Rowan Atkinson is well known as an actor and comedian. But his undergraduate education was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s degree in control systems. He has written a thoughtful opinion piece on how his early infatuation with electric vehicles as a way to combat climate change has cooled as he learned more about the hidden environmental costs of this technology.
I bought my first electric hybrid 18 years ago and my first pure electric car nine years ago and (notwithstanding our poor electric charging infrastructure) have enjoyed my time with both very much. Electric vehicles may be a bit soulless, but they’re wonderful mechanisms: fast, quiet and, until recently, very cheap to run. But increasingly, I feel a little duped. When you start to drill into the facts, electric motoring doesn’t seem to be quite the environmental panacea it is claimed to be.
As you may know, the government has proposed a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. The problem with the initiative is that it seems to be based on conclusions drawn from only one part of a car’s operating life: what comes out of the exhaust pipe. Electric cars, of course, have zero exhaust emissions, which is a welcome development, particularly in respect of the air quality in city centres. But if you zoom out a bit and look at a bigger picture that includes the car’s manufacture, the situation is very different. In advance of the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow in 2021, Volvo released figures claiming that greenhouse gas emissions during production of an electric car are 70% higher than when manufacturing a petrol one. How so? The problem lies with the lithium-ion batteries fitted currently to nearly all electric vehicles: they’re absurdly heavy, many rare earth metals and huge amounts of energy are required to make them, and they only last about 10 years. It seems a perverse choice of hardware with which to lead the automobile’s fight against the climate crisis.
He suggests that it might be better for people to wait until the next generation of more environmentally friendly vehicles to come out, but until then to give up the practice of trading in cars for new ones after just a few years.
We need also to acknowledge what a great asset we have in the cars that currently exist (there are nearly 1.5bn of them worldwide). In terms of manufacture, these cars have paid their environmental dues and, although it is sensible to reduce our reliance on them, it would seem right to look carefully at ways of retaining them while lowering their polluting effect. Fairly obviously, we could use them less. As an environmentalist once said to me, if you really need a car, buy an old one and use it as little as possible.
…Increasingly, I’m feeling that our honeymoon with electric cars is coming to an end, and that’s no bad thing: we’re realising that a wider range of options need to be explored if we’re going to properly address the very serious environmental problems that our use of the motor car has created. We should keep developing hydrogen, as well as synthetic fuels to save the scrapping of older cars which still have so much to give, while simultaneously promoting a quite different business model for the car industry, in which we keep our new vehicles for longer, acknowledging their amazing but overlooked longevity.
There is a paradox in asking people to hold on to their cars for as long as they can (something that I do) as a way of reducing the number of cars produced and also recommending that people buy used cars. If the number of used cars gets reduced due to people holding on to their cars for longer, what will those who want or need to buy used cars do?
What is reasonable is for people to take good care of their cars (whether bought new or used) to make them last as long as possible so that the sunk environmental costs of making a car is spread out over a longer period. This is also why it is not recommended that we destroy perfectly functional old buildings in order to replace them with new ‘green’ ones. What you lose in the already paid costs of the old building cannot easily be made up by the savings of the new one.
Kathryn Rogers Merlino, University of Washington associate professor of architecture, argues for reusing buildings rather than tearing them down and building anew.
“We are so good at recycling and composting on a daily basis, but it’s surprising that we have no cultural ethic about reusing our largest manufactured goods — our buildings. We quickly demolish buildings in the name of new, ‘green’ structures, rather than looking for the possibilities of how we can work with what exists. To me there is an inherent conflict in there, and I think we can do better.”
Tearing down buildings and “throwing away the energy and materials embodied in them” is contrary to our values as sustainable builders and environmental stewards of our community, she said.
…“Studies have shown that if a building is demolished and replaced with an energy-efficient, or ‘green’ building of the same size, it will take in between 30 and 80 years to recoup that energy and carbon lost in the demolition and rebuilding of the new one. In other words, when new buildings replace older ones, they start with an energy deficit that takes decades to catch up to, no matter how ‘green’ they are.”
Many people do recycle but we should remember that the environmental mantra of ‘Reduce. Reuse, Recycle’ should be remembered as a hierarchy, not as three equally useful methods. Our prime goal should be to reduce consumption by avoiding buying anything unless it is really necessary. Failing that we should reuse (or repurpose) what we already have to minimize the need to buy new things. Only if both options are unavailable should we resort to recycling.
his article smells like petroleum money to me, whatever facts it has. especially the slant on language from the first paragraph.
Seconding Karl #1. It’s odd how they present the situation which applies to Atkinson’s own small demographic as though it has wider relevance. It does not.
And none of it is news — in fact environmental-minded people and objective electric proponents have been saying as much (on whole-life impact) for years. It’s a clear-enough sign of vested interests putting additional exposure on such narratives in the hopes of retarding progress.
No one in this country is being forced to change their cars for new BEVs. Those who want to change are looking at options to change at some point. Those who don’t yet, won’t yet. Those who can’t, will make good use of the second hand car market until the last fossil fuel station in the UK has closed down, or until we have a complete overlay of really good and accessible public transport (did I write that last sarcastic bit out loud? I can dream.)
Chuckling at the idea that Atkinsons opinion could be bought at any time one the last forty years. He’s been collecting Ferraris since 1982.
“whatever facts it has”
Never mind the facts, impute corruption!
I read this the other day and my initial reaction was that there was either misunderstanding on his part, or some fakery. In particular, I refer to the section regarding electric vehicle production having 70% greater greenhouse gas output than a gasoline car. So what? People say similar things regarding PV or wind farms versus generators running on fossil fuels. It’s a deflection. The major greenhouse gas load is from the operation of the unit, not its manufacture. In the case of a PV farm, the lifecycle emissions (and that’s what counts) are only about 2% of systems run on fossil fuels. Which, BTW, means that the greener the energy grid becomes, the greener your electric car becomes. (At this point people will sometimes counter that there will be loss in the power transmission lines, conveniently forgetting that the thermal efficiency of internal combustion engines is only about 35%, far lower than the combined efficiencies of transmission line losses and electric motor efficiency).
The dumbest deflection I’ve heard recently is that we can’t move to electrical vehicles because they’re “so heavy”, and that will wreck our roads and bridges. Yes, they are heavier, but it is of little consequence. For example, a gas Hyundai Kona weighs about 3000 lbs. The electric version is about 3700 lbs. By comparison, that would be like claiming that a person weighing 150 lbs would greatly shorten the life of their kitchen floor or their dining room chairs if they gained 30 lbs. And if you still insist on making that argument, then maybe you should take a closer look at the roads which are choked with giant pickups hauling nothing but air and huge SUVs with no cargo and just the driver, all so that they can feed an image.
Besides, as battery technology improves (and it will), the energy density will increase, and we’ll get lighter cars with longer range.
I have a related question for the commenters living in Europe. This past winter, I rode my bike on a trainer as usual, but starting watching videos from “Bike the World” on YT. I got to “ride” through Denmark, Norway, Austria, Italy, France, etc. What I noticed is that, compared to the US, there are very few pickup trucks and large SUVs on the roads. My question is, is that real, or just because the tours tend to be along bike-friendly routes? The tours are on regular streets and through small towns, so I am not referring to highways. Where I live, though, I always see large vehicles when I pedal the back roads.
I am highly suspicious of the ‘synthetic fuels’ talking point because remember the hype about ethanol. It was going to make the U.S. less dependent on OPEC (didn’t happen until fracking came along) make our fuel less polluting (didn’t happen) make our cars go farther on each gallon (opposite happened) and put some of our fuel money in the pockets of family farmers in the midwest (it all went to giant corporate farms). Also, it drove up the price of corn so high it hurt poor Latino families in both the U.S. and Mexico who eat corn tortillas as a staple.
Synthetic fuels smells like another scam to keep pumping petroleum while making it seem eco friendly.
“there are very few pickup trucks and large SUVs on the roads. My question is, is that real?”
Yes. Fewer guns, too.
“maybe you should take a closer look at the roads which are choked with giant pickups hauling nothing but air and huge SUVs with no cargo and just the driver,”
To do that, you’d have to go to the US. The article was written by an English man for an English newspaper.
@5 Don’t know the look of a typical US road outside of tv and movies, I’m afraid, but I think here in Europe smaller cars are more common than in the US, even though we do have Mercedes and Audi here in Germany of course. Big SUVs are somewhat less common but still sell depressingly well. Pickup trucks were quite exotic here back in the 80s and 90s and are still not really common, but you do see them these days. Often with the logo of some construction business on the side -- but transporting only the boss instead of tools and materials and not looking like they were ever close to a dirt road,,,
You are correct, there is a paradox. It’s not with you or us. It’s with him. WE are smart enough to include the information that he is missing or has deliberately excluded.
IMO Atkinson is a stupid man. Just because he has a degree means little. Rick’s dad was an electrical engineer and bought his Tesla not because of cost but because it was cool. The father-in-law said some really stupid things and donated to Trump on the regular. Electrical Engineers IME are the scientists most likely to reject evolution. I reject any argument from authority from Atkinson.
Can Atkinson see this paradox? If he’s parroting the oil industry for money (which he IS smart enough to do) perhaps not.
If you are a physicist, and I strongly suspect you are! 🙂 Think of it metaphorically a graph of Impulse over time. Both cars are subject to friction maintenance taxes CARBON etc. While the initial costs (of whatever) of an electric car (and I am being very general here) there are may be higher or lower. But over time, the sum of the integral of that entire curve, it’s much lower for the electric car, and this seems very likely so for the forseeable future. This actual data, and not hearsay from a comedian, is based on past results from those very same older cars.
Based on authorities of science, not comedy. And smart people too.
His ‘argument’ (and this is propaganda so ‘argument’ for broad definitions of the word argument) is bullshit.
“IMO Atkinson is a stupid man”.
Out of curiosity:
-- How many sell-out tours of your one-man show have you done?
-- How many internationally famous silent comedy characters have you created?
-- How many era-defining satirical sketch shows have you written and performed in?
-- How many times have you reinvented a successful sitcom character you defined in a new era with a different setting?
-- How many times have you portrayed a character originally created for a TV advert for a credit card in an internationally successful trilogy of movies?
I mean… stupid? I wouldn’t judge him by his enormous wealth (estimated net worth £150m), I’d judge him by how he got it -- pretty much entirely his own intellectual efforts in writing, performing and producing. How good are YOU at what you do?
“Just because he has a degree means little. ”
Yeah, any yahoo that can type can get a Masters in Electrical Engineering from Queen’s College Oxford, it’s practically one of those mail-away places, eh?
“Electrical Engineers IME are the scientists most likely to …”
…know the difference between an engineer and a scientist? Nah. Nobody knows that. Is there even a difference?
Batteries costs are not drastically reducing over time. The lead-acid battery that you could buy 50 years ago is only slightly more expensive that the latest lithium-ion batteries.
We have seen a revolution in battery technology because of weight decreases, not cost per unit of energy storage. It’s that weight per unit of energy storage that has opened up many new applications that were “impossible” before, such as cell phones, laptops, etc.
You won’t see any more drastic decreases in battery weight either. Already current lithium ion batteries use about 25% of the lithium ions to hold a charge, which seems pretty close to practical engineering limits. Earlier drastic decreases in weight were due to changes in chemistry and thus the atomic weight of the ions participating in the battery. Lithium is about as low as you can go on the periodic table.
Finally, most/all of the battery technology we have today cannot scale to our immediate needs. At a few days of energy storage for the world’s electricity needs, which is what we would hypothetically need to get off fossil fuels and maintain something resembling a modern industrial society, there is not enough lithium in total estimated worldwide resources and reserves. Nor lead. Nor nickel. That’s most / nearly all proven cheap battery technology right there. Anything else is undemonstrated vaporware, or secretly depends on similarly scarce materials. For example, most (all?) proven sodium-ion batteries require nickel or cobalt.
Having said all of that, if we can recycle lithium batteries and any associated rare earth metals from the electric cars, then I’m pretty convinced it would be much better the burning fossil fuel gas (petrol) for most residential commuters.
…
Germany did this at very large scale during World War 2. It’s totally possible and it’s proven at industrial scale. There is only one catch -- the Germans used IIRC coal (or natural gas?) as their carbon feedstock, which made their process about as bad as burning the coal (or natural gas?) directly. The only unproven part of the proposed plan is capturing CO2 from the atmosphere (or CO2 dissolved in ocean water) at cost at industrial scale. I have hope, but costs are far from proven at industrial scale.
Using food and food waste as carbon feedstock is indeed a scam. It’s just a bad idea for the reasons you named, and also because it cannot scale to a significant portion of the demand that we’ll need.
@8
The article was written by an English man for an English newspaper.
I am aware of that as I read the piece on The Guardian’s site yesterday. My comment was directed at those who are now arguing about the weight issue.
Regarding backgrounds…
Speaking as a (now retired) electrical engineering professor, I will say that I have met some very dumb engineers over the years, electrical and otherwise. I will also say that many engineers tend to be politically conservative (unlike many of the pure science folks I know), but I suspect that is due to the influence of the military-industrial complex, at least here in the US. The more important thing to remember is that every one of us is dumb in terms of the big picture. We have fields in which we may have expertise, but in the vast sea of human learning, we’re largely ignorant, or at best, dilettantes in some bays and backwaters. Just because someone has created a wonderful symphony or earned a degree doesn’t mean that they know squat about climate change, or how to service a car’s brakes, or vice versa.
Meanwhile, the air here in upstate NY smells like burnt Alberta, Canada, and the sky has an odd color. National Weather Service has an air quality alert for today. We’ll see if it continues tomorrow, undoubtedly dependent on the winds coming from the west.
So… an unrelated discipline.
He will know well how the motor works, and how the control systems work, and so forth.
But that’s not about what he is opining, is it?
(Resource extraction and economics and manufacturing and distribution chains are not typically included in that field of study)
—
One thing I note about the old-fashioned ICE cars — people don’t generally take into account the huge infrastructure and other costs (including environmental, social and political) involved with sucking up, refining, and transporting of the fuel that gets burnt to operate them.
All those petrol pumps all over the country don’t magically refill themselves.
All are ongoing costs in addition to what the vehicles burn.
Still, he did make a good point: EVs are still early in their development cycle, whereas ICE has been just about perfected after over a century’s worth of refinements and improvements.
They will improve significantly in the next decade or two.
PS https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle
“They will improve significantly in the next decade or two”
Rather his point is that THAT IS TOO LATE. A good-enough electric car in 20 years is no use to me if I’m denied any alternative in less than seven. And that is what the law currently is here -- it’s a headlong rush into a technology that is not ready, and even proponents admit will not be ready by then.
I am referring to the claim being featured, which basically compares ICE vs EV.
As quoted in the OP:
The claim is, as noted @1 and endorsed@2, basically one of the fossil-fuel talking points — yes, the operating costs of ICE may be far more polluting, but the creation costs of EV are greater in terms of resources, so it’s much a muchness. Which is pretty bullshit, as my link @15 indicates.
I’m also suggesting that comparing a mature technology with a nascent one is kinda specific to this point in time, not to a future point.
