The Inconvenient Truth About Electric Vehicles

 American Thinker

America may be headed for a new type of energy crisis. While fracking technology still gives us relative energy independence, there is a distinct possibility that an electricity energy crisis awaits us. What if the demand for electricity significantly exceeds the supply over the next decade? We’d have soaring prices and rolling brownouts. That crisis could easily be triggered by the electric vehicles (EVs) Biden’s administration is pushing.

By his Executive Order and an associated Action Plan, Biden’s administration calls for 50% of all new vehicles sold in America by 2030 to be EVs. That means an additional 50 million new EVs on the road in the next nine years, all in an effort to lower Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, namely CO2. .....

Here’s the bottom line: There isn’t nearly enough electrical power available or in the pipeline to fuel 50 million new EVs by 2030. That would require an additional 150 billion kWh’s per year of deliverable electricity. Even the largest power plants only deliver about 8 billion kWh’s per year.

To achieve the administration’s climate change policy goals for EVs, America must build and commission about 20 large new fossil fuel-powered plants or several dozen large new wind and solar farms. That’s impossible by 2030 because large power plants take years to plan, build and bring online. Which means 2030 will either collapse the energy grid or result in a lot of cars that won’t go."

 

An Obama photograph proves the lies of ‘climate change’ and COVID

 American Thinker

 

The cult of Climate Change tells us that, unless we abandon all fossil fuels, the oceans will rise and every coastal community will be destroyed. When Obama bought his coastal Martha’s Vineyard house it was pretty clear that he didn’t believe a word of this narrative. This was rather peculiar considering the vast amounts of taxpayer money he funneled to green energy initiatives as part of the 2009 “stimulus” spending following the recession.

Heck, going back further, that first beachfront purchase was even more peculiar when you consider the speech Obama gave when accepting the Democrat party nomination in 2008:"

The Great Climate Rip-Off

 American Thinker

Is the climate changing?  Yes.  Is mankind contributing to the change in climate?  Yes.  Should major national policy respond to this change?  No!

Climate changes continuously, both warming and cooling.  There is nothing new in this and probably nothing to get excited about.  Man inevitably modifies the climate.  The only questions are by how much and in which way.  Historically, man has modified the landscape sufficiently as to make a noticeable impact on the climate.  The essential question we must address is, how much are we, today, impacting the climate, and is that impact harmful?

The answer is we don't know!  My suspicion is that we have had only a modest, and probably benign, influence. 

Given that we don't know, it is seriously bad policy to imperil our future in an attempt to control the climate.  It also smacks of hubris to believe we have that much control over Mother Nature."

 

Stanford Professor’s Plan to Save the World

 American Thinker

The goal of 100% elimination of CO2 emissions makes no sense, not even for true believers in global warming. About half of the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels is reabsorbed by the Earth. To stop increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere a 50% reduction of CO2 emissions is enough.

Climate change a.k.a. global warming is junk science. But because it is a treasure chest for academics and political activists, it is promoted as sound science.   .....Advocating impractical, radical solutions for imaginary problems is not necessarily a negative for career success. Mark Jacobson not only has a new house and two Tesla cars, he is director of Stanford’s Atmosphere/Energy program. He travels and grants interviews. He is featured in many YouTube videos."

 

The Profound Junk Science of Climate

 American Thinker

Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.   .......Once money and status started flowing into climate science because of the disaster its denizens were predicting, there was no going back. Imagine that a climate scientist discovers gigantic flaws in the models and the associated science. Do not imagine that his discovery would be treated respectfully and evaluated on its merits. That would open the door to reversing everything that has been so wonderful for climate scientists.  Who would continue to throw billions of dollars a year at climate scientists if there were no disasters to be prevented?"