More lying by scientists, global warming crap

[AHZ]

That is what the science says. CO2 helps GREEN the planet. the simply scientific FACT that the earth has been warmer in the past, before modern man ever showed up should settle the question as to whether "humans" are the cause and if warming is sometime to fear.

For those who still think too much human CO2 is a problem, AT BEST science for that is inconclusive and highly debatable.
AND factually the Human contribution is negligible... if anything. That's simply proven by looking at current understanding of past dramatic climate changes and levels of past CO2. You know "the science".

Alternatively some scientist point to the Sun as the cause of climate change.
So, at best, the science is NOT settled. So ANY national or international actions & policy making to deal with CO2 are stupidly premature.
And the fact that the CHEIF political and corporate promoters all continue to buy and invest in water front property should be a clue that THEY DO NOT BELIVE IT.

While there are real toxins in the water, from billions of Pharma drugs being flushed down the toilet and micro bits from plastics, plus toxic chemicals pouring out of businesses and machinery into the land, water and air.
While tons of plastics are floating in the oceans.
Rainforest are being Bulldozed.
Landfills are leaking who knows what into water supplies.
Tons of radioactive material from Nuke plants need a "safe space".

All of this when there are already good alternatives or supplements to Oil, Coal and Nuke. (and toxic pharma drugs)
Alternatives that DO NOT have to implemented ALL at once, ALL over. But small biz, locals and states could MOVE and get a lot done.
If "permitted"... in our free country.

Water/hydrogen power is real today, with salt water no less. No SHORTAGE of that.
Fusion is real at this point, no nuke waste.
Thorium is clean Nuke Power, we've got plenty.
Geothermal can work in some areas for small scale heating and cooling.
Various versions of hydro-power based on already moving water off the coast and in rivers.
Hemp can replace plastics and it's problems nearly across the board and create renewable cash crops for farmers world wide.

IMHO real environmentalism IS NOT being promoted. Just a bunch of Fear mongering, life stifling, ANTI-Freedom, PRO-Eugenics "solutions" to problems that are NOT problems.

even the IF is fearmongering idiocy.

[Gunny]

That is what the science says. CO2 helps GREEN the planet. the simply scientific FACT that the earth has been warmer in the past, before modern man ever showed up, should settle the question as to whether "humans" are the cause and if warming is something to fear.

For those who still think too much human CO2 is a problem, AT BEST science for that is inconclusive and highly debatable.
AND factually the Human contribution is negligible... if anything. That's simply proven by looking at current understanding of past dramatic climate changes and levels of past CO2. You know "the science".

Alternatively some scientist point to the Sun as the cause of climate change.
So, at best, the science is NOT settled. So ANY national or international actions & policy making to deal with CO2 are stupidly premature.
And the fact that the CHEIF political and corporate promoters all continue to buy and invest in water front property should be a clue that THEY DO NOT BELIVE IT.

While there are real toxins in the water, from billions of Pharma drugs being flushed down the toilet and micro bits from plastics, plus toxic chemicals pouring out of businesses and machinery into the land, water and air.
While tons of plastics are floating in the oceans.
Rainforest are being Bulldozed.
Landfills are leaking who knows what into water supplies.
Tons of radioactive material from Nuke plants need a "safe space".
Not to mention the chemicals and bio engineered mystery crap we allow in our foods, crops & animal products.

All of this when there are already good alternatives or supplements to Oil, Coal and Nuke. ...and toxic pharma drugs and Franken foods.
Alternatives that DO NOT have to be implemented ALL at once, ALL over. But small biz, locals and states could MOVE and get a lot done.
If "permitted"... in our free country.

Water/hydrogen power is real today, with salt water no less. No SHORTAGE of that.
Fusion is real at this point, no nuke waste.
Thorium is clean Nuke Power, we've got plenty.
Geothermal can work in some areas for small scale heating and cooling.
Various versions of hydro-power based on already moving water off the coast and in rivers.
Hemp can replace plastics and it's problems nearly across the board and create renewable cash crops for farmers world wide.
Stoping Big Ag and Big Pharma monopolies over Farming, Food & Drugs would help clear a lot of crap.

IMHO real environmentalism IS NOT being promoted. Just a bunch of Fear mongering, life stifling, ANTI-Freedom, PRO-Eugenics "solutions" to problems that are NOT problems.

C02 helps green the planet IF there is enough green to handle the C02. Simple math when ability to process cannot keep up with supply = excess. I can give you that simple, logical, science and math in any form you want it and the equation always comes out the same.

When presented as a (one of many) hypothesis when applied to greenhouse gases, it is what it is. There was no declaration, statement of finality, nor for or against offered in regard to anything other than political, man-made global warming as THE reason which appear to be universal rejection. EXCEPT when the closed mind of one individal had to turn a simple discussion into a 3-ring circus

I agree, the planet has warmed and cooled before. Each time it has warmed, what has been the end result for current life?

Have not heard the "Sun is the cause" one, but hard to argue the Sun is the source of heat. I would argue the atmosphere determines how much the sun heats the Earth. When infrared signals are distorted and get a reading from the ionosphere instead of the atmosphere the feedback will be more heat. Again, presenting a theory. Not mine nor do I necessarily believe/disbelieve. It is what it is to be taken at face value.

Noted your dirty dig at pharma Otherwise, objectively, what has Man done to the Earth? Destroy its natural environment. Nothing else. Everything we touch we destroy. Regardless Man's justification for doing so, that is fact. When Man exceeds the Earth's ability to repair itself? I can think of no good result for the Earth or life on it.

In context/perspective: this is information to discuss. Attacking me or the information like I have told everyone to set their watch by it is counterproductive to discussion. Anyone that doesn't want to discuss, don't.

Anyone whose sole purpose is to be a PIA? Don't.

[Kathianne]

@relevarts I think this will be of interest to you

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1...emergency-hoax

The 'Climate Emergency' Is a Hoaxby Robert Williams
September 10, 2023 at 5:00 am




More than 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, have signed a declaration saying that "There is no climate emergency." The declaration is unlikely to get any attention from the mainstream media, unfortunately, but it is important for people to know about: the mass climate hysteria and the destruction of the US economy in the name of climate change need to stop.


"Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific," states the declaration signed by the 1,609 scientists, including Nobel laureates John F. Clauser from the US and Ivar Giaever from Norway/US.


"Climate policy relies on inadequate models


Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They... ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial... There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent." — 1,609 scientists, There is no Climate Emergency, clintel.org.


"I was taught that you tell the whole truth [as a scientist]...." Koonin said. He noted as well the immorality of asking the developing world to cut down emissions, when so many do not even have access to electricity and the immorality of scaring the younger generations.... — Steven E. Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy; current professor at New York University, fellow at the Hoover Institution, and author of Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters. — Hoover Institution, August 15, 2023.


Of course it would be helpful to research what can be done to relieve the problems brought about by man, such as the "hole in the ozone layer," which is now closing, but climate change is not an apocalyptic emergency and needs to be attended to without bringing devastation to the hundreds of millions of people already in extreme poverty.


The Biden administration, however, appears not to be concerned about the widespread poverty and massive starvation that will be caused by the unavailability of cheap and reliable energy in underdeveloped countries, or the inflation caused by the skyrocketing prices that are crushing Americans "barely able to afford one meal a day".

These are man-made problems, created by importing expensive (nearing $100 a barrel again) -- often dirtier -- oil from adversaries of the United States, such as Russia and Venezuela, instead of extracting it far less expensively at home.


The Biden administration also does not seem concerned that it is killing wildlife, sea life and the fishing industry by installing offshore wind turbines along the Atlantic seaboard, or that mandating electric vehicles will throw virtually the entire auto maintenance industry out of work (EVs do not need routine maintenance), or that lithium batteries not only explode but cost thousands of dollars to replace. The administration even wants military equipment, such as tanks, to be electric, as if there were charging stations in the middle of foreign deserts in the event of a conflict. Moreover, according to NBC News, volcanoes, unimpressed with executive orders, "Dwarf Humans for CO2 Emissions."


The Biden administration does not even bother to act on its own climate findings: In March, the White House released a report about the impact of climate change on the US economy. "Its findings undermine any claims of an ongoing climate crisis or imminent catastrophe" Koonin wrote in July. "The report's authors should be commended for honestly delivering likely unwelcome messages.... Exaggerating the magnitude, urgency and certainty of the climate threat encourages ill-considered policies that could be more disruptive and expensive than any change in the climate itself." — Steven E. Koonin, Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2023.


Never mind that much of climate change is apparently caused by sun flares, about which we can do nothing, and which, unlike commercial industries, do not offer grants; or that major wildfires are, ironically, exacerbated by "environmentalists" for refusing to let tinderbox brush be cleared lest the creatures there be disturbed other than by a wildfire.


Climate expert Bjørn Lomborg suggests that the trillions of dollars needed to address climate change might be put to better use:


"This isn't an argument to do nothing but just to be smarter. To ensure we can transition from fossil fuels, we need to ramp up research and development to innovate down the price of green energy. We should invest across all options including fusion, fission, storage, biofuel and other sources."


"Only when green energy is cheaper than fossil fuels will the world be able and willing to make the transition. Otherwise, today's energy prices are just a taste of things to come."






The statement adds:


"Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures...


"The geological archive reveals that Earth's climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.


