#electricvehicles

A colossally poor comparison, as usual

As ever the Climate Council of Australia rarely gets numbers right. Now they are benchmarking electric cars against Norway as a “leader”. While all these wonderful benefits might accrue to Norwegians, Norway is a poor example to benchmark against. Not to mention Wilson Parking won’t be too keen to join the party without subsidies.

Norway is 5% of our land mass, 1/5th our population and new car sales around 12% of Australia. According to BITRE, Australia has 877,561km of road network which is 9x larger than Norway.

Norway has around 8,000 chargers countrywide. Installation of fast chargers runs around A$60,000 per charging unit on top of the $100,000 preparation of each station for the high load 480V transformer setup to cope with the increased loads.

Norway state enterprise, Enova, said it would install fast chargers every 50km of 7,500km worth of main road/highway.

Australia has 234,820km of highways/main roads. Fast chargers at every 50km like the Norwegians would require a minimum of 4,700 charging stations across Australia. Norway commits to a minimum of 2 fast chargers and 2 standard chargers per station.

The problem is our plan for 570,000 cars per annum is 10x the number of EVs sold in Norway, requiring 10x the infrastructure.

While it is safe to assume that Norway’s stock of electric cars grows, our cumulative sales on Shorten’s dud election plan would have required far greater numbers. So let’s do the maths (note this doesn’t take into account the infrastructure issues of rural areas where diesel generators power some of the charging stations…shhhh):

14,700 stations x $100,000 per station to = $1,470,000,000

4,700 stations x 20 fast chargers @ A$60,000 = $5,640,000,000 (rural)

4,700 stations x 20 slow chargers @ A$9,000 = $846,000,000 (rural)

10,000 stations x 5 fast chargers @ A$60,000 = $3,000,000,000 (urban)

570,000 home charging stations @ $5,500 per set = $3,135,000,000 (this is just for 2030)

Grand Total: A$14,091,000,000

Good to see the Climate Council on message with thoroughly poorly thought out comparisons. That’s the problem with virtue signaling. It rarely looks at total costs. Never mind. Tokenism to them is worth it. Not to mention a Swedish study funded by the left leaning government in Stockholm which showed the production of the batteries to power EVs did the equivalent of 150,000km in CO2 before it has left the showroom. That’s not woke.

Virtue Signaling Wallabies should look at their sponsors before lecturing the rest of us on climate change

Pocock.png

Wallabies flanker David Pocock, along with teammates Bernard Foley and Dane Haylett-Petty, have announced their partnership with a scheme that aims to compensate for the carbon emissions associated with travel. Woke.

Why aren’t they rushing straight to Wallabies CEO Raelene Castle and demanding that she jettison Qantas & Land Rover from the sponsorship list? Surely offsetting carbon emissions is best served by trying to get widespread media coverage to push legislation to ban petrol & diesel SUVs and restrict air travel.

Surely what better way to announce one’s true commitment to the climate emergency than refusing to endorse or play for a team where the very companies that violate the climate change movement’s goals are emblazoned on their sportswear? Sadly multi-million dollar contracts are clearly more important to these players to protect than saving the planet. Telling.

The Guardian noted, “musician Heidi Lenffer, from Australian band Cloud Control, launched FEAT. (Future Energy Artists), an initiative that would allow Australian musicians to invest in a solar farm in south-east Queensland…Lenffer was concerned about the carbon emissions generated by her group’s touring schedule and what she saw as her own contribution to the climate emergency.”

Notably, Lenffer had asked “climate scientists in the field, and connected with Dr Chris Dey from Areté Sustainability. Dey crunched the numbers for Cloud Control’s two-week tour, playing 15 clubs and theatres from Byron Bay to Perth…He found that it would produce about 28 tonnes of emissions.

28 tonnes of emissions in an Aussie context would equate to 0.00000509% of Australia’s emissions which are 0.00001345% of the earth’s atmosphere. So the global carbon footprint of her Byron to Perth tour would total 0.000000000068473%. Offsetting that will hardly be worth the efforts gone to working out the impact. None. She should double the scope of the tour and it would have no meaningful damage on the climate.

Carbon offsetting is such a wonderful idea. It essentially takes the form of commercialising hypocrisy. Effectively offsetting one’s emissions is like asking someone else to quit smoking on your behalf. How do you benefit? Don’t forget that Sir Elton John justified Meghan & Harry’s use of his private jet by offsetting on Carbon Offset which allowed him to technically pay for those emissions for the grand price of £8 return for the couple. Pocock’s trip to Japan would cost £38.70 return. That will be enough to pay for a sign to hang on the front of the FEAT solar plant.

