ev

Their plan to get you into an EV

This article was originally posted at World Net Daily

Here’s the nitty-gritty on electric vehicles: they are extremely fast, quite luxurious, and loaded with enhanced technology. But they are also expensive, highly impractical, environmentally unsound, and possess the potential to stretch the grid to the breaking point. President Biden can claim, as he did earlier this week from outside the Rose Garden, that Americans can “buy any kind of car they want,” but he failed to disclose his actual intentions. The Environmental Protection Agency’s new emissions standards are designed to limit the availability of new gas cars and trucks and push the cost of traditional vehicles out of reach for most Americans. This would coerce many into purchasing electric contraptions they clearly do not want.

Why are Biden and the Democrats so beholden to this plan?

As I disclose in my new book Climate Cult: Exposing and Defeating Their War on Life, Liberty, and Property, this is all part of the global climate agenda, which has nothing to do with a pristine environment. Birthed in the bowels of the United Nations and aimed at deposing America from its preeminent status in the world, it’s a scheme that demands zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. In fact, Biden’s Executive Order 14057 precisely mandates this standard. According to a press release from the administration’s Chief Sustainability Officer, “By leveraging its power of procurement, the Federal Government will accelerate the country’s transition to a clean energy economy…”

This strongarmed government energy plan will make our grid as reliable as North Korea’s.

As I reveal in the book, electric vehicles are hardly green. Manufacturing your average sedan with an internal combustion engine creates about six metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, while manufacturing an electric sedan creates more than ten metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The reason for the sharp contrast is because of the mining, refining, transportation, and manufacturing of raw materials required to make the batteries for these vehicles. The chassis of a Tesla X consists of 7,104 lithium batteries—that amounts to loads of emissions along the production chain.

Charging an electric vehicle also requires fossil fuels. Currently, over half the electricity in the United States (59.3 percent) is derived from the use of natural gas and coal. Thus, when an EV plugs-in, most of its charge is coming fossil-based fuel. Wind accounts for 10.2 percent of the energy mix, solar just 3.4 percent. Nuclear power (which the left loathes) accounts for 18.2 percent of our grid’s power, and most of those plants are nearing the end of their lifecycles.

Currently, only one percent of all registered vehicles are electric, and our grid is already overstretched. On a hot summer day in California, it is not uncommon to see signs above the highways warning, “POWER ALERT. DO NOT CHARGE EVS BETWEEN 4PM AND 9PM.”

The median household in the US uses 886 kWh of electricity per month. Based on the standard of fourteen thousand driving miles per year, the average EV needs to be charged with 408 kWh/month. That’s almost half of an entire household’s electricity demand for the same period. If there are two EVs in the driveway, it’s like adding the electricity requirements of another home on the block.

But, as I share in Climate Cult, the green masterminds at Princeton have a plan. By their calculations, in 2050, when net zero is forecast to be running at full strength, a region equaling the size of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, and southern Indiana is envisioned to be one humongous 250-million-acre wind farm. Solar energy would occupy 17.5 million acres, about all of northern Indiana.

And when the sun is not shining or the wind not blowing, MIT has come up with plans for a massive battery backup. Price tag? More than $2.5 trillion.

Americans, not Biden and his elite clique, deserve the freedom to determine what they would like to drive.

 

Biden’s EPA Coercing American’s to Buy Expensive EVs

Here’s the nitty-gritty on electric vehicles: they are extremely fast, quite luxurious, and loaded with enhanced technology. But they are also expensive, highly impractical, environmentally unsound, and possess the potential to stretch the grid to the breaking point. President Biden can claim, as he did earlier this week from outside the Rose Garden, that Americans can “buy any kind of car they want,” but he failed to disclose his actual intentions. The Environmental Protection Agency’s new emissions standards are designed to limit the availability of new gas cars and trucks and push the cost of traditional vehicles out of reach for most Americans. This would coerce many into purchasing electric contraptions they clearly do not want.

Why are Biden and the Democrats so beholden to this plan?