(Also, ICE cars need a shitload more moving parts and consumables than EVs; oil filters, fuel filters, air filters, fluids, lubricants, stuff like that. Ongoing costs, all those things need to be manufactured too)
In short, the insinuation that because they are not perfect they are perforce not better is refuted by the actual facts at hand.
(Also, kinda easier to top up the EV with one’s roof solar panels than to top up ICE with one’s backyard drilling rig and refinery)
#4 jimf
I’m not sure that the reference to increased weight is solely about road condition and maintenance, as there is also an inverse relationship between the weight of a vehicle and its efficiency. Heavier means movement requires more work.
#0 OP
I’d steer clear of synthetic fuels as a solution, as they only create another one -- large tracts of land given over to fuel crops. This just adds yet another pressure to turn wildernesses into environmentally destructive large scale monoculture. It must be emphasised that ‘reduce’ is by far the most important of the trio.
#5 jimf
Real. USA is something of an unregulated Wild West when it comes to cars. For example, cars are required to meet certain efficiency targets …unless it is classified as a truck. And with a certain segment of the population, big vehicles are ‘manly’ or whatever while compact cars with good efficiency are for pansies. So, stupid large vehicles with lousy efficiency typically carrying only a single occupant are common. Oh and for bonus manly points, modify the engine towards even worse efficiency so that at the flick of a switch, your man-mobile belches obnoxious black smoke behind it, a ‘fun’ activity called rolling coal.
#10 seachange
Engineers aren’t scientists, engineering isn’t science. Also, who is Rick?
#14 John
He did not claim to be an authority. If you read the source article, Atkinson mentions it only to set up his early adoption of electric vehicles.
___
Some people are overreacting to Atkinson’s post. I do not get the impression he is claiming EVs are bad, only that they are not as good as the hype surrounding them.
EVs won’t solve the motorcar problem.
Which is that there are to bloody many of them.
Holms,
Nor did I claim he claimed he was an authority; I merely quoted his adduced credentials in technology and noted they are not the relevant ones for the issue at hand.
I’m commenting on this post, not on the original article.
(Which, frankly, I care nothing about. His opinion is his opinion, fine.
Mano thinks it thoughtful, fine.
I think it… suspect)
[semi-OT]
Gerrard, since you’re here, here is a video about a talking point you adduced elseblog elsewhen:
[not entirely OT]
Catalytic converters. Palladium.
The level of knee-jerk opposition to a reasonable article on display here is depressing.
He mentions his degree discipline only to explain/justify the fact that he bought a hybrid, and later a pure electric, BEFORE YOU. And before anyone you know, very likely.
But no, he’s been bribed. He -- one of the wealthiest, most famous artists in the UK -- has been bribed to say something he doesn’t believe. His experience of 18 years of owning a hybrid and nine years owning a pure EV is worthless compared to YOUR… how many years have YOU owned a pure EV?
Follow the gourd!! Persecute the heretic!
Fucking leftie purity police. This is why progress takes so long.
sonofrojblake:
What? Nah, he’s just someone who has an opinion. Not a factual one.
That he echoes fossil fuel misinformation is understandable; wrong, but understandable.
Again: look at the actual facts. Go check the nature and basis of that 2021 claim by Volvo about their own vehicles. Etc.
<snicker>
What? No, Rowan is the one supposedly disillusioned with EVs.
Basically, the opposite of endorsing progress. Oh, no! Not a panacea!
What he’s expressing is that he had a naive idea of the magic of EVs, and now has to confront the reality; that is, that they’re only much better than ICE, not perfect.
Again:
See? He claims he thought they were claimed to be a panacea, and it turns out that they’re only much greener overall and still a developing tech.
How did it go?
Ah yes, “Electric vehicles may be a bit soulless, but they’re wonderful mechanisms: fast, quiet and, until recently, very cheap to run.”
As opposed to the soulful ICEs, which are fast, noisy, and recently very expensive to run.