Lenffer shouldn’t feel bad though. Climate alarmist, Bono of U2 once bragged that one of his global tours beat out The Rolling Stones in terms of trucks and 747s used to ferry all the equipment around because that’s how you measure a band’s popularity!

Maybe the players should strike in Japan and superglue themselves to a steel plant in Kobe. They best be careful, Japanese police can lock them up without charge for 21 days. They might risk missing the finals…surelythey wouldn’t want to put their careers behind their sanctimony.

If they still have pangs of guilt they can look up Extinction Rebellion’s guidelines for hypocrisy. Apparently it is justified in their view because they want the changes but have little choice but to consume in a fossil fuel world.

A deadly problem: should we ban SUVs from our cities?

Activists, including one wearing a Angela Merkel mask, outside the Frankfurt International Auto, holding signs reading ‘gas guzzling vehicles off the road’ and ‘Stop petrol and diesel’.

More junk journalism from The Guardian. Why can’t the paper make sensible commentary on the auto industry? Essentially it pushes a narrative that we should ban SUVs, a long term growth market for automakers because they advertise the segment too much. Shame on trying to act in the interests of shareholders. The article encourages the movement to push for a ban of SUVs in cities. Why? The socialisation of transport!

The article makes the early assertion that passengers are 11% more likely to die in an SUV accident than a regular passenger car. Unfortunately, it cited an article written 15 years ago. In that time, SUVs have evolved leaps and bounds. A far greater proportion of SUVs are made using a monocoque chassis as opposed to the old ladder frames. Even those SUVs with ladder chassis hold 5-star safety NHTSA ratings in 2019:

2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee – 5 star (ladder) vs 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee – 3 star

2019 Ford Expedition – 5 star (ladder) – 2004 Ford Expedition – 5 star

2019 GMC Acadia – 5 star (ladder) – 2007 GMC Acadia – 4 star

2019 Toyota RAV4 – 5 star (monocoque) – 2004 Toyota RAV4 – 4 star

2019 Mazda CX-9 – 5 star (monocoque) – 2007 Mazda CX-9 – 4 star.

Some may recall in the early 2000s when the Ford Explorer/Firestone tyre rollover incident killed 261 people. Since then, carmakers have installed so many safety items – passive and active. Automatic braking, lane departure detection, forward collision warning, electronic brakeforce distribution (which prevents rollovers). SUVs are safer than ever, including pedestrian facing features.

Never mind the huge leap in safety. Let’s shame the automakers and buyers instead.

The Guardian noted, “In Germany, in 2018 they spent more on marketing SUVs than on any other segment; they actually spent as much as they spent on other segments together” says Stephan von Dassel, the district mayor of Berlin-Mitte. “This is not some accident that people suddenly are really into these cars, they are heavily pushed into the market.”

Wow, so carmakers actually made a sensible advertising budget allocations and convinced new buyers to voluntarily select their SUVs. Those wicked capitalists. They should be burnt at the stake for being in touch with their customers. Perhaps politicians could learn from the carmakers about being in touch with their constituents?

The Guardian then noted the following,

In Europe, sales of SUVs leapt from 7% of the market in 2009 to 36% in 2018. They are forecast to reach nearly 40% by 2021. While pedestrian deaths are falling across Europe, they are not falling as fast as deaths of those using other modes of transport.

So even though the sales of these vehicles have skyrocketed, pedestrian deaths are falling. Reading the paper published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, stated

“A total of 5,987 pedestrians were killed in crashes in 2016, accounting for 16 percent of all crash fatalities. The number of pedestrians killed each year has declined 20 percent since 1975…”

Surprisingly, The Guardian waits till the end to point the finger at the pet issue facing SUVs – emissions.

“Transport, primarily road transport, is responsible for 27% of Europe’s carbon emissions. A decade ago the EU passed a law with a target to reduce carbon emissions to 95g/km by 2021 but a recent report by campaign organisation Transport and Environment highlights what is calls it “pitiful progress”. “Sixteen months from before the target comes into force carmakers are less than halfway towards their goals,” the report adds. The car industry faces hefty fines in Europe of €34bn in a few months for failing to meet emissions targets.”

