#unipcc

Why haven’t climate scientists been jailed for fraud?

IMG_0637.JPG

Evil banksters have been burnt at the stake over the last 30 years. Some would argue that not enough of these swindlers saw the inside of a jail cell. Maybe. Still many have faced multi million dollar fines, two decade prison terms and barred from ever operating again in the financial industry. Yet time and again climate scientists who receive millions in funding to scare us with fraudulent reports never face any repercussions. In fact many end up suing for libel believing their reputations have been tarnished by exposutenof the truth.

In a sense the taxpayer money used to bailout the financial system is not much different from the billions being plowed recklessly into energy policy based on wonky research. Even government sponsored climate organizations (NOAA, NASA, BoM, UNIPCC) have fallen for the sins of huge grants and recycling updated bogus studies by fiddling previous data to keep their Ponzi scheme going. Junket travel has been a big feature in the recent exposures of NASA and BOM. Can’t be seen missing the conference in the Maldives!

So again, why haven’t any scientists “busted” for manipulating data been charged for fraud? If it is ok to send bankers to jail for white collar crimes, why not scientists? Because they can wrap their malfeasance inside models that are sold as well intentioned studies to saving the planet! Who can prove their did predictions might not come to pass?

WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years based on nine counts of conspiracy, securities fraud and false regulatory filings to the tune of $11bn. Enron’s former CEO Jeffrey Skilling was convicted on 35 counts of fraud, insider trading and other crimes related to Enron and sentenced to 24 years prison and fined $45 million. Madoff got 150 years, Stanford got 110 years jail time.

Will whistleblower scalps found guilty of fraud be charged, fined and jailed? It is highly unlikely. They’ll claim anomalies in data and forecasting is indeed difficult.

In any event if there was a Climate Science watchdog that monitored fraud (not to mention massive conflicts of interest which are mentioned in previous pieces) like the SEC how much fraud would scientists try to get away with? Why not have a body which mandates funding sources to check for potential conflicts of interest? That way dishonest scientists would be restricted in their movements and those with legitimate findings wouldn’t see their work drowned out by the rogue elements,

Interestingly most of the court related activities in the scientific fields have been exposed scientists looking to sue for libel after emails proving the fraud were leaked.

Yet scientists don’t have to worry. The media has little interest in chasing something that might ruin their narrative. Even worse they’ll cite scientists (Australia’s former climate commissioner Tim Flannery comes to mind) who have made countless dud predictions (in many cases the complete opposite has occurred ) and act as though it’s gospel.

Once again climate science is a religion. No wonder it’s got so much protection. Hence the vows of silence in the halls of the scientific church. They’re untouchable. However that by deduction makes me a heretic.

Bureau of Meteorology also in on the junk(et) climate science

IMG_0634.JPG

Below is a piece from The Australian today on the woeful behaviour at the Bureau of Meteorology. The work of yet another one of these venerable institutions (e.g. NASA, NOAA) which we are told to respect without question. Turns out that last year the BoM spent $7.8mn on travel expenses or just shy of $5,000 per head. No doubt flying on taxpayer coin to exotic locations to fight the cause of global warming. As written yesterday a whistleblower at NASA claimed that climate change junkets are more important than the science. Why wouldn’t you fly around the world promoting baseless fear in order to keep your frequent flyer miles up?

Maurice Newman writes,

“Enough is enough. The Bureau of Meteorology yet again stands charged with fabricating temperature records.

This time, thanks to the diligence of scientist Jennifer Marohasy, the bureau has been caught red-handed regulating temperatures to keep them above a predetermined minimum — at least for two NSW automatic weather stations, one located in Goulburn, the other at Thredbo.

The BOM initially admitted it had set an arbitrary limit of minus 10C for the Goulburn station, but then changed the story to the equipment being “not fit for purpose” — because it got too cold — even though the same instruments are used in the Antarctic. The actual temperature measured was a record July low for Goulburn, at minus 10.4C, so why, if the equipment was faulty, didn’t the bureau leave a blank instead of rounding up to minus 10C?

Allowing the bureau to defend itself, Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg called for an internal review.

In 77 pages, it acknowledged that, indeed, Goulburn and Thredbo were governed and, minimum limits were set. This was blamed on a filter being installed into these weather stations 15 and 10 years ago respectively. No limits were imposed on maximum temperatures. Yet implicitly, we are asked to believe that the historical temperature record has not been compromised.

Before filters were installed, Goulburn recorded minus 10.9C in August 1994 and, in that cold winter, Thredbo went down to minus 13.6C and nearby Charlotte Pass to minus 23C on June 29, a record low for Australia. Charlotte Pass weather station was decommissioned in March 2015.

Ironically, the bureau’s newest location, near White Cliffs in NSW, home to some of the nation’s hottest temperatures, last August recorded minus 62.5C, due to a “hardware fault”.

A BOM-friendly technical forum, part of former minister Greg Hunt’s plan to buy time and “kill off” a proposed Abbott government probe, has foreshadowed “the need for a major revision of the dataset”.

Predictably, though, it did not address specific claims by Marohasy and others, and seems satisfied the bureau’s dataset is well maintained. Really? This may fool ministers, but for a sceptical public, time has run out.

British author and journalist Christopher Booker says: “When future generations look back on the global warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records — on which the entire (global warming) panic ultimately rested — were systematically ‘adjusted’ to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.” He says this practice has been observed by experts around the world and “raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface temperature record”.

He is joined by John Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program and responsible for all weather and climate research, who testified before congress that “some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.”

Take the article NASA published in 1999 showing 1934 was the US’s warmest year. Across the ensuing decade, by cooling the past and warming the present, 1998 jumped five places to become the warmest. Whistleblower John Bates, recently retired principal scientist at US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, described how his agency manipulated data to manufacture a non-existent increase in global temperatures.

Why should Australia be any different? We remember the Climategate emails from despairing programmer Ian Harris: “Getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data, so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references”.

Science writer and blogger Joanne Nova has raised scandal after scandal concerning the BOM’s record-keeping.

She refers to historic data being destroyed, and the influence of adjustments on Australia’s warming trend. She reports private auditors advising the bureau of almost a “thousand days where minimum temperatures were higher than the maxes”.

Taxpayers outlaying $1 million a day for reliable temperature data deserve better than this.

When Australia’s bureau transitioned from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors more than 20 years ago, to ensure readings from these devices were comparable with the old thermometers and complied with World Meteorological Organisation guidelines, parallel studies were undertaken at multiple sites.

A key conclusion was that readings from the new electronic sensors needed to be averaged over one to 10 minutes. However, rather than implement practices consistent with their finding, the bureau records one-second extremes (or noise), which can be announced as new record highs.

Inherent inconsistency aside, this calls into question whether Australian data is WMO compliant. Marohasy discovered this as part of her investigation and believes it is more damning than even the imposition of minimum limits, as it affects the recording of temperatures from all 695 automatic stations.

Marohasy is a respected scientist, known for her forensic work. While attempts will be made to dismiss her evidence as an arcane academic skirmish over recording methodology, it is a smoking gun that threatens the integrity of global temperature records.

It affects every Australian. It strikes at the heart of renewable energy policies. Globally, trillions of taxpayer dollars are at stake.

The government has a duty to inform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, should it have sufficient grounds, that the bureau is not complying with WMO guidelines. Sooner or later, closed eyes must open.

Now, with Marohasy’s evidence adding to the credible findings of other experts, there can be no confidence in any future official assurances. Further delay of a proper independent audit, which includes dissidents, can be interpreted only as a cover-up. One way or another, the truth will out.

Blowing the whistle on NASA over climate data

IMG_0884

Jo Nova has an excellent piece exposing the scams inside NASA with regards to their climate models and allegations of misappropriated taxpayer funds. She notes whistleblower Dr Duane Thresher who worked seven years at NASA GISS “describes a culture of self serving rent-seekers, mismanagement and incompetence. These are the top experts in the climate science field that we are supposed to accept without questioning. Those who say they are working to “save the planet” care more about their junckets than they do about the data or their “best” model…NASA GISS’s most advanced climate model is run from the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Thresher recounts a story from someone on the inside:“NASA GISS’s climate model — named Model E, an intentional play on the word “muddle” — is called the “jungle” because it is so badly coded.” I know this to be true from my own extensive experience programming it (I tried to fix as much as I could…)…”

Of course I can hear the alarmists cry  that Thresher is a ‘discredited’ scientist as they do for anyone who disagrees,. Much in the spirit of the Harvard piece I put out last week, venerable organizations like NASA (which has put humans into space) carry almost untouchable status. This is the problem. Do we just suck up aything we are told by these organizations or do we need to add an extra layer of skepticism because of the ‘reputation’?

It is truly hard to imagine that the brain’s trust that makes up an organization that can launch rockets and space shuttles can be guilty of such sloppiness. Such whistleblowing will  lead to a congressional testimony which will bring many things to light. It wasn’t long ago that NOAA was subpoenaed after a whistleblower said the group had rushed a report ahead of the Paris climate summit with obviously fiddled data that fit a narrative. NOAA refused to hand over the emails for months on the grounds of privacy  when the head of House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith explained the reality that they worked for the government and had no choice.

Smith noted, “According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy…I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’

Once again whenever people try to use the ‘credibility’ argument to sway debate, there is a treasure trove of evidence to show in this case that it is politics not science. With billions if not trillions at stake, such fraud has not resulted in any of these climate scientists being fined, deregistered or jailed for the very things that have happened to people in the financial sector. What is the difference I wonder? Maybe because the government has been in on the act…

Even Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology has been recently exposed for divisive behaviour in temperature measurement. Putting hard floors on cold temperatures with no such restrictions on warm weather. We’re supposed to trust these bodies? More on that tomorrow.

Well as the old adage goes, “there are lies, more lies and then there are statistics”

100% EVs from 2040? Don’t bet on it

20401

PDF REPORT HERE

It might look fashionable but don’t fall for all EV cars from 2040

It isn’t a big surprise to see national governments virtue signal over climate abatement. The UK swiftly followed French plans to ban the sale of petrol/diesel cars from 2040. However, let’s get real. Government proactivity on climate change may appear serious but the activities of the auto industry are generally a far better indicator of their lobby power. As a car analyst at the turn of the century, how the excitement of alternatives to internal combustion engines was all the rage. Completely pie in the sky assumptions about adoption rates. In 1999 industry experts said that by 2010 electric vehicles (EV) would be 10% of all units sold. Scroll forward to 2017 and they are near as makes no difference 1% of total vehicle sales.

Volkswagen makes an interesting case study. After being caught red handed cheating diesel emissions regulations (a perfect example of how little VW must believe in man-made global warming) they were in full compliance at the 2017 Frankfurt Motor Show telling the world of their $80bn investment in EVs out to 2030, 300 new EV models comprising 3 million units in 25 years of which 1.5mn would be sold in China.  3 million cars would be c.30% of VW’s total output today.

We cannot ignore the huge tax revenues governments generate from fuel excise. Fuel duties in the UK are expected to fetch around £35bn in 2017 or c.5% of total tax receipts. In Germany that number is around €40bn, the third largest intake after income tax and GST.

On top of this, massive electric infrastructure will be required in many countries. Not just installing more charging points but meeting higher electricity demand with new power generation to replace aging infrastructure and the push by many governments to install unreliable renewable energy. Governments relying on other countries for back-up power is fraught with risk. Yet it seems countries like the UK aren’t properly prepared to meet the excess demand they are trying to force on the hand of consumers by loading a grid they can’t sensibly ensure can be charged. Battery technology will improve but whether commerciality can be achieved is another question.

We should also think of how EVs, which are being pushed as the backbone of self-driven cars, affect the insurance industry and the auto makers. After-all if a driver puts his/her car into auto-pilot and the safety systems fail to avoid an accident which results in death/injury either of the driver, passenger or pedestrian is the auto maker at fault? This will require legislation to define responsibility. This will also need to be extended to the potential of ‘hacking’ autonomous cars where willful remote action could lead to deaths. Emergency service providers have made it clear that traditionally powered vehicles to function properly.

Cars need to meet customer utility not just be electric for EV’s sake

What governments must also consider with car purchases is utility. Why is it that SUVs remain one of the most popular vehicle classes around? In the US, SUV sales have surged from 16.4% in 1980 to around 36% today. Could it be that the man who likes to sail needs a V8 Toyota Land Cruiser to haul his 7000lb boat. While he might like a Tesla Model S with 22” rims it can’t manage even half of the Toyota’s towing capacity. Could it be that a mother with 3 kids who often takes her parents on trips to the beach needs a minivan? Have they considered the single bachelor who wants a BMW sports car? Or the DINKs couple who want a Range Rover because they love to ski in the winter. In niche sectors, it may not be profitable for car companies to fill those segments with EVs.

204012

Source:   www.afdc.energy.gov/data/

 Has the auto industry been properly consulted?

Have the UK & French governments consulted the auto industry? It wouldn’t seem so. Having a zero emissions target is one thing. Why not tell auto makers they need to get to zero emissions but give them complete technological freedom to hit those targets. If the auto makers see necessity as the mother of invention, who are regulators to dictate the technology? If an internal combustion engine can achieve zero emissions does that not meet the goal? There is a very important reason for this.

Talk to an automaker in private and they will admit they are against full EV because it ruins the most fundamental part of their DNA – the drivetrain. When you read all the blurb on automakers’ brochures what is the one area they can milk consumers? Power and performance. Mercedes can sell you a base model C180 for a little bit of profit and absolutely gouge out your eyeballs for the top-end high performance C63 which will vaporize your wallet with the options list. Auto makers don’t want to go full EV for this very reason. EVs will turn cars into the equivalent of an iPhone vs. a Samsung Galaxy. Brand and style with very little differentiation outside of packaging.

A 2014 study conducted by Penton Research produced this telling chart about how they aim to meet government fuel efficiency regulations by 2025.

Fig.2: What have automakers in the US been focusing on to improve economy

2040123.png

As Fig.2 shows, automakers want to lighten materials to boost economy. Electrifying the vehicle ranked third. This also included hybrids. As this was an American survey it isn’t surprising to see the low weight of diesels as a solution.

Companies such as Daikyo Nishikawa (4246) have seen strong growth driven by the shift toward plastic panels which are lighter and cheaper to produce. The Mazda Roadster is full of supplier’s plastic panels for cost effective weight reduction. Daikyo Nishikawa has also managed to cut out the painting process by a technology that allows the paint to be impregnated into the plastic panel with finish quality properties as good if not superior to steel

Fuel economy – which vehicle is burning?

Scroll toward to fuel economy. The Federal Highway Administration looked at average annual fuel consumption. Taking a simple sum of Class 8 trucks, annual sales which comprise around 1.5% of passenger cars, they consume 42% the amount of equivalent fuel. While US haulage distances are larger than those in the EU, the relative gaps to passenger cars is similar. Put simply trucks relative impact is 27x higher than automobiles.

20403

Source:   http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/

Sensible EV subsidies?

Take California’s new $3bn plan to support EV sales – effectively a deeply Democrat state fritting away tax dollars to subsidize the wealthy. The poor chap who has to drive a 20-yo petrol pick-up truck because he can’t afford a new one is probably paying taxes to subsidize the guy who pays him to mow his lawn to buy that Tesla. It is a serious question.

Have governments considered that consumers are already clearly showing their belief in ‘climate change abatement’ by the cars they buy? When the subsidies were torn from Tesla in HK, sales went to zero while in Danish Tesla registrations fell 94%. Isn’t that evidence enough of how these vehicles are only tax avoidance devices, not the action of deep seated ecologists?

A reminder of the risks of green subsidies in other sectors

So before running for madder green schemes to save the planet perhaps governments should remind themselves of past failures. Moreover, when governments get heavily involved in subsidizing industries it generally results in disaster by creating massive oversupply like we saw in solar and wind industries. Spain perhaps provides the strongest evidence of this. Around 2004 it wanted to get 1GW of solar under its feed in tariff over 4 years. Instead it got 4GW in 1 year meaning its budget exploded 16x and it had €120bn in tax liabilities over the course of the promise. In the end, the government reneged. So much for the assurance of government run programs.

Germany’s failure in bio-fuel legislation last decade

The German authorities went big for bio-fuels in 2008 forcing gas stands to install E-10 pumps to cut CO2. However as many as 3 million cars at the time weren’t equipped to run on it and as a result consumers abandoned it leaving many gas stands with shortages of the petrol and gluts of E-10 which left the petrol companies liable to huge fines (around $630mn) for not hitting government targets.

Claude Termes, a member of European Parliament from the Green Party in Luxembourg said in 2008 that “legally mandated biofuels were a dead end…the sooner It disappears, the better…my preference is zero…policymakers cannot close their eyes in front of the facts. The European Parliament is increasingly skeptical of biofuels.” Even ADAC told German drivers to avoid using E10 when traveling in other parts of continental Europe.

The 2017 Frankfurt (Virtue Signaling) Motor Show

The Frankfurt Motor Show this year was used to introduce a truckload of EVs across all brands to show automakers had caught the enviro bug.

Fig.4: Frankfurt Motor Show 2017 – roll out the EVs

20404.png

As mentioned earlier, VW said it aims to be 30% EV by 2042. That is undoubtedly a realistic goal when assessing production cost, development, infrastructure roll out and ultimately consumer demand. While the UK and France may have drawn a line in the sand, reality is that Westminster and Paris are at the mercy of the manufacturers and the supply chain to meet the ambitious target.

Our contention is that these targets get peeled back and pushed out. We have seen many delays in the US Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the NHTSA began the development of regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles in 2007.

The standard for passenger cars had stayed at 27.5 mpg from 1990 until 2007. In 2009, the government set a fuel economy standard of 34.1 mpg for cars and light trucks by 2016. In 2012, it set a new target of 54.5 mpg by 2025. Trump is looking to push out the April 2018 deadline to hit 49.7mpg and the 2025 potentially out to 2030.

A study commissioned by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers estimates the cost of compliance to EPA regulations is around $1,249 per vehicle.

Below we see the evolution of power trains in the US market in the last decade by number of new model introductions. Note that the EV slice includes the Plug-in hybrid EVs (PHEV). Hybrid shares have grown while petrol and diesel have shrunk relative.

20405.png

Source:   http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/

The dangers of autonomous driving

So much faith is put in the hands of computers nowadays but the idea of driverless cars is still fraught with danger.  Car & Driver reported;

Researchers at the University of Washington have shown they can get computer vision systems to misidentify road signs using nothing more than stickers made on a home printer. UW computer-security researcher Yoshi Kohno described an attack algorithm that uses printed images stuck on road signs. These images confuse the cameras on which most self-driving vehicles rely. In one example, explained in a document uploaded to the open-source scientific-paper site arXiv last week, small stickers attached to a standard stop sign…using an attack disguised as graffiti, researchers were able to get computer vision systems to misclassify stop signs at a 73.3 percent rate, causing them to be interpreted as Speed Limit 45 signs.”

One step beyond tricking on-board systems as aforementioned, a full hack of a car has far more risky implications. NHTSA launched an investigation when Chrysler cars could be manipulated to hijack the brakes and accelerator. It took five years for Chrysler to fix the full takeover hack and required a 1.4 million vehicle recall.

Which then begs the question of ultimate liability for insurance companies.

Fig. 7: tricking the driverless detection systems

IMG_0804
Source:  University of Washington

Insurance payouts versus auto maker negligence

It is not too hard to envisage the scenario where a sophisticated hack of an autonomously driven vehicle causes death or injury. We do not have to look back far to the Bridgestone/ Firestone-Ford Explorer tyre blow-out scandal which ended up in the deaths of over 200 people. Besides the negative brand image associated with the recall and investigation it is quite possible to see insurance companies refuse accident payouts due to the flaws in the auto-pilot systems.

Car companies could end up being on the hook for billions if these vehicles are compromised. While the software in the cars can always improve there is no reason to suggest the hackers get more creative and sophisticated.

Big Brother

While one might think autonomous vehicles are the future, consider the privacy implications. Your car will be remotely controlled. Your data of where you travel, when you travel and what you do will become available.

Do people wish to have such tracking in their lives? Were such data hacked, thieves could use the data to work out when you were out of the house, where you shop, bank and where your kids go to school. Think of how many post to social media where they are going on holiday and what not. Many are already loose with public information to then have applications and systems that monitor your every move.

Even if it sounds like conspiracy theory, this is something few have considered.

Emergency Services are not convinced by EV

What about emergency services vehicles? Have these governments considered the impact of having reliable heat exchangers (from combustion engines) to power lifesaving equipment in ambulances? It is easy to believe politicians have had no such discussions with the people that are most affected. An Australian paramedic made the issue clear,

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 these 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.”

What about LCVs? Will light commercial vehicles be exempt? Just watch the auto makers classify their SUVs as LCVs and dodge the rules. The Hummer is a perfect example of this. It was so heavy that it managed to be excluded from the passenger vehicle qualifications on fuel economy. So auto makers did not need to include it in their CAFÉ calculations.

Why is government forcing adoption of EVs?

It stands to reason that to question those with the least idea on the technology being the ones trying to dictate the future. The zero emissions appeal of EVs is an effective virtue signaling device to voters. However if we look at Euro emissions regulations introduced since 1993, one can see the progress made in the last 20 years. Euro 6 started in 2015. For diesel particulate matter, emissions are 97% down on Euro 1 (1993) and NOx down by 95% over the same period, Fig.8.

Fig.8: Diesel emissions cut – Euro 1~6 – 97% lower in 20 years

20406.png

Source: Delphi

By sheer virtue of the scale of emissions reduction in 20 years for internal combustion engines, why not charge the auto makers to hit a zero emissions target by 2040 in any form they choose provided it is met. All auto makers should be given the power to go full electric of their own volition. Why not allow the spirit of innovation to come to the fore and allow auto makers to defend their brands in ways where they take the risk?

In 1999 I had the same discussion with Beru AG (now Borg Warner), a German diesel glow plug maker. The CEO said that in 20 years the ability to cut emissions by almost 100% would be achievable. Indeed he was correct.

Taking into account life cycle costs of EVs

Unfortunately depending on what a country’s actual electricity generation mix is the charging of EVs can have a larger impact on total emissions.

The IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute was commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency to investigate lithium-ion batteries climate impact from a life cycle perspective.

The report showed that battery manufacturing leads to high emissions. For every kilowatt hour of storage capacity in the battery generated emissions of 150 to 200 kilos of carbon dioxide already in the factory. Regular EV batteries with 25–30 kWh of capacity will result in 5 metric tonnes CO2, which is equivalent to 50,000 km driving in a regular, fuel-efficient diesel vehicle

Another study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) showed that depending on the power generation mix, an all EV Nissan Leaf in the US or China was no better than a 2012 Prius. Countries with higher relative nuclear power generation unsurprisingly had lower CO2 emissions outcomes for EVs. By deduction countries with higher shares of coal or gas fired power negated much of the ‘saving’ of an EV relative to gasoline power.

Fig.9: Electricity generation mix impacts on CO2 saving with EVs

204067.png

Source: ICCT

Electricity Prices & Infrastructure

This is a sticky point. When the UK announced it was following France in the zero gasoline/diesel directive by 2040, the concern of being able to power up to millions of EVs (from the 90,000-odd now) and the impact on the grid rose to the surface.

Some industry pundits have argued the UK will need a range of technologies to manage the projected jump in power consumption by 15% in overall demand and spikes of up to 40% at peak periods. Renewable energy sources (including wind, wave, marine, hydro, biomass and solar) made up 25% of electricity generated in 2015. The UK aims to generate 30% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020 in line with EU guidelines.

Britain is staring at the prospect of capacity issues in the early 2020s as old nuclear reactors are decommissioned and remaining coal-fired plants are phased out by 2025. Hinckley Point C will add around 3.2GWh to the grid. Up to 50 terrawatt hours (TWh) could be needed to charge all the EVs expected by 2040. While some argue that charging EVs overnight alleviates much of this fear the reality is most people charge their iPhones when they need it with little or no thought to others. If you wish to charge your EV and the grid is at risk of collapsing, how will the government regulate this? Will they mandate rationing? Enforce peak power pricing?

The UK electricity network is currently connected to systems in France, the Netherlands and Ireland through cables called interconnectors. The UK uses these to import or export electricity when it is most economical. In 2015, the UK was a net importer from France and the Netherlands with net imports of 13.8 TWh and 8.0 TWh respectively which accounted for 5.8 per cent of electricity supplied in 2015. Total net exports to Ireland amounted to 0.9 TWh.

The growing problem with the push for renewables as a larger part of the mix is the paradox of loading more power consuming elements onto the grid (i.e. EVs) and looking to accommodate it with systems that have a proven inability to provide reliable baseload power. South Australia is a perfect example of this.

By pursuing a 40% renewables energy policy South Australia has suffered multiple blackouts. It has relied on the neighbouring state of Victoria to provide backup baseload power from its Hazelwood coal fired plant. However Victoria has now closed Hazelwood meaning South Australia will be forced to spend around $600mn to install new gas-fired capacity to offset the gap in supply capacity and demand. It will also add a $100mn battery plant to provide the state with 90 seconds of back-up power in the event of a blackout.

South Australia has the world’s most expensive electricity prices, the highest unemployment rate in the country and the slowest growth. The irony is that while the gas generation is being built, diesel generators burning 80,000 litres of diesel per hour will provide the backstop until its operational. Fig.10 shows the sharp rise in Australian electricity prices as more renewables have been added to the grid

Fig,10: Progression and forecast of residential Australian electricity prices

20408.pngSource: Jacobs International

At some point governments will be forced to realise that in order to guarantee a pledge of 100% EV sales from 2040 it will require very sound policy on the generation front to combat the risk of power shortages. Relying on other countries to provide alternative power could prove a fatal flaw in the 2040 deadline. The construction of new energy capacity is never an overnight affair. The location, the energy source, the local neighbours, the size of the output and the people and materials to construct it all play a part. From start to finish, a decade is not an unreasonable time frame yet if countries like France are relied upon to import electricity any policy change on their side can have very damaging side effects.

In short we have governments deliberately loading a grid at the same time it is making it far less reliable. This will have to play a part in a 2040 solution. In any event electricity prices are likely to rise putting further stress on households.

Fig.11: Progression of household UK electricity GBp/KWh (2004-2015)

20409Source: OVO Energy

In the last ten years the real price of electricity in the UK has risen by 63%, This is before EVs enter the electricity grid in earnest.

In any event rising electricity prices drives down the relative economic rationale for EV ownership.

Battery Technology Advances

Of course we cannot rule out advancements in battery technology which by deduction will offset any prices hikes in electricity by greater range. There is high anticipation for Toyota’s solid state battery technology which in theory will speed charges, improve the performance of the per cell power stack and reduce materials. Such advancements would also weigh on the aforementioned electricity grid considerations but the question will still come down to commerciality, the ability to access raw materials and gear the supply chain to meet such demand.

Charging Infrastructure

The roll out of fast chargers is growing. Where to install these ‘charge stands’? Traditional petrol stations will be marginalised to serve a larger proportion of commercial vehicles. That could mean that local gas stands go out of business or require a major overhaul in operations. If charging times take 20-30 minutes, cycle time will be poor.

It should not surprise that the faster the charge time the more expensive the initial outlay costs. The latest high end fast EV chargers can cost over $250,000 per unit.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) EV charging outlets surpassed 2 million in 2016.  Electric cars still outnumber public charging stations by more than six to one, indicating that most drivers rely primarily on private charging stations.