(Heh)
#20 John
Nor did I claim you claimed such. Nor did you claim I claimed and so on.
/eyeroll
Ah, so you knew very well that he did not bring up his education to make a claim of subject matter authority, yet you brought it up to say it did not make him a subject matter authority. Wow, what a useful comment.
Holms:
Nope. Not in the slightest.
Again: I was commenting on the OP, far as I knew it was Mano’s decision to mention that.
Again: No, I did not bother to read his opinion in the source material; I am commenting on the OP.
So, no, I did not know he himself brought up his education (lo, these many decades ago!), and therefore had no basis upon which to speculate about why he would do that.
No, I did not bring it up; I commented on what I quoted from the OP.
You know, its second sentence.
(I brought up a quotation! Dear me!)
Indeed. Glad you appreciate that, at least.
OK, less snarkily, I note that you are most conspicuously not disputing the actual content of my comment or its correctess, but rather its usefulness.
(So useful of you to comment thus!)
[in passing]
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ford-calls-extension-post-brexit-trade-rules-2027-2023-05-17/
…
From the OP (just bringing this up, out of nowhere):
Interestingly, practical EVs are basically batteries on wheels. Big ones — an EV has typically more capacity than a home battery system.
In some jurisdictions (e.g. where I live) solar rooftop in good days way exceeds the power demand on the network, and there’s not enough grid storage to use it.
So, during peak insolation times, the wholesale price becomes negligible or even negative.
Too much power, not enough demand. What a shame. If only there were a way to store it.
(Batteries can both take in electricity until they are full, and provide electricity until they are spent; yes, charge/discharge cycles and all that, but still)
Holms, @18: when people refer to “synthetic fuels” in this context, they generally don’t mean biofuels. They usually mean fuels chemically synthesized from carbon (ideally captured from atmospheric CO2) and water. So no requirement for fuel crops, just fairly prodogious energy inputs, usually from conveniently unspecified sources.
Entertainingly in the interest of balance, presumably, the Guardian have now published a “rebuttal”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/07/petrol-diesel-engines-technology-electric-cars
For starters, the author isn’t (like Atkinson) a disinterested party -- he’s CTO of a company making charging points. Good start…
Hilariously, he introduces an app that can calculate the impact of an EV, and quotes as his example:
Talk about cherry-picking. Couldn’t he have specified “driven slowly and only in summer” to further improve the figures? He’s already made the figure representative of less than 0.001% of driving, and bafflingly presented this in an English newspaper. He doesn’t state how many batteries Sweden is currently set up to manufacture…
His point, that he hammers again and again, is “STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS. We’ve won the argument, stop talking about it!!!”
Next he extols the virtues of EVs:
Doesn’t sound like he’s driven a Tesla, or seen a Tesla, or talked to anyone who’s owned a Tesla, or seen anything written by anyone who’s ever had anything to do with a Tesla. Odd, for someone with his credentials.
It’s extremely telling that nowhere in his list of great things about them does he mention cost, lifetime or resale value, typical considerations for customer who are, unlike him, not in the top 10% of earners.
And finally, the absolute kicker:
I own gadgets that can be “updated over-the-air”. What I have found this to mean in practice is that the manufacturers can, at a whim, make my experience of the product I thought I’d bought worse, sometimes considerably worse. At worst, they can brick it completely.
So, if you offer me a car that can be updated over the air, I’m not going to buy it, not if there’s ANY alternative, even a more expensive, polluting one. “controlled by highly flexible software” is, in my considerable experience, code for “shit that doesn’t work reliably”. I have a car I’ve been driving for ten years, over 150,000 miles. I don’t WANT it “updated” -- it works. If it didn’t work, I wouldn’t have bought it.
Then another downside of EVs:
So… the battery I bought and paid for isn’t mine -- it’s going to be used, i.e. have its useful lifetime reduced, to support an energy grid’s inadequacies. No thanks.