As I disclose in my new book Climate Cult: Exposing and Defeating Their War on Life, Liberty, and Property, this is all part of the global climate agenda, which has nothing to do with a pristine environment. Birthed in the bowels of the United Nations and aimed at deposing America from its preeminent status in the world, it’s a scheme that demands zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. In fact, Biden’s Executive Order 14057 precisely mandates this standard. According to a press release from the administration’s Chief Sustainability Officer, “By leveraging its power of procurement, the Federal Government will accelerate the country’s transition to a clean energy economy…”

This strongarmed government energy plan will make our grid as reliable as North Korea’s.

As I reveal in the book, electric vehicles are hardly green. Manufacturing your average sedan with an internal combustion engine creates about six metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, while manufacturing an electric sedan creates more than ten metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The reason for the sharp contrast is because of the mining, refining, transportation, and manufacturing of raw materials required to make the batteries for these vehicles. The chassis of a Tesla X consists of 7,104 lithium batteries—that amounts to loads of emissions along the production chain.

Charging an electric vehicle also requires fossil fuels. Currently, over half the electricity in the United States (59.3 percent) is derived from the use of natural gas and coal. Thus, when an EV plugs-in, most of its charge is coming fossil-based fuel. Wind accounts for 10.2 percent of the energy mix, solar just 3.4 percent. Nuclear power (which the left loathes) accounts for 18.2 percent of our grid’s power, and most of those plants are nearing the end of their lifecycles.

Currently, only one percent of all registered vehicles are electric, and our grid is already overstretched. On a hot summer day in California, it is not uncommon to see signs above the highways warning, “POWER ALERT. DO NOT CHARGE EVS BETWEEN 4PM AND 9PM.”

The median household in the US uses 886 kWh of electricity per month. Based on the standard of fourteen thousand driving miles per year, the average EV needs to be charged with 408 kWh/month. That’s almost half of an entire household’s electricity demand for the same period. If there are two EVs in the driveway, it’s like adding the electricity requirements of another home on the block.

But, as I share in Climate Cult, the green masterminds at Princeton have a plan. By their calculations, in 2050, when net zero is forecast to be running at full strength, a region equaling the size of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, and southern Indiana is envisioned to be one humongous 250-million-acre wind farm. Solar energy would occupy 17.5 million acres, about all of northern Indiana.

And when the sun is not shining or the wind not blowing, MIT has come up with plans for a massive battery backup. Price tag? More than $2.5 trillion.

Americans, not Biden and his elite clique, deserve the freedom to determine what they would like to drive.

Latest Climate Propaganda: EV’s reducing CO2 in SF Bay Area

The latest propaganda from “researchers” at the University of California-Berkeley contends that electric vehicles (EV) are reducing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the local atmosphere.

Details of the study are sparse (see this link), but essentially preliminary results contend that there is a 1.8 percent reduction in atmospheric CO2 occurring in the San Francisco Bay Area.

On the surface, this stated reduction might make sense. I spend a lot of time on the Bay Area roadways. The summary I read does not tell us how many EV’s are on the road in the Bay Area, except that “the electric vehicle market has blossomed.” Certainly the Bay Area, home to the Silicon Valley, is said to have the highest percentage of EV usage in the United States. However, my observation is that EV’s make up likely no more than two percent of all vehicles on the road; so the stated 1.8 percent reduction passes the first smell test.

However, despite California claiming their grid is occasionally carbon neutral, that talking point is a fabrication. Despite various solar and wind farms, the grid in California is primarily powered by natural gas, which emits carbon dioxide when burned, therefore the primary source of fuel for the EV in the Golden State is a fossil fuel. Because California has eliminated most of its homegrown natural gas electrical generating facilities (only three remain), the state constantly buys natural gas-fired energy from other states (at a premium, that’s why California has the most expensive energy prices in the nation). Depending on California’s energy needs, those states often backfill their grids with cheap coal-fired electricity, which emits significantly higher levels of CO2 than natural gas. In other words, coal is often being used to charge the electric vehicle batteries.