"Warming is far slower than predicted...


"The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.




Professor Steven Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy under the Obama administration, current professor at New York University, and fellow at the Hoover Institution, authored the 2021 bestseller, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters. In it, he states that what the largely unreadable (for laymen) and complicated science reports say on climate change is completely distorted by the time their contents are filtered through a long line of summary reports of the research by the media and the politicians.


"There are abundant opportunities to get things wrong – both accidentally and on purpose – as the information goes through filter after filter to be packaged for various audiences... It's not only the public that is ill-informed about what the science says about climate..."


Koonin adds:


"Government and UN press releases and summaries do not accurately reflect the reports themselves... Distinguished climate experts (including report authors themselves) are embarrassed by some media portrayals of the science."


In a recent interview, Koonin noted that his colleagues' reactions to his book had been that he should not be telling the public or the politicians the truth about climate change.


"I was taught that you tell the whole truth [as a scientist]. And you let the politicians make the value judgments and the cost effectiveness trade-offs and so on," Koonin said. He noted as well the immorality of asking the developing world to cut down emissions when so many do not even have access to electricity, and the immorality of scaring the younger generations: 84% of American teenagers believing, as of January 2022, that if climate change is not addressed, "it will be too late for future generations, making some part of the planet unlivable."

"The report's authors should be commended for honestly delivering likely unwelcome messages, even if they didn't make a show of it. The rest of the Biden administration and its climate-activist allies should moderate their apocalyptic rhetoric and cancel the climate crisis accordingly. Exaggerating the magnitude, urgency and certainty of the climate threat encourages ill-considered policies that could be more disruptive and expensive than any change in the climate itself."

But facts will not stop the Biden administration from forging ahead with its radical policies: "I don't think anybody can deny the impact of the climate crisis anymore," Biden, commenting on Hurricane Idalia, told reporters at the White House on August 30. "Just look around. Historic floods. I mean, historic floods. More intense droughts, extreme heat, significant wildfires have caused significant damage."

Never mind that much of climate change is apparently caused by sun flares, about which we can do nothing, and which, unlike commercial industries, do not offer grants; or that major wildfires are, ironically, exacerbated by "environmentalists" for refusing to let tinderbox brush be cleared lest the creatures there be disturbed other than by a wildfire.


Climate expert Bjørn Lomborg suggests that the trillions of dollars needed to address climate change might be put to better use:


"This isn't an argument to do nothing but just to be smarter. To ensure we can transition from fossil fuels, we need to ramp up research and development to innovate down the price of green energy. We should invest across all options including fusion, fission, storage, biofuel and other sources.


"Only when green energy is cheaper than fossil fuels will the world be able and willing to make the transition. Otherwise, today's energy prices are just a taste of things to come."


Robert Williams is a researcher based in the United States.

[AHZ]

C02 helps green the planet IF there is enough green to handle the C02. Simple math when ability to process cannot keep up with supply = excess. I can give you that simple, logical, science and math in any form you want it and the equation always comes out the same.

When presented as a (one of many) hypothesis when applied to greenhouse gases, it is what it is. There was no declaration, statement of finality, nor for or against offered in regard to anything other than political, man-made global warming as THE reason which appear to be universal rejection. EXCEPT when the closed mind of one individal had to turn a simple discussion into a 3-ring circus

I agree, the planet has warmed and cooled before. Each time it has warmed, what has been the end result for current life?

Have not heard the "Sun is the cause" one, but hard to argue the Sun is the source of heat. I would argue the atmosphere determines how much the sun heats the Earth. When infrared signals are distorted and get a reading from the ionosphere instead of the atmosphere the feedback will be more heat. Again, presenting a theory. Not mine nor do I necessarily believe/disbelieve. It is what it is to be taken at face value.

Noted your dirty dig at pharma Otherwise, objectively, what has Man done to the Earth? Destroy its natural environment. Nothing else. Everything we touch we destroy. Regardless Man's justification for doing so, that is fact. When Man exceeds the Earth's ability to repair itself? I can think of no good result for the Earth or life on it.

In context/perspective: this is information to discuss. Attacking me or the information like I have told everyone to set their watch by it is counterproductive to discussion. Anyone that doesn't want to discuss, don't.

Anyone whose sole purpose is to be a PIA? Don't.

it is productive to discuss how political and financial forces have applied their power to influence this discussion and policies surrounding it. public private partnerships invested in green malinvestments, fleecing the people.

you could focus more on the big investments made into propagating the big lie. or you can keep shilling.

[Gunny]

"Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific," states the declaration signed by the 1,609 scientists, including Nobel laureates John F. Clauser from the US and Ivar Giaever from Norway/US.

Completely agree with this.