Most amusing of all, the penultimate paragraph tacitly concedes many of Atkinsons points that -- for reasons of battery technology, infrastructure inadequacy, rare earth mining dangers and so on -- EVs are indeed not ready for prime time. But his conclusion isn’t that we should maximise the utility of ICEs in the meantime. He builds a strawman argument:
Nobody, certainly not Atkinson, is advocating not making the transition. They’re just sounding a note of caution about rushing headlong into it when EVs are demonstrably not good enough yet.
I’m not suggesting he’s been bribed or corrupted. I don’t need to. He is “is co-founder and CTO at Zapmap, a UK-wide map of electric car charging points” -- he’s the opposite of a reliable, impartial witness. He has a very strong vested interest in getting EVs adopted universally, today. Poor show.
sonofrojblake:
You do get it’s optional, right?
Can. Not will. Not shall. Not must. Can.
(You can donate your kidney, if you want)
More to the point, the system can (heh) be set up so it profits the EV owner, overall.
Cost-benefit considerations, quite outside the greenhouse gas amelioration.
“When you start to drill into the facts, electric motoring doesn’t seem to be quite the environmental panacea it is claimed to be.”
“It seems a perverse choice of hardware with which to lead the automobile’s fight against the climate crisis.”
“Increasingly, I’m feeling that our honeymoon with electric cars is coming to an end, and that’s no bad thing”
Ah yes, damning with faint praise.
Indeed. But, then, he is a comedian, not an energy policy analyst.
Increasingly. https://electrek.co/2023/04/26/global-electric-car-sales-iea/
#26 John
Did he make the claim that Atkinson was thereby authoritative on the subject? Maybe I missed it.
Pointing out bad commentary is one of the services I provide. You are a something of a frequent flyer in that regard.
Missed this earlier:
#24 John
Which claim of his in the excerpt qualifies as ‘fossil fuel misinformation’?
@jimf
Others have already covered the basics, but here’s a thorough examination of how this happened:
Holms, you’re sure a glutton for punishment. So be it.
Ahem.
“Nor did I claim you claimed such. Nor did you claim I claimed and so on.
/eyeroll”
(You kinda made it up until this misstep)
Um.
Thinking that you are pointing out bad commentary is one of the services you claim to provide is an excuse.
(Notably, you’re still to actually dispute any of what I claimed)
“The claim is, as noted @1 and endorsed@2, basically one of the fossil-fuel talking points — yes, the operating costs of ICE may be far more polluting, but the creation costs of EV are greater in terms of resources, so it’s much a muchness. Which is pretty bullshit, as my link @15 indicates.”
@18 Holms
I’m not sure that the reference to increased weight is solely about road condition and maintenance, as there is also an inverse relationship between the weight of a vehicle and its efficiency. Heavier means movement requires more work.
The argument, as presented to me, was specifically about wearing out streets and bridges. While it’s true that weight is an enemy when it comes to efficiency of movement, we already know that the electrics are more efficient in spite of their increased mass. Improved batteries will only make things better. The argument is a non-starter.
Adding a few references, which I looked up when a friend sent me the Atkinson article by email.
Regarding lifetime costs, Consumer Reports did a study,
https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/EV-Ownership-Cost-Final-Report-1.pdf
Regarding carbon footprint of EVs, here’s a Reuters study on lifetime carbon emissions, including manufacturing emissions:
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/
They found the break-even point comes at different mileages based on the source of the BEV’s electricity, but they all do become cleaner than a comparable ICE vehicle in very reasonable distances, 10-15K miles.
Atkinson imagines a future when we have “millions of overweight electric cars with rapidly obsolescing batteries”. In fact we handled just such a transition smoothly in the 1970s, when we had millions of hydrocarbon-belching vehicles that we eventually replaced with newer ones with catalytic converters.
Regarding the relative environmental and political costs of mining rare-earth minerals, versus the same costs of continuing petroleum extraction, consider that a BEV needs one battery (or possibly two lifetime, if Atkinson is right), where an ICE needs petroleum constantly and forever.
One of the rarely spoken facts about electric vehicles is the tires. The cars are heavier which wears out tires faster, leaving more microplastics in the environment. Even this pro-plastic industry website admits tires are a problem:
https://www.plasticstoday.com/medical/tire-wear-major-source-microplastics-say-researchers
Meanwhile, bicycles and public transit are “discouraged” (read: ridiculed and opposed) and the car industry encourages aggression. In Calgary, Alberta, a Volvo advertisement contained the slogan, “win against elks”, a feeble double entendre. Elks is the name of Edmonton’s football team, the Stampeders is Calgary’s team. But the ad is for an SUV, inferring that you will survive (thus encouraging) crashing into animals while driving on a highway.
#35 John
You think your comments are punishment? What a strange conceit.
No it isn’t. I comment on the things I want to comment on, and not other things I don’t. If I comment on items for your comments but not other items, it is because I wanted to comment on some but not all of what you posted.
But if we are talking excuses, there’s your repeated ‘but you aren’t disputing what I said!’ bleat.
You still have not identified any particular claim of Atkinson’s as misinformation i.e. false.
[Heh heh heh]
Poor Rowan is all disillusioned.
Can’t be “misinformation i.e. false”, since he is just putting out his opinion.
That it echoes the themes, theses and insinuations as the propaganda employed by the fossil fuel interests is just coincidental.
Anyway, since I’m commenting in response to Holms, I take the opportunity to note another indicator of how things are going:
Remember this talking-point?
(“Go check the nature and basis of that 2021 claim by Volvo about their own vehicles.”, wrote I)
Well.
“This week, Swedish manufacturer Volvo turned up the pressure on the likes of Toyota another notch by announcing it would stop selling petrol-powered cars in Australia within four years.
Instead, Volvo would only supply “fully electric” cars by 2026 – four years ahead of a similar, global commitment.”
(https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-09/does-volvo-ev-bid-show-hybrids-on-a-road-to-nowhere/101631902)
I asked which fact claims of his were false. You raise his mention of a claim made by Volvo. Was he wrong to say they made that claim? No, they made it. The rest of your post is just squirming.
Yes, and I answered “Can’t be “misinformation i.e. false”, since he is just putting out his opinion.”
Yes, @24.
No, but he essayed that claim in a way that made it clear he endorsed it and considered it authoritative, universal and permanent.
Thus my #17.
um, should’ve previewed. One single slash.
Some need help, but, so I shall redo properly:
—
Thus my #17.
<smirk>
Was I wrong to say he said they made that claim? No, he did say it.
LOL
[ah well, perhaps I’m being too subtle for such an advanced mind as Holms’]
See, in 2021 Volvo asserted their EVs were 70% more polluting to produce.
In 2022 they announced how they’re hastening their goal to be all-electric by 4 years.
Every time I have occasion to swat your claims, Holms, I have the option of taking the opportunity to include something about the topic at hand so as not to entirely waste the comment.
Someone more cluey might have noted how this is thematically linked to the claim that the honeymoon is over. Of course, sales and base are growing exponentially, but that’s in the real world, not in Rowan’s opinion.
Basically, lots of things about his opinion are questionable, but then, it’s only an opinion.
Bit sad some are somehow impressed by it, but.
The video author simply knows nothing about grid management. The flaw in the video can be highlighted with this quote: 10:07 “When you look at the big picture though, this logic doesn’t fly with any other commodity”. Electricity is not a commodity. That’s the fundamental source of error. Electricity is better described as a service, not a commodity. Commodities can be stored with minor costs without inherent depreciation of value. Electricity cannot be stored with minor costs without inherent depreciation of value. You don’t pay the grid operator for electricity to be delivered in one lump sum at the beginning of the month