Fig.12: Global EVSE outlets, 2010-16

204010.pngSource: IEA

The IEA stated in its 2017 report that,

“The growth of publicly accessible chargers accompanies the increase in the number of electric cars on the road: the growth rate in the number of publicly accessible chargers in 2016 (72%) was higher, but of similar magnitude, to that of the electric car stock growth in the same year (60%). The higher rate of growth for chargers than electric cars is consistent with the need to deploy chargers as a prerequisite for EV adoption and the nascent nature of most of the electric car markets.…Publicly accessible EVSE growth was primarily driven by the rapid increase in the number of fast chargers, largely attributable to China, where fast chargers grew sevenfold to nearly 90 thousand units.31 Even when China is not considered, the growth rate for publicly accessible fast chargers in 2016 was still greater than publicly available slow chargers…”

Fig.12: EV stock & publicly available EVSE outlets, by country and type of charger, 2016

204011.png

Source: IEA

By 2020 China aims to deploy 4.3 million private EV charging outlets, 500,000 public chargers for cars and 850 intercity quick-charge stations, among other targets. The EU Directive on the Deployment of Alternative Fuels Infrastructure (EC, 2014) required EU member countries to define electric charging point targets for 2020. France has stated its ambition to deploy 7 million charging outlets by 2030.

The IEA makes the claim of using EV cities to drive the adoption. While in theory larger city centres are subject to greater restrictions of access, parking and congestion zones, the idea that a rural town copying the program of a big city would unlikely result in similar adoption rates.

Fig.13: EV city policies that drive EV adoption

2040112.png

Source: IEA

In its conclusion the IEA noted,

In the next 10 to 20 years the electric car market will likely transition from early deployment to mass market adoption. Assessments of country targets, OEM announcements and scenarios on electric car deployment seem to confirm these positive signals; indicating that the electric car stock may range between 9 million and 20 million by 2020 and between 40 million and 70 million by 2025.”

Regardless of the adoption rates, it is worth nothing that governments are setting policy against estimates that are wider than an aircraft hangar door. Therefore investment decisions in the basket of EV related companies is likely to be a risky investment. EV related stocks have done exceptionally well to date but as ever when reality dawns, the downside is a gaping chasm. A look at the history of Ballard Power in Canada is a good yardstick for looking what happens when the wind is taken from a theme’s sails.

Fig.14 – Ballard Power – a history of EV hope that failed to eventuate

blrd.png

Summary

EVs are coming. There is no point trying to ignore it. The question remains how rational setting targets such as 2040 are achievable. The auto industry employs around 9% of the workforce (directly and indirectly) so it is a powerful lobby group despite past failures and bail outs. If auto companies tell governments that the supply chain needs longer to catch up we will see this 2040 target slip to 2045 or 2050. Supply chains don’t end at the gate of the end supplier but right down to the capacity and investment in raw materials procurement, the intermediate refiners and packagers. All levels of the supply chain have to be on board.

Nonetheless we must also accept that consumers have vastly different needs and auto makers must make sure they can make products that fill the market segments profitably. Most importantly car makers’ drivetrain DNA is a vital component of their brands. EVs will do serious damage to this defining quality which will turn profitability back toward distribution networks and scale efficiency.

Electricity generation and energy policy will be bigger swing factors in ultimate hard targets on the sales of EVs. While making optically appealing eco-policies look good in the eyes of the electorate, those same people will turn on politicians in time if these schemes end up costing them far more in terms of their daily consumption other than their driving habits. Rolling out new charging stations to meet demand is a moot point given the wide range of predictions of how big or small the market may end up being.

The expansion of unreliable renewable energy sources as a percentage of total generation adds unnecessary risks into the EV equation. We have too many examples of the poor implementation of energy policy which gullibly relies on optimistic assumptions and the goodwill of neighbours we have no control of.

The advent of automated driving has the potential to open a whole new can of worms. The insurance market will feel the urge to blame accidents on faulty technology (not faulty humans) and expect consumers to get their claims covered by the manufacturer.

Finally governments have got to allow industry decide how they achieve emissions regulations. In 20 years Euro 6 has proved that emissions can be cut 97%. What is to say in the next 20 years that auto makers can’t drive that to zero? If car makers want to be a differentiator all they need do is fight the battle of internal combustion with zero emissions. Why are amateurs in technology (government) dictating to the professionals on what consumers may or may not want? Governments, for all the good will in the world must look at their involvement in renewable energy back at the turn of the century to remind themselves how disastrous their policies were in bankrupting so many companies that over invested in promises that were later reneged on.

EVs are here to stay but to this author 2040 is nothing more than an idle promise by which time those politicians proposing it most likely won’t be in office. Await the delays as the lobby groups explain the harsh realities to the law makers.

「ev charging station vandal」の画像検索結果

I’ll stick with my instincts rather than fall for a Harvard study because it is from Harvard

IMG_0858.JPG

Harvard University is without question one of the top schools globally. It has an enviable reputation and having that on one’s CV is hardly a hinderance. It is a status symbol.  In a discussion over global warming an individual was trying to legitimize climate alarmism by citing a Harvard University study. Harvard by the way is ranked top 5 worldwide in Environmental Science. The study as it turns out had been funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a US government agency responsible for allocating 24% of science funding that had been raked over the coals by the US Senate for gross mismanagement, fraud and waste. The National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope” paper from 2011 documented some of the misappropriation of funds as follows,

An $80,000 study on why the same teams always dominate March Madness”, a “$315,000 study suggesting playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships”, a study costing “$1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names”, a study costing “$50,000 to produce and publicize amateur songs about science, including a rap called “Money 4 Drugz,” and a misleading song titled “Biogas is a Gas, Gas, Gas”;” a study costing”$2 million to figure out that people who often post pictures on the internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends”; and “$581,000 on whether online dating site users are racist”.Ineffective management examples, cited in the report, included “ineffective contracting”, “$1.7 billion in unspent funds sitting in expired, undisbursed grant accounts”, “at least $3 million in excessive travel funds”, “a lack of accountability or program metrics to evaluate expenditures” and “inappropriate staff behavior including porn surfing and Jello wrestling and skinny-dipping at NSF-operated facilities in Antarctica”.

