onsdag 23. desember 2015

El bil , El Gringo, El Skeptikk

There is currently a pretty big wave of misinformation out there in webland,  retweeted further by a minority of sceptics, who by in large feel that electric cars and any other form of CO2 reducing measure is a threat to theie manlihoods. Some just like being sceptics, others have tax-break-envy especially here in Norway where a Tesla S model with 8 year battery gaurantee retails for about the same price as a medium range 'station wagon' or small by US standards, SUV.

Firstly, why worry? No one is forcing you into anything. If you think you are making a fool out of climate neurotics, then see who is behind the majority of anti climate change information- the fossil fuel industry, their paid for, partisan scientists and of course we live in democracies, so include their paid for and partisan PR, lobby groups and even politicians and entire hard right political parties. Big Fossil.

Scientists out there in the real world of fact gathering, theory making and best working model predictions would probably love to have lots of global warming trashing data, so they could bask in the light of publication and get funding from Big Fossil. Unfortunetly the body of science amassed supports the best working consensus that the world has become significantly warmer in conjunction with CO2 emissions. The anomolies the sceptics love to quote, the warm roman europe, the southern ice sheet extension, the hotter haloscene climate, "greenland' was green in viking times, volcanoes emit more thn humans ....are all anomolies and quasi facts.

The sceptics best shots at reality are at the variability and reliability of historic temperature data and estimates, and the extrapolation of current warming. These best shots are all supported by a very small minority of scientists, and in the same way as creatuionist "scientists" have sprouted up- by being paid by politically partisan interests.

Condpiracy ? On which side? Open science with peer review and a vast body of publications in major journals? Or right wing , Big Fossil funded cranks. The choice is seemingly NOT yours because if you are politically right of centre then you can be made to feel bullied out, or if you are a sceptic by nature, the very nature of the sceptical PR headlines will appeal to your ahem very nature.....

The personal automobile is demonised as the big polluter, so sceptics who own  the v8 big block chevvy,  or Audi straight five TD are receptive to anything negative about el'cars now that they are practical and affordable, and wait for it, astoundingly fast to 100km-h.  Practical ? Well the average journey by a personal vehicle in the USA for example is the easy riding, freedom hunting, big country exploring figure of 32 km. El cars are immently suited to just that type of journey, espwecially with any form of conjestion or at light idling where el bil does no makey any CO2.

  iHere are some myths to slap down and spit back at the smarty pant sceptics.

1) el cars are not environmentally friendly or CO2 negative. part I-  In daily Use

Well there is truth in this, in countries which have a net Fossil production of electricity. In Germany or example, an el-bil produces MORE CO2 than an ideal model world modern diesel, and is aroind on par with a modern petrol. In Norway however, if every second car was an el-bil, then total charging requirement would be covered by a mere 2.5% of hydro-electric power produced domestically.

However we now talk about ideal world fossil cars and worst case countries or networka, like Germany who switched off their nuclear power post Tsunami. Cars use more fuel warming up and sitting on idle at traffic lights and bottle necks than their published best average mpg factory figures state. And of course Volkswagen-Audi Group have been caught with their pants down and hands on the naughty button by using data work aroinds to fake lower average emissions than actually produced.

Car manufacturers are of course the sceptics say, in on the el bil "scam" too. Well who is coercing them apart from thw consumer ? We are back to battery penis envy of thoase tasty tax breaks.

If you are not part of the solution to accelerated global climate catastrophe, you are part of the cause. Demand for overnight ampage for home car charging will make renewable sources even more sustainable economically, and a bettr bet than Fossil.

This is being sorted out - Kyoto was a big step, not a failure, and Paris 2015 is a major step forward as China and India realise they have vast domestic renewable potential outside the volatile oil-economy. No where else is planning so much Solar power than China.

2) El Bil is not environmentally friendly or CO2 neutral - part II manufatcure and lifecycle

Factoid alert - el bil use so much modern composites, exotic chemicals and complex components that they are silly bad for the environment anyway. Pointless. Get a dodge SUV instead.....

This is for most intents  solid pack of lies. Firstly manufacturers making these cars are In the environmental  business. all very aware of production 'footprint' and of course the costs of expensive energy intensive processes. For example BMW are ISO 14000 accredited and are building plant which aims to be energy self sufficent. Same way for Tesla. Knowing your energy use means knowing how to cut it and save money, not just save the world!

Fossil fuel cars are heavier and more of the steel or alloy componentry has a carbon footprint further back in the supply chain, so it is easy not to compare total footprint versus inhouse el-cars with their composites.

Conposites do use of course a lot of oil based products, but the el cars are designed now to be recyclable. Also new expoxies and plastics are being made from renewable plant sources whic will come on line to larger scale soon. There are more electronic related metals some of which are toxic, but so do ordinary cars , and they have electrical systems too

A far higher impact is in fossil cars servicing. El bil have virtually no drive chain maintenance compared to old style fossil cars. No oil to change either. Depending on the model, they wear tyres out less quickly due to better integrated traction control and use of torque.

Having touched on electricals versus mechanicals, now let uas tackle the last point that a sceptic will look at and say 'ha ha, you fool, the batteries don't last and are contain toxins"

3) El Cars have impractical battery lifecycles which are not environmentally friendly

Firstly el cars use membrane based lithium ion technology, old fahioned cars use the far more toxic lead-acid type. The lead acid type has a far shorter life span these daya because the are sealed "lifetime" units you cannot recondition.

The most conplex el bil batteries use lithium along with cobalt. Lithium is extremeøly abundant in sea water, and there are huge, easily expolited surface deposits in dried out salt lake basins around the world. It is not toxic for the environment globally. Cobalt is not toxic, and has been used for many years now as a substitute for lead shot in fishing and sports shooting due to this.

The lifecycle for batteries in CAR use at full ampage availability is about 8 - 10 years, with the major manufactruers now offering 8 year battery gaurantees. Even in say five years, the cost of replacing one is less than that of motor servicing, oil and lead acid batter changes over that timw for a fossil burning motor car. At ten years of average use, the battery can infact be taken out and used for many more years in a less amp demanding role such as for solar charged lighting for homes and small offices.

Of course we come back to the companies who make these things being just a tad interested in being honest and environmentally concerned. The batterries now being i stalled are designed to be fully recyclable, safely and within corporate systems.

Bad batteries are basucally a big old fib based on some scare tactics ---oooh, lithium--- and more qausi science and miasleading 'statistical' comparisons. The same as the rwat ofd the sceptics septic arguments in fact.

Ingen kommentarer: