Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 118,675
The Zero Emissions Tanker Truck
https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2022/04/20/the-zero-emissions-tanker-truck/
By
eric -
April 20, 2022
If you think about it, a tanker truck is a “zero emissions” vehicle – in that the gas it carries isn’t “emitting” anything, as it is being transported from the refinery to the station.
Why are electric cars considered “zero emissions” when it amounts to the same thing?
True, while they are moving they are not “emitting.” But how about what makes it possible for them to move? Lots of C02 is being “emitted” by the coal/oil/natural gas-fired ultility plants that generate the majority (by far) of the electricity that electric vehicles “burn,” so to speak.
Does it matter – assuming C02 “emissions” matter – where they are “emitted”? Logically, of course, it does not.
But politically – that’s another matter.
Electric cars are given a pass with regard to their “emissions” because they serve the political purpose of (step one) cattle-prodding non-electric cars off the market in order to (step two) leave people with no alternative to electric cars, which alternative will then be denied them by discovering the “emissions” that are currently being ignored. The end-game being to restrict personal vehicle ownership to the relative handful who may still be able to afford it. The majority of these will be members of the government-corporate (this works just as well, reversed) ruling class, which is arranging things such that – per the WEF – we will own nothing (and be miserable) while they will own everything we used to (and be very happy).
If you doubt this is how the ball’s rolling – and that it was set in motion to achieve precisely these ends – ask yourself why there is no ululation of outrage over energy hog electric cars – which is all of the ones we’re allowed to buy (assuming we can afford to). Teslas are the most egregious but the others are of a piece. They tout how quickly they can accelerate. This requires energy. No different, fundamentally, from the energy necessary to push a 4,000-plus pound Dodge Charger Hellcat from stationary to 60 MPH in 3-something seconds.
The Hellcat “emits” at the tailpipe. The Tesla “emits” at the smokestack, where the excess electricity it burns up is generated, creating excess carbon dioxide “emissions.” Italics to make the point – as in more than necessary. No one needs to get to 60 in three seconds or even five – unless you’re racing. And racing is superfluous, wasteful – to use the stylings of the people attempting to cattle-prod non-electric cars off the market . . . in favor of electric cars that are similarly so.
How dare they tout such affronts as “ludicrous speed” when the “climate” is “changing”! If it really is – in the sense that we’re all in danger on account of it – then what, pray, is being accomplished by eliminating the “emissions” of “climate changing” carbon dioxide from millions of tailpipes and concentrating them at centralized hubs (the utility plants) instead?
Why no federal-level (or California) equivalent of the the “fuel efficiency” and “emissions” regulations being used to gradually winnow and ultimately (they hope) eliminate non-electric cars applied to electric cars? Teslas are energy hogs as much as Hellcats are gas hogs and the existence – well, the use – of both results in the “emissions” of the same gasses, just at different source points.
And almost all of the other extant and pending electric cars emulate Teslas. For example, the soon-to-be here (2023) Lexus RZ450e, a compact-sized crossover that touts “quick acceleration” in the first line of PR copy about its wonderfulness. Zero to 60 in 5.2 seconds!
No comment about what it takes to get you there. It’s the same, everywhere. And at the very same time, the electric cars that aren’t energy hogs aren’t allowed. You can buy a $6,000 EV in China that is not only affordable, it is efficient. It does not tout how quickly it get to 60 – because it doesn’t. But it also doesn’t need 1,000 pounds of battery pack sucking up hundreds of volts of electricity generated by utilities burning coal, oil and natural gas all night (and day) to keep up with the demand for more power.
These Chinese electric cars “emit” a fraction of the “climate-changing” carbon dioxide generated in order to keep a Tesla’s 1,000-plus pounds of battery pack topped off. If you really, truly fretted the “climate changing,” that’s the kind of car you ought to be driving.
And many people probably would drive them – if they were allowed to. Without being forced to, it needs adding.
Such electric cars make a lot of sense for people who don’t need to drive very far – and don’t care about driving very quickly. They do get there, though. And – key point – they make it possible for more people to get there, without taking the bus or riding a train.
On their own time – and however they like.
That’s not what’s wanted here. And that may help you understand why the “emissions” of the electric vehicles we are allowed to buy – assuming we can afford to – aren’t considered an issue.