It is often a tactic to cite supposedly credible bodies to legitimize and seek to win an argument. However at what point do we view Harvard’s stance on climate change as balanced? On Harvard’s own climate change page it is littered with a predetermined view. It is not to doubt the intelligence of the professors and scientists within the university but intelligence and ethics do not have to be mutually inclusive especially when it comes to procuring funds.

One has to wonder that the  NSF, which dispenses 24% of all university grants (some $7bn) is best positioned to fulfill this role given its past. As the Harvard climate page reveals there does not seem to be much attention paid to the alternate view. The offshoot of that is if the NSF wants to get ‘green policy’ outcomes, best pour funds into those schools that will help give the results they’re after.

In 2015 a claim was made against Harvard for not disclosing financial conflicts of interest. A press release entitled ‘Clean air and health benefits of clean power plan hinge on key policy decisions’ constituted a gushing praise of a commentary entitled ‘US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits’ by Charles T. Driscoll, Jonathan J. Buonocore, Jonathan I. Levy, Kathleen F. Lambert, Dallas Burtraw, Stephen B. Reid, Habibollah Fakhraei & Joel Schwartz, published on May 4, 2015, in Nature Climate Change

The claim (a letter to the Dean) suggested that “two of the co-authors of the commentary, Buonocore and Schwartz, are researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Your press release quotes Buonocore thus: “If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented.” Indeed, the commentary and the press release constitute little more than thinly-disguised partisan political advocacy for costly proposed EPA regulations supported by the “Democrat” administration but opposed by the Republicans. Harvard has apparently elected to adopt a narrowly partisan, anti-scientific stance…The commentary concludes with the words “Competing financial interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests”. Yet its co-authors have received these grants from the EPA: Driscoll $3,654,609; Levy $9,514,391; Burtraw $1,991,346; and Schwartz (Harvard) $31,176,575. The total is not far shy of $50 million…Would the School please explain why its press release described the commentary in Nature Climate Change by co-authors including these lavishly-funded four as “the first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind”? Would the School please explain why Mr Schwartz, a participant in projects grant-funded by the EPA in excess of $31 million, failed to disclose this material financial conflict of interest in the commentary?Would the School please explain the double standard by which Harvard institutions have joined a chorus of public condemnation of Dr Soon, a climate skeptic, for having failed to disclose a conflict of interest that he did not in fact possess, while not only indulging Mr Schwartz, a climate-extremist, when he fails to declare a direct and substantial conflict of interest but also stating that the commentary he co-authored was “independent”?”

While I do not pretend to be a climate scientist by trade or study, fraud is fraud. The supposed beacons of virtue such as NOAA, IPCC, the CRU of the UEA have all been busted for manipulation of data to fit an end cause. The lack of ethics in certain cases has been so profound that had many of these scientists been in financial services they’d have lost licenses, paid multi billion in fines and served jail time. One person commented that too few in financial services have been locked up. I replied name me one scientist busted for fraud and misuse of public funds has seen the inside of a jail cell, much less fined or barred from teaching? The answer – NONE

I don’t need to possess a degree in astrophysics or science to determine poor ethics generally mean the science papers put forward should be viewed with deep skepticism. Yet we’re constantly told that the science is settled. How so? If one has to lie and deceive in order to scare us into action, how can one say that it is legitimate work? In fact I have been at pains to mention that the scrupulous acts of a few only ends up undermining potentially credible work conducted by others. Yet climate change has become a purely political issue and there is no question that sourcing funding dollars is easiest met when supporting alarmism. After all why would people want to throw dollars at skeptics who may come out with an alternative view? Don’t debate it. Some have suggested sceptics are like pedophiles and even more extreme views have suggested jail sentences. When people think that the only way to win the argument is to jail non believers you can be absolutely sure that the data is completely flawed in that it can’t stand on its own as an argument. Hence the manipulation to try to bully the movement onwards. Some Aussie universities (state funded mind you) are refusing a climate think tank being established on their campus for possessing an alternative view. You have to worry if universities, the bedrock of free thinking, are trying to ban it. Then again if kindergarten schools are being taught they are gender fluid and cross dressing is acceptable then you know there is a more sinister movement at work.

It was no surprise that Hurricane Irma has become Trump’s fault. Alarmists drew any data possible to connect Global Warming and hurricane activity despite the IPCC claiming several years back it  has little supportive data to prove it. So expediency is put before principle. Hopefully if no one has seen the IPCC climb down perhaps we can still convince them we can save the planet. All the meantime the IATA forecasts air travel will double in terms of passenger numbers between now and 2030 and SUVs top most vehicle sales in major markets.

To add to the farcical care factor for climate change by the masses The Australian noted, “On June 30 2017, after 12 years of “advancing climate change solutions”, the Climate Institute is closing its doors in Australia, a victim of the “I’ll ride with you but won’t pay” industry. You would think that Cate Blanchett, so happy to appear in the institute’s ads, could have taken the hat around her Hollywood A-list mates, such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Bono, Emma Watson and Brad Pitt, to tip in a few hundred thousand a year for the cause….But alas, the caravan has moved on and the greatest moral challenge of our time is now the Trump White House. For celebrities who fly eyebrow groomers to the Oscars, climate change is kinda yesterday. Still, to humour the faithful and to keep the dream alive, the 10th anniversary of Earth Hour was celebrated last Saturday night. You didn’t notice?”