[AHZ]

Completely agree with this.

as long as everyone accepts certain approved scientiests as "the science"? LIke fauci?

like how 'trust the science' on covid turned out to be bill gates pump and dump big pharma stock scheme?

[Gunny]

as long as everyone accepts certain approved scientiests as "the science"? LIke fauci?

like how 'trust the science' on covid turned out to be bill gates pump and dump big pharma stock scheme?

Big difference between "a" Fauci and 1,609 scientists.

You may not care because it adds to the drama, but I for one would like to know the actual facts about things instead of everything being filtered through the MSM, politicians and wannabe shills.

[revelarts]

C02 helps green the planet IF there is enough green to handle the C02. Simple math when ability to process cannot keep up with supply = excess. I can give you that simple, logical, science and math in any form you want it and the equation always comes out the same.

But 1st you have too define what is an OVER supply.
and WE KNOW there has been more CO2 in the past.

So we Know we have not reached any hypothetical point of EXCESS.
experimental we do not know where a point of excess is. And to the best of historical knowledge the earth has NEVER reached it.
So why should we assume it will? even hypothetically? Much less to the point of stopping civilization?

I agree, the planet has warmed and cooled before. Each time it has warmed, what has been the end result for current life?

When it's cold more life dies when it warmer more life thrives.
That the same Now as it's ever been. more people & plants & animals live in warmer climates

Noted your dirty dig at pharma Otherwise, objectively, what has Man done to the Earth? Destroy its natural environment. Nothing else. Everything we touch we destroy. Regardless Man's justification for doing so, that is fact. When Man exceeds the Earth's ability to repair itself? I can think of no good result for the Earth or life on it.

"Everything we touch we destroy."
We do that, a lot. but not to everything.
how's your granddaughter?


But you know what, here again is where a person CORE beliefs comes into play.

•If we're just evolved. then who cares. the earth is not something to preserve. neither are humans. just accidents in the void.
•Some Greens believe the EARTH and all it's life and ecosystems are more important than humans. So we should back off and live minimally... IF at all. So as not to bring harm the sacred "earth mother" GIAA with the touch of death we bring.
•But Some believe we are created by God to be the kings & queens and caretakers of the Earth. And that even in our own sinful death leaning state. And the Earth's state as cursed. That we still can and should be doing somethings to GARDEN the earth to the best of our abilities and to promote HUMAN life 1st. In unity with the gift of the planet and other life.

Where you start makes a big difference as to where you end up on all issues.
Where it all came from, Who Man is, and What the Earth are basic questions people end up considering when they really start going down this road.

Oh Yeah
"Do unto others" depends on who you consider worthy as "others".
Some do consider fellow humans "subspecies" and therefore not "other"
Some like the Hindu, some Greens, New Agers etc consider "all living things" others so they should have the same rights as humans.
Some folks personify the EARTH and think it has rights, more than humans or other life forms. so "do unto others" applies to the earth 1st.

Core beliefs lead people to very different places.

[AHZ]

Big difference between "a" Fauci and 1,609 scientists.

You may not care because it adds to the drama, but I for one would like to know the actual facts about things instead of everything being filtered through the MSM, politicians and wannabe shills.

this is just a dressed up logical fallacy.

the appeal to authority fallacy.

are you familiar with it?

[Kathianne]

I recognize that some didn't go to great schools or maybe weren't great students or maybe have some learning disabilities or have memory problems.

For most though, they learned the scientific method in 5 grade or so. Practiced it on and off at least through high school. Learned some biological and chemical and physical sciences in both middle and high school.

If went to university had a minimum of 3 more courses. Personally I don't think they improved upon the knowledge, just repeated.

Thus, while by no means 'scientist' or 'doctors' or anything of the sort, one should be able to read results and make conclusions based upon facts, not opinions.

From the get go, even a pro-pharma person like myself recognized the claims that a vaccine against a virus would make you non-contagious and keep you from illness, quite unlikely. Would it reduce the affects? Maybe. Thinking colds and Coldeezz type stuff. Didn't take long though for even that to become less than common.

Again, basic biology on virus, even bacteria size made the mask idea pretty remote. If it provided some with comfort, so be it. Elementary science and memory is enough for most of us to make judgements over time.

[AHZ]

I recognize that some didn't go to great schools or maybe weren't great students or maybe have some learning disabilities or have memory problems.

For most though, they learned the scientific method in 5 grade or so. Practiced it on and off at least through high school. Learned some biological and chemical and physical sciences in both middle and high school.

If went to university had a minimum of 3 more courses. Personally I don't think they improved upon the knowledge, just repeated.

Thus, while by no means 'scientist' or 'doctors' or anything of the sort, one should be able to read results and make conclusions based upon facts, not opinions.