Related image

How is it that diesel engines, the increasingly preferred powerplant in SUVs, have had emissions cut 97% over the last 25 years? That is monumental progress.

Yet why have legislators tried to ban petrol and diesel cars and looking to force adoption of dirtier EVs which have done 150,000km equivalent CO2 emissions before leaving the showroom? Because ideology distorts reality. Even Schaeffler AG, an auto supplier, admitted it is almost impossible for automakers to comply with the different demands of over 200 cities in Europe with EV rules. No common standards and the quest of woke city councils trying to outdo each other on being climate-friendly. Then governments need to consider the 5% of total tax revenue that fill the coffers they would be giving up, although already in the US, Illinois is looking to impose a $1,000 a year EV tax.

Shouldn’t the EU and other countries face the realities that consumers (taxpayers) like the utility these SUVs provide for their individual needs over and above saving the planet? Shouldn’t politicians realise that consumers make conscious decisions when making the second largest purchase for the household?

One can absolutely bet that if some maker came out with a Hummer sized EV, these cities that want to ban SUVs from driving in them would grant the monster truck an exemption and special parking zones.

Julia Poliscanova, director of clean vehicles and e-mobility at Transport and Environment, says regulators must step in to force car manufacturers to produce and sell zero-emission and suitably sized vehicles, for example, small and light cars in urban areas.”

What if consumers don’t want to buy small and light cars? Force car makers to produce cars their customers don’t want? That is a winning strategy. If carmakers must sell zero-emission vehicles, why on God’s earth are politicians with absolutely no engineering pedigree dictating technology to the experts? Why not let necessity be the mother of invention? If carmakers can get fossil fuel-powered vehicles to be zero-emission and keep their brand DNA at the same time, imagine the billions that could be saved on reckless waste rolling out often unreliable charging infrastructure? Maybe then carmakers could build cars its customers wanted and make money to literally fuel the economy. Politicians would still be able to virtue signal! Win-win.

Maybe the modus operandi is to socialise transport. Poliscanova said, “Smart urban policies are also key to drive consumers towards clean and safe modes…Mayors should reduce space and parking spots for private cars and reallocate it to people and shared clean mobility services.

That is the ticket – force everyone off the road. That is a sure vote winner!

The thrill of the charge

CM has often made reference to the uselessness of EV police vehicles. The idea is that a fossil-fueled vehicle is ready to go ASAP. This radio transcript from Freemont Police in San Jose serves to highlight the biggest flaw of using EVs. When an emergency is in progress will, “sorry, in our quest to save the planet you’ll have to wait another 3 hours before we can attend to your domestic violence dispute. Bear with us. The car is on the charger” cut it?

Note the police in the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria has selected Teslas for police cars.

Yet we already have so many beta test examples to reject the use of EVs.

In 2016, the LAPD bought $10m worth of BMW i3s to show its commitment to climate abatement. Sadly, the cars went largely unused as they were unsuited for police work.

CBS reported,

LAPD Deputy Chief Jorge Villegas said of the purchase, “Money well worth itIt’s all a part of saving the Earth, going green … quite frankly, to try and save money for the community and the taxpayers.”

But sources say some personnel are reluctant to use the electric cars because they can only go 80-100 miles on a charge. And the mileage logs we obtained seem to back that up.

From April 2016 when the project started through August 2017, we found most of the electric cars have only been used for a few thousand miles…And a handful are sitting in the garage with only a few hundred on them.

One in service since May 27, 2016, had just 400 miles on it!

That’s an average use of 6 miles a week!

With the monthly lease payment of a little more than $418, this one costs taxpayers over $15 a mile to use!… It just doesn’t make any sense!”

CM one posted this question to someone from the NSW St Johns Ambulance with respect to discussions about EV ambulances. He said unequivocally,

We have Webasto heaters in our cars in the colder areas. Running off the diesel they can operate 24/7 if needed. If we don’t have them some of our equipment doesn’t work like our tympanic thermometers, the blood glucose reader and then there is the problem of having cold fluids in the car. This is a problem if we are giving them an IV because we can make a patient hypothermic if it’s cold. Then there’s just the general environment inside the cab. It needs to be warm in winter.

That is the point. Emergency services need to be able to operate on call. 5 minutes to fill up with gasoline or diesel means that efficient utilisation and dispatch is guaranteed for at least 500km+.

If end users have to weigh having their lives saved or rescue the planet, it is a no brainer which they will choose. We already know that Tesla P100Ds have done 167,000km in CO2 before they’ve left the factory. “To Protect and serve after a fast charge” should be emblazoned on the doors.

Spectacular own goal scored by our elitist academics

Image result for marxist university poster

The beauty of those that wrote this open letter supporting the Extinction Rebellion throws up some very enlightening facts. Read it and weep. Not the letter – the stats.

Perhaps the most hilarious signatory to the letter is Matthew Flinders of Flinders University. Unless the university website has another Matthew Flinders listed as an active member, our esteemed explorer seems to have navigated his way back to life…simply adding to the total lack of credibility of the cabal of 268 academics who believe they have some sort of intellectual superiority over us. If one ever wanted proof of our judiciary leaning hard left, 12% of the people that signed this document were in law-related fields.

Yet, why couldn’t they sign up a majority of scientists in the profession of the very climate change emergency they wish to sanctimoniously lecture us on? And we are paying billions to these schools to educate us? Hmmm.

Many of the woke academia come from fields such as stand up comedy, poetry, arts/education, sports management, archaeology, LatAm studies, sex, health and society, social services, veterinary biology, culture, gender, racism…are you catching the drift of those supporting XR? Even Monash University’s Campus Operations Manager and Telephony Application Administrator signed it! Wonderful individuals but should we hold our educators to such high standards when anyone’s opinion will do?

Eerily, over 90% of the signatories do not appear to be renowned experts in teaching science, much less climate science. Which means, why weren’t the scientists in these universities willing to commit their names to a cause that fits their ideology? Who needs them when one faculty member from Monash University deals with ‘Imaginative Education‘?

61% of the signatories were from universities situated in the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria. Within that, 65 (more than all those that signed from NSW universities = 63) of those 164 names from Victoria were from RMIT, the school where the lecturer offered bonus points for sending selfies from the school climate strike. Precious little free thought one imagines.  Monash had 44. So two universities in Melbourne made up 109 of the 268 Add La Trobe University and half of the signatories are from Victoria. Premier Dan Andrews must be proud.

Tinonee Pym, a research assistant at the Swinburne University of Technology in NSW helped pen,

C’mon, no one wants a dick pic’: exploring the cultural framings of the ‘dick pic’ in contemporary online publics

Undoubtedly this research has only certified climate science credentials at Swinburne University to convince sceptics of the validity of XR.

Southern Cross University was the only group of signatories where the majority had a connection to a faculty related to climate science.

On reflection we should be exceptionally happy these woke academics have opened themselves up to how empty their rhetoric is. The overwhelming majority of signatories are from liberal arts backgrounds. Surely with the aggregate IQ of 268 people they could have realized the flaw in pushing a cause where the qualified people that can prosecute the argument for them are conspicuously absent.

We need a Royal Commission on our education system. The gaping holes in standards are self-evident. This is an unmitigated clown show.

School Climate Strikers demand McDonalds

Good to see that kids are still kids. Before demanding we selfish adults take climate action immediately, they obviously need to fuel up on McDonalds, a brand that represents the complete anti Christ of their cause. Dipping nuggets into plastic BBQ sauce bowls, eating from cardboard hamburger boxes and drinking from single use waxed paper cups and plastic straws all stuck in a disposable paper bag.

Tells us all we need to know. The saddest thing is these kids are blissfully unaware of their own hypocrisy.

It is more likely that a McDonalds diet will kill them way before Mother Nature does.

The profile of an arsonist

Well, well, well. Some school kids in Queensland have been busted for arson. While the “blame everything on climate change” brigade keeps making links to global warming and bushfires, the truth is that global area consumed by bushfire in the last 18 years has fallen 24%.

The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) notes that 85% of fires are either accidentally, suspiciously or deliberately lit. The US Department of the Interior data shows 90%. So it is consistent with Aussie pyromania.

The AIC notes, “most arsonists are white male, mid-20s, patchy employment record, often above average intelligence, but poor academic achievement and poor social development skills…56% of convicted structural arsonists and 37% of bushfire arsonists in NSW had a prior conviction for a previous offence.

The AIC might need to lower the age bracket to include brainwashed school kids spoon fed propaganda by activist teachers.

If the left really wanted to add to the list of climate change causality they could add white privilege to the growing excuses, sorry proof:

Pets

Cannibalism

Toxic Masculinity

Gender

Angela Merkel’s shakes

CM’s bus was late today. Maybe climate change is to blame. Or maybe Russian interference…both!?