When I was a staunch opponent of Greenspan’s reckless monetary policy in 2001 and said his actions would lead to a financial calamity in 6-7 years, many laughed at me. I bought gold at under $300. People thought I was mad as did the Bank of England. Barbs were frequent – “how could you possibly possess the intelligence of Greenspan? Back in your box!” I was told. Of course as a contrarian by nature, speaking out against pervading group think was met with a constant wave of ever increasing vitriolic criticism. Of course the simplest thing would have been to roll over and join the band wagon but I stuck to my guns. GFC was the result. In all that time, people used to shame my thinking by citing Harvard or other Ivy League studies on new paradigms. Indeed many of the brains behind the CDOs which eventually brought the financial sector to its knees were brainiacs from the Ivy League. In the end my instincts were bang on. Nothing to do with education levels.

The same arguments were hurled at me during Trump’s presidential campaign. Many people defriended me because my data kept showing to me he’d win. I am not American, I can’t vote but casting my own instincts ended up being a no brainer. Not once were credible arguments made to counter why Trump could win. People would post NY Times polls, CNN polls and so forth to legitimize the argument. Then say I was blind, stupid, bigoted, racist and the usual leftist identikit used to demonise a view. Group think is so dangerous. What it is doing is suppressing real views which show up in the polling booth.

Everywhere I read, the media wants to throw Trump to the wolves and run the lunatic, racist white nationalist card. For 9 months now. To be honest I think he will comfortably do two terms because the media has learned nothing and anything he does is vilified. Most Americans aren’t looking to him for spiritual guidance. He is vulgar and his manner is far from conventional and sometimes not very fitting of the office he serves. However he gets no credit for anything. The latest UN sanctions on North Korea are in large part because Trump has told China to get on with it. Trump said on national TV that he wants “China to sort it out and to stop delaying otherwise we’ll do it for you”. Yet the media is drumming WW3 rhetoric.

Same goes for the Paris Accord. What a stroke of genius. Let France, Germany and other nations pick up the tab for their ‘green policy’ madness and make up America’s renewable shortfall. It is kind of ironic that none of these nations ever pick on China, India or Russia which make up 50% of CO2 emissions for their lack of adherence to actually doing meaningful things to abate climate change albeit signatories to the UN accord. I argue it is like NATO in reverse. US pays a way bigger share into NATO, why not collect a refund via other nation’s virtue signalling which actually helps America First by making other nations less competitive. Brilliant.

DACA – many Americans, including 41mn on food stamps, will welcome the removal of illegal immigrants from their country who in their view are siphoning their ability to get out of poverty. DACA to them isn’t about not being compassionate but realizing that a $20 trillion deficit and loading more onto an overcrowded system isn’t helping. Once again regardless of what people think of Trump he had the fewest white voters and largest share of black and Hispanic voters than Romney or McCain. Hardly the result for a white nationalist, racist bigot. At the current rate if the Democrats run Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Hilary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or any other identity politician against him in 2020 they’ll lose. The mid terms won’t be as bad as many calling. The one midterm already returned a Republican despite massive Hollywood support even ferrying voters to booths.

Transgender in the military. I spoke to two dozen US military personnel last month to ask their opinions. The 100% response was, “we think it is inappropriate for the taxpayer to fund sexual reassignment surgery while serving including several years of rehab and ongoing drug therapy…it is taking the p*ss…we serve our country because we love it and we don’t have room to support social experiments to protect freedom!” There was no real issue of transgender per se rather a problem of providing funds in n already tightly allocated budget for such medical expenditure. Several even spoke of the stupidity of LGBT pride day in the armed forces. What has the ability to fight got to do with what goes on in the bedroom? One said “if we had a heterosexual pride day” we’d never hear the end of it.

So when you communicate with the real people you find the truth if you are prepared to listen. The beauty of social media and indeed Google (which happily acts as a Big Brother on what it considers acceptable) is that many people reach for articles they probably haven’t read properly and use them as ways to ram home an argument because they carry a brand name. Harvard is a wonderful institution but as we’ve seen it has run into questions of conflicts of interest.

I happen to think that social media is having the opposite effect on brainwashing to tell the truth. 99.9% of what I see posted has little thought to it. The more people I speak to the more they are ignoring noise. Many people share articles without putting some basis of why they post it. In many cases people are too afraid to face a doxxing or backlash. Bring it on. To me if you post things in the public domain then be prepared to invite criticism. On my site I do not censor, cut off or delete readers. They are free to come and go as they please. I only request they keep profanity to a minimum.

So in summary, the idea that we bow down to venerable institutions to seek guidance is as flawed today as it ever was. I’ll gladly stick to gut instincts because to date they have worked so far. Having said that I should put a disclaimer that was always plastered on financial services product, “Past results are no guarantee of future performance”

What could possibly go wrong?

IMG_0826

From Jo Nova

“SA Government has just agreed to run itself for 20 years off a plant that is a copy of Crescent Dunes in the US. It’s paying twice the price of wholesale coal power, the US plant took 5 years to build and worked for 1 year and 1 month before breaking down for 8 months.

Crescent Dunes only works at a 16% capacity factor which means a 150MW version would average only 24MW. Winter generation is a mere one third of summer (though there is only one year of data to go on!) SA may well be better off if Parliament has to shut down for winter, but how do you run hospitals and schools on one-third of the power?

What could possibly go wrong?”

When scientists expose the obvious

IMG_0434.JPG

Below is a resignation letter written by a scientist who pretty much proved what I’ve often thought of the climate alarmists. It is a money game. Look no further than the hypocrites like Al Gore warning of disaster yet using more 21x more electricity than the average home or Leo DiCaprio flying in private jets all around the globe. No doubt there will be replies to this post that seek to discredit Hal Lewis as often the case when climate alarmists want to shut down a debate. One of the best books I read on the climate change hoax was ‘The Delinquent Teenager’ written by Donna Laframboise which exposes just how shameful the climate game is, exposing that internal studies conducted by the UNIPCC proved how it is all about politics, not science. Yet here we have a scientist who had a conscience and made his feelings thought

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence – it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.