From the get go, even a pro-pharma person like myself recognized the claims that a vaccine against a virus would make you non-contagious and keep you from illness, quite unlikely. Would it reduce the affects? Maybe. Thinking colds and Coldeezz type stuff. Didn't take long though for even that to become less than common.

Again, basic biology on virus, even bacteria size made the mask idea pretty remote. If it provided some with comfort, so be it. Elementary science and memory is enough for most of us to make judgements over time.

so people should assume thinks work how they're presented and authority figures never lie.

sounds like a disaster for humanity.

[Kathianne]

The hits keep coming, even from NPR:

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/10/11872...nifer-granholm

Electric cars have a road trip problem, even for the secretary of energySeptember 10, 20236:00 AM ET
Camila Domonoske


When Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm set out on a four-day electric-vehicle road trip this summer, she knew charging might be a challenge. But she probably didn't expect anyone to call the cops.


Granholm's trip through the southeast, from Charlotte, N.C., to Memphis, Tenn., was intended to draw attention to the billions of dollars the White House is pouring into green energy and clean cars. The administration's ambitious energy agenda, if successful, could significantly cut U.S. emissions and reshape Americans' lives in fundamental ways, including by putting many more people in electric vehicles.




Granholm approaches a charging station to charge the Cadillac Lyriq she was riding during a four-day road trip through the southeast early this summer. The electric vehicle had charging problems due to an "isolated hardware issue," Cadillac says. But Granholm's team encountered plenty of not-so-isolated problems too.


On town hall stops along her road trip, Granholm made a passionate, optimistic case for this transition. She often put up a photo of New York City in 1900, full of horses and carriages, with a single car. Then another slide: "Thirteen years later, same street. All these cars. Can you spot the horse?"


One horse was in the frame.


"Things are happening fast. You are in the center of it. Imagine how big clean energy industries will be in 13 years," she told one audience in South Carolina. "How much stronger our economy is going to grow. How many good-paying jobs we're going to create — and where we are going to lead the world."


Going along for the ride
The auto industry, under immense pressure to tackle its contribution to climate change, is undertaking a remarkable switch to electric vehicles — but it's not necessarily going to be a smooth transition.




Not every vehicle in Granholm's caravan was electric. The Secret Service, for instance, rode in large traditional SUVs.
Camila Domonoske/NPR
I rode along with Granholm during her trip, eager to see firsthand how the White House intends to promote a potentially transformative initiative to the public and what kind of issues it would encounter on the road.


Granholm is in many ways the perfect person to help pitch the United States' ambitious shift to EVs. As a two-term former governor of Michigan, she helped rescue the auto industry during the 2008 global financial crisis, and she's a longtime EV enthusiast. (Her family recently switched from the Chevy Bolt to the Ford Mustang Mach-E.)


That makes her uniquely well positioned to envision the future of the auto industry and to sell the dream of what that future could look like.


But between stops, Granholm's entourage at times had to grapple with the limitations of the present. Like when her caravan of EVs — including a luxury Cadillac Lyriq, a hefty Ford F-150 and an affordable Bolt electric utility vehicle — was planning to fast-charge in Grovetown, a suburb of Augusta, Georgia.


Her advance team realized there weren't going to be enough plugs to go around. One of the station's four chargers was broken, and others were occupied. So an Energy Department staffer tried parking a nonelectric vehicle by one of those working chargers to reserve a spot for the approaching secretary of energy.


As carbon removal gains traction, economists imagine a new market to save the planet
PLANET MONEY
As carbon removal gains traction, economists imagine a new market to save the planet
That did not go down well: a regular gas-powered car blocking the only free spot for a charger?


In fact, a family that was boxed out — on a sweltering day, with a baby in the vehicle — was so upset they decided to get the authorities involved: They called the police.


The sheriff's office couldn't do anything. It's not illegal for a non-EV to claim a charging spot in Georgia. Energy Department staff scrambled to smooth over the situation, including sending other vehicles to slower chargers, until both the frustrated family and the secretary had room to charge.




This charging station in Grovetown, Ga., was overcrowded. An electric school bus that was driving on a statewide clean-energy road show needed one charger; another charger was broken.
Camila Domonoske/NPR
Getting it together
John Ryan, a driver of an electric BMW, pulled up after everything was settled. It was his turn to wait.


"It's just par for the course," he shrugged. "They'll get it together at some point."


Federal money is now headed to states for building up fast EV chargers on highways
BUSINESS
Federal money is now headed to states for building up fast EV chargers on highways
"They" would be the government, the automakers, the charging networks like Electrify America and ChargePoint, and the companies like Walmart, Shell and 7-Eleven that are entering the charging game.


And they are, in fact, desperate to get it together. Carmakers have hundreds of billions of dollars of investment on the line, and they are embracing Tesla's technology and teaming up with rivals to try to tackle the charging problem. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is pouring billions into a nationwide network of electric chargers, trying to fix the very problem Granholm was encountering.


I drive an electric vehicle myself, and I've test-driven many more as NPR's auto reporter. I know how easy it can be to charge when everything goes well and how annoying it can be when things go poorly.


Riding along with Granholm, I came away with a major takeaway: EVs that aren't Teslas have a road trip problem, and the White House knows it's urgent to solve this issue.


Solving the road trip problem
The road trip has long loomed large in the American automotive imagination.


Road trips are a tiny fraction of the trips Americans take; drivers mostly commute or drive around town. And at home, charging an EV is much easier (not to mention cheaper) than fueling up with gasoline; you just plug in overnight, and you're good to go every morning.


On a practical basis, making sure everyone can charge at home would seem much more important than building road trip chargers. And this is a real concern for some drivers.


But for many drivers, it's not charging at home that worries them: It's what they'll do on the road.




An electric vehicle charger stands in front of an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union hall and training center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Camila Domonoske/NPR
According to the auto-data giant J.D. Power, worries about public chargers are the No. 1 reason why would-be EV buyers are reluctant to make the switch, even outranking concerns about high prices. And driver satisfaction with public chargers is getting worse, not better.


Tesla chargers are significantly better than the competition, and most of the electric vehicles in the U.S. are Teslas.


Tesla is opening up its exclusive network to more vehicles, which could transform the charging experience as soon as next year, but not all automakers have embraced Tesla's technology. And although Tesla dominates the EV market, the Biden administration wants every automaker to go electric quickly and every driver to have access to fast, reliable charging.


"Ultimately, we want to make it super-easy for people to travel long distances," Granholm told me.


But as she knows, long-distance travel in non-Tesla EVs is not always "super-easy" today.


Problem 1: Planning is cumbersome
The secretary's trip had been painstakingly mapped out ahead of time to allow for charging. We stopped at hotels with slower "Level 2" plugs for overnight charging and then paused at superfast chargers between cities.


That required upfront work that a gas-powered road trip simply doesn't require. My car can hypothetically locate a nearby charger on the road — as with many EVs, that feature is built into an app on the car's infotainment screen — so I shouldn't have to plan ahead. But in reality, I use multiple apps to find chargers, read reviews to make sure they work and plot out convenient locations for a 30-minute pit stop (a charger by a restaurant, for instance, instead of one located at a car dealership).


At a stop in South Carolina, Granholm told audiences she recognized the importance of making chargers easy to find on apps.


For chargers to qualify for new federal money, the energy secretary explained, "they have to be every 50 miles and within 1 mile off the charging corridor, and they have to be app enabled. So you have to be able to see with your phone, is this charger available so that I can go use it, right?"




Granholm talks to executives from Albemarle, a maker of lithium, a vital component of electric vehicle batteries, in Kings Mountain, N.C. Pictured behind her is NPR reporter Camila Domonoske.
Conor McCabe/Department of Energy
Problem 2: Not enough chargers
One reason road trips take so much planning: Some parts of the U.S., including much of the southeast, simply don't have many high-speed chargers, also called DC fast chargers.


I happen to live on the edge of a charging desert. In my Virginia hometown, there are no DC fast chargers except for a Tesla Supercharger station, which I can't use ... yet. That's not a problem, since I charge at home. Much more problematic is that if I want to drive through West Virginia, I can access only 11 fast chargers in the entire state. That's actually progress; three weeks ago, there were only eight.


Where chargers are in short supply, drivers sometimes have to wait — like Granholm's team did in Grovetown, Georgia. The experience could get even worse as the number of electric vehicles on the road increases in coming years.


"Clearly, we need more high-speed chargers, particularly in the South," Granholm told me at the end of her trip.


Big carmakers unite to build a charging network and reassure reluctant EV buyers
BUSINESS
Big carmakers unite to build a charging network and reassure reluctant EV buyers
She emphasized the $7.5 billion investment that the Biden administration is making in building more public chargers — money that's currently being distributed to states.


"By the end of this year, I think we'll start to see [those chargers] popping up along the charging corridors," she said.


Problem 3: Not fast enough
There was another DC charging station about a 10-minute drive from that stop in Grovetown. But that station's chargers were nowhere near as fast. In fact, aside from chargers reserved for Teslas and one charging station just for Rivians, it was more than an hour's drive to the next actually-fast fast charger.


And that brings us to the next problem with America's fast charger network: It's too slow.


When DC fast chargers were first built, 50 kilowatts (a measure of charging speed) was considered speedy. Times have changed. Many newer vehicles can charge at least three times faster than that. But those older chargers remain on roads, making up a sizable chunk of the country's fast-charging infrastructure.




