifespan. The price of electricity is generally more stable and cheaper than fossil fuels, resulting in significant savings in the long run."
Of course, this is largely theoretical as the life spans of EVs are so short and so few, and limited in vehicle type that they hardly exist in sufficient numbers to provide a meaningful scientific result. Nor can one say with any reliablity what electricity will cost when made more expensive by vastly increasing demand by banning alternatives, namely abundant fossil fuels.
Despite the Soviet belief that markets can be controlled and manipulated by central planners, they have proved for adept at increasing demand without increasing supply. However badly one thinks of Russian leader Vladimir Putin one must concede that his regime is far better at getting toilet paper to the people than the Soviet Union ever was.
It is clear that even if the hoi polloi have not noticed it, having pitted women against men, blacks against whites, disarmed the citizen and facilitated lawlessness, awareness of this situation is more widely appreciated than ever before.
What's more, the Elders of Davos, aka the Deep State, are perfectly aware that there is little to worry about in climate change, except that fear of it is rapidly dissipating. Ask Google what is "scary" about climate change and the answer comes back: "Higher temperatures worsen air quality, negatively affect crop production, increase the spread of infectious diseases, and threaten freshwater deposits."
Doesn't sound very scary, does it? Yet, the corporate world fears the bureaucratic world as it grabs more power in the hope of creating the top-down communitarian world.
There is a refusal to discuss the merits of what is being done, only an insistence that official conclusions reached are the result of science, which will suffer selective memory loss if today's Deep State policy conflicts with yesterday's scientific findings.
So if taken together, one assumes that the intelligent minds of the Deep State, appreciate that there is no hope "transitioning" from fossil fuels to renewables without massive transformation of life in which private car ownership will be restricted to the privileged few and liveried corporate vehicles as it was in Communist countries and still is in Chinese rural areas. This is he way of the future. |