As I explain in my new book, Climate Cult, the big rub against the EV is the immense  carbon footprint associated with its production–it’s significantly larger than that of its gas or diesel counterparts. The reason for this is the mining of lithium and the extensive process required to fabricate that toxic material into the massive battery arrays required to power the EV (a Tesla contains nearly 2000 of these lithium batteries). The mining is carried out by monstrous diesel tractors in places like China and Africa where there are no regulations for industrial exhaust. That, plus the fact the lithium is then transported to battery factories via trains and ships energized by fossil fuels, adds to the carbon footprint of the EV. However, this extensive and very real carbon footprint is completely ignored by the electric vehicle fanatics.

In order to appease its liberal constituents, California is playing an energy shell game designed to make the state look green.

Biden’s Liberty-Sucking Vehicle Rules

This article is featured in the upcoming edition of the Buffalo Gap News Roundup. You can subscribe to this monthly newspaper (delivered to your home!) – subscriptions@buffalogapnews.com

Bowing to the demands of the green gods, the Biden Administration has proposed new regulations regarding the vehicles “We the People” choose to drive.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to require that 60 percent of new car sales be battery-powered by 2030, growing to 67 percent by 2032.

Currently fewer than 6 percent are electric (the largest percentage being found in the Silicon Valley).

The green rhetoric claims these vehicles produce fewer carbon emissions than those with internal combustion engines powered by fossil fuels. Carbon emissions contribute to global warming, they say, and global warming poses a threat to the planet and mankind.

The crazy thing is, the lion’s share of electricity for battery-powered vehicles is coming from natural gas and coal instead of renewables like solar and wind. The big problem with solar and wind is simple: solar only works when the sun is overhead and not obscured by clouds, and wind turbines need just the right amount of wind to generate energy.

That’s why every solar and wind plant has a fossil fuel backup.

As the federal government moves to further erode our liberty by reducing our choices in property ownership (cars and trucks) the added demand for electricity resulting from the rapid adoption of more electric vehicles will strain the grid and—just like we experience here in California due to the insane green energy policies—rolling blackouts will occur, and bold message boards over the freeways will state: “Flex Alert! Do not charge your plug-in vehicle between 4 and 9pm.”

I’m not kidding.

And then, there are the batteries.

Seventy percent of the world’s electric battery components are produced in the slave state known as China. 83 percent of China’s energy comes from fossil fuels.  The longer the range of the battery, the more carbon is used in the production process. Senecal has calculated that carbon emissions to produce a battery for a Nissan Leaf were equivalent to driving a gasoline-powered BMW 320D for 24,000 miles. For a larger Tesla Model S battery, carbon emissions used in production are equivalent to driving the BMW 320D for 60,000 miles.

The Tesla S is the electric vehicle of choice in the Silicon Valley—they cost about $145,000 (from my experience,  most of them are driven by dim-witted drivers who don’t seem to feel a need to wash their super luxury vehicles).

It is also curious how those who think they are doing their share in saving the planet by driving an electric car are not concerned about the horrid environmental impact associated with mining the essential mineral required for the batteries. And, of course, the mining creates its own greenhouse gases.

Oh, and then there is this ugly fact: those batteries are not recycled. Quite a few companies are trying to get into that game, but so far no one is able to do it efficiently (don’t tell anyone, but I have a friend who works at the Tesla battery assembly plant in Nevada—there hundreds of rail cars chock full of used Tesla automobiles that previous owners traded in; no one wants to replace the batteries after they are spent).

The bottom line is, until electricity can be generated by emissions-free energy, battery-powered vehicles will generally increase, rather than reduce, emissions. The EPA’s new rules to put more electric vehicles on the roads will take away choices for consumers without reducing emissions.

Finally, I invite you to listen to my daily podcast, the Brian Sussman Show, heard on all the popular podcasting platforms, as well as at my website, briansussman.com