A common sight for electric vehicle drivers: This station is not operating at full speed.
Camila Domonoske/NPR
That doesn't matter much for cheaper vehicles that can't charge very fast anyway, like my Bolt. But for newer, faster-charging vehicles, especially big ones with giant batteries, it could be the difference between waiting 20 minutes to charge — or waiting an hour.


This problem is easing over time. Most new chargers are on the faster end of the spectrum, and the federal incentives are available only for chargers that are 150 kilowatts or faster.


Problem 4: Not reliable enough
Of course, having a superfast charger doesn't do you any good if the dang thing doesn't work.


On the secretary's road trip, that stop in Grovetown included a charger with a dead black screen. At another stop in Tennessee, the Chevy Bolt that I was riding in charged at one-third the rate it should have. Electrify America says that's not an isolated problem; a faulty component has caused a number of chargers to be "derated" while the company works on a fix.


Companies like Electrify America — funded by Volkswagen as part of its penalty for the Dieselgate scandal — are among the private players that have helped build out America's current charging infrastructure. But reliability is proving to be an issue.


How fast can the auto industry go electric? Debate rages as the U.S. sets new rules
BUSINESS
How fast can the auto industry go electric? Debate rages as the U.S. sets new rules
J.D. Power found that when non-Tesla drivers pull up at a charging station, they leave without charging 20% of the time, because the chargers were either all busy or not functioning.


The federal government has responded with a new requirement: Highway chargers that get federal funds will have to prove they're operational at least 97% of the time.


The good news: Charging can be great
Despite overcrowding, broken chargers and slow speeds, charging on the road worked most of the time for Granholm's team.


"I think two days in, I would totally buy an EV," an Energy Department staffer who was driving an EV for the first time mused halfway through the trip. "Like, it would be pretty easy to do a road trip. You have to stop for lunch anyway, so you stop, charge, keep going."


Road trip charging can be cheap too. Granholm's 770-mile trip cost one of the Energy Department's drivers just $35 total, less than half of what gasoline would have run in a similar vehicle.


On a more basic level, Granholm's team was ultimately able to charge in every town it stopped at. There was no risk of being stranded, which was the fear of very early adopters of EVs, back before public chargers were available.


And if you have a garage, a driveway or EV chargers at your workplace, day-to-day charging is even easier. Personally, I plug my Bolt into a standard outlet when I'm home and into a Level 2 charger at NPR's headquarters when I'm in Washington, D.C. I don't sit around and wait for it to charge; I just go about my life. And when I'm ready to go, so is the car.


That's not "just as easy" as filling up a gas-powered car. It's significantly easier.




Tesla Superchargers in San Rafael, Calif., on Feb. 15. Tesla invested in chargers as a way to sell cars, building them where people would want them, regardless of whether the chargers could individually be profitable.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Tesla's super Superchargers
And then, of course, there are the Tesla chargers, which simply work better than the other chargers out there.


J.D. Power has found that Tesla drivers successfully charge at 96% of the Superchargers they visit.


Tesla invested in chargers as a way to sell cars, building fast, reliable charging stations where people would want them, regardless of whether the chargers could individually be profitable.


Tesla also defied the rest of the auto industry in using its own charging technology rather than the carefully negotiated industrywide standard.


Opening up the walled garden
The strategy paid off. For years, Tesla kept its network of Superchargers as a walled garden. Tesla drivers raved about them, but no one else could use them.


That started to change this year when Tesla struck a deal with the White House to open some chargers to the general public. And the walled garden blew wide open after Ford announced it was adopting Tesla's charging technology. Future Fords will come with the Tesla-style plug, and starting in January, existing-Ford owners can buy an adapter and plug in.


The idea was born — where else? — on a road trip.


Ford CEO Jim Farley recently told NPR he was driving with his kids on a family vacation, past a huge, conveniently located Tesla Supercharger station. His kids wondered why Farley, who was driving a Mustang Mach-E, couldn't just stop there to charge.


Ford is losing a lot of money in electric cars — but CEO Jim Farley is charging ahead
BUSINESS
Ford is losing a lot of money in electric cars — but CEO Jim Farley is charging ahead
Farley explained that they couldn't because those were Tesla chargers.


When he explained why they couldn't charge there, his kids were blunt, as he recalled to NPR in an interview in August: "'Well, that's stupid. They have, like, a lot of free open spots there.'"


And the idea for the Tesla deal was born.


Other private sector solutions
Ford's announcement kicked off an astonishing shift. In the weeks after, General Motors, Rivian, Volvo, Mercedes-Benz and Nissan all announced that they too were adopting Tesla's technology. This means that as soon as next year, the EV road trip experience could be dramatically different for non-Tesla drivers.