Yet.
https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2022/04/20/the-zero-emissions-tanker-truck/
By
eric -
April 20, 2022
If you think about it, a tanker truck is a “zero emissions” vehicle – in that the gas it carries isn’t “emitting” anything, as it is being transported from the refinery to the station.
Why are electric cars considered “zero emissions” when it amounts to the same thing?
True, while they are moving they are not “emitting.” But how about what makes it possible for them to move? Lots of C02 is being “emitted” by the coal/oil/natural gas-fired ultility plants that generate the majority (by far) of the electricity that electric vehicles “burn,” so to speak.
Does it matter – assuming C02 “emissions” matter – where they are “emitted”? Logically, of course, it does not.
But politically – that’s another matter.
Electric cars are given a pass with regard to their “emissions” because they serve the political purpose of (step one) cattle-prodding non-electric cars off the market in order to (step two) leave people with no alternative to electric cars, which alternative will then be denied them by discovering the “emissions” that are currently being ignored. The end-game being to restrict personal vehicle ownership to the relative handful who may still be able to afford it. The majority of these will be members of the government-corporate (this works just as well, reversed) ruling class, which is arranging things such that – per the WEF – we will own nothing (and be miserable) while they will own everything we used to (and be very happy).
If you doubt this is how the ball’s rolling – and that it was set in motion to achieve precisely these ends – ask yourself why there is no ululation of outrage over energy hog electric cars – which is all of the ones we’re allowed to buy (assuming we can afford to). Teslas are the most egregious but the others are of a piece. They tout how quickly they can accelerate. This requires energy. No different, fundamentally, from the energy necessary to push a 4,000-plus pound Dodge Charger Hellcat from stationary to 60 MPH in 3-something seconds.
The Hellcat “emits” at the tailpipe. The Tesla “emits” at the smokestack, where the excess electricity it burns up is generated, creating excess carbon dioxide “emissions.” Italics to make the point – as in more than necessary. No one needs to get to 60 in three seconds or even five – unless you’re racing. And racing is superfluous, wasteful – to use the stylings of the people attempting to cattle-prod non-electric cars off the market . . . in favor of electric cars that are similarly so.
How dare they tout such affronts as “ludicrous speed” when the “climate” is “changing”! If it really is – in the sense that we’re all in danger on account of it – then what, pray, is being accomplished by eliminating the “emissions” of “climate changing” carbon dioxide from millions of tailpipes and concentrating them at centralized hubs (the utility plants) instead?
Why no federal-level (or California) equivalent of the the “fuel efficiency” and “emissions” regulations being used to gradually winnow and ultimately (they hope) eliminate non-electric cars applied to electric cars? Teslas are energy hogs as much as Hellcats are gas hogs and the existence – well, the use – of both results in the “emissions” of the same gasses, just at different source points.
And almost all of the other extant and pending electric cars emulate Teslas. For example, the soon-to-be here (2023) Lexus RZ450e, a compact-sized crossover that touts “quick acceleration” in the first line of PR copy about its wonderfulness. Zero to 60 in 5.2 seconds!
No comment about what it takes to get you there. It’s the same, everywhere. And at the very same time, the electric cars that aren’t energy hogs aren’t allowed. You can buy a $6,000 EV in China that is not only affordable, it is efficient. It does not tout how quickly it get to 60 – because it doesn’t. But it also doesn’t need 1,000 pounds of battery pack sucking up hundreds of volts of electricity generated by utilities burning coal, oil and natural gas all night (and day) to keep up with the demand for more power.
These Chinese electric cars “emit” a fraction of the “climate-changing” carbon dioxide generated in order to keep a Tesla’s 1,000-plus pounds of battery pack topped off. If you really, truly fretted the “climate changing,” that’s the kind of car you ought to be driving.
And many people probably would drive them – if they were allowed to. Without being forced to, it needs adding.
Such electric cars make a lot of sense for people who don’t need to drive very far – and don’t care about driving very quickly. They do get there, though. And – key point – they make it possible for more people to get there, without taking the bus or riding a train.
On their own time – and however they like.
That’s not what’s wanted here. And that may help you understand why the “emissions” of the electric vehicles we are allowed to buy – assuming we can afford to – aren’t considered an issue.
Yet.