And then, in a separate surprise move this summer, seven legacy automakers — BMW, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz and Stellantis (formerly known as Fiat Chrysler) — announced they were banding together in a joint venture to launch a new, as-yet-unnamed, charging network.


They plan to build 30,000 superfast 350-kilowatt chargers — even bigger and faster than the Supercharger network.


Meanwhile, existing companies like ChargePoint are clearly feeling pressure to fix their unreliable and underperforming chargers. ChargePoint just announced it's spending millions of dollars on a new operations center and other programs meant to "deliver near-100% charging reliability."




Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm tests out an electric leaf blower at a Home Depot stop near Atlanta. In addition to promoting electric vehicles, the federal government has funded new rebates for low-income households that buy cleaner appliances or other upgrades. States are still working on the details for administering those programs.
Camila Domonoske/NPR
The road to the future
Those private-led efforts — as well as the muscle and money provided by the government — could prove a game changer.


"The private sector has stepped up," Granholm told me toward the end of her road trip. The response to federal incentives has been, as she put it, "a blockbuster."


Granholm has long been an energetic and optimistic pitchwoman for the electric vehicle future, even before her current position.


On her road trip this summer, she made the case again and again that switching to green energy and clean cars will save money, create jobs and promote national security, on top of being a crucial component in the plan to fight climate change.


"If you're not persuaded by climate change or you think it's not happening, well, you should be persuaded by lowering the costs," she told me.


And as Granholm knows, the cars themselves can be persuasive. Stop me if you've heard this from an EV driver before — but a quiet, speedy vehicle that never needs an oil change is just plain nice to drive, charging headaches and all.


Or ask Holmesetta Green. I met her when she was sitting on a curb in the back corner of a Walmart parking lot, parked right next to Granholm, waiting for her Volkswagen ID.4 to charge.


Green, a 79-year-old retired teacher, frequently makes the six-hour drive from her home in Louisville, Ky., to her hometown in Holly Springs, Mississippi.


Biden administration proposes new fuel economy standards, with higher bar for trucks
BUSINESS
Biden administration proposes new fuel economy standards, with higher bar for trucks
It was hot that day. Hot hot. "You ever fried an egg on a sidewalk?" Green asked me. She wished out loud for a charging station in a park, with a bench in the shade.


I asked her how she likes her SUV. And her answer summed up the anxieties and the hopes of both the Biden administration and the auto industry at large.


"It's not enough chargers over on the major highways," she said. And charging is "kind of slow."


"Other than that, I wouldn't take $100,000 for this car," she said, smiling ear to ear. "We love it. We love the electric."

[Kathianne]

and more:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...implosion.html

September 12, 2023The inevitable EV implosion
By Ron Ross
The electric vehicle honeymoon is over. Don’t expect the marriage itself to last much longer either.


The mass conversion from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEs) to electric vehicles was never more than a Democrat/environmentalist hallucination anyway. It was the most ill-conceived government policy objective in modern history.


The transition should have been a non-starter. It’s riddled with numerous deal killers. It’s like having a dozen fatal diseases all at the same time.


Any goal as massive as a total conversion from ICE vehicles to EVs requires careful planning and infrastructure preparation. It would necessitate a rapid doubling of electricity generation and grid expansion. In today’s world that’s impossible.


EV promoters could never deliver on their promises. Their grandiose assurances were nothing more than wishful thinking.




There was no market research. Hmm -- I wonder why. There were no feasibility studies. Hmm -- I wonder why. Did they actually believe everyone would tolerate spending hours to charge their vehicles rather than the minutes they were accustomed to?


Car dealers are resisting further deliveries of EVs because of swelling inventories. Avis and Hertz can’t even get people to rent EVs! Yet, manufacturers are ramping up production just as consumers are balking. Something will have to give, and soon. EV makers and their shareholders will tire of pouring money down a rathole.


We are spending trillions of dollars on a fabricated dream, all for imaginary payoffs decades in the future.


When the EV house of cards collapses what will the reaction be? Ordinarily, for normal persons, it would be a time for regret, rethinking, and humility.


It would be good if the Democrat/environmentalist true believers learned something from the EV debacle. However, the same utopian blindness that caused this fiasco will prevent any lesson-learning on their part. We are more likely to see them doubling down instead.




Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. He resides in Arcata. California and can be reached at rossecon@aol.com.

[AHZ]

The hits keep coming, even from NPR:

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/10/11872...nifer-granholm

why do you hate the environment?

just kidding.


carry on.

[Gunny]

It would be good if the Democrat/environmentalist true believers learned something from the EV debacle. However, the same utopian blindness that caused this fiasco will prevent any lesson-learning on their part. We are more likely to see them doubling down instead.

Sad but more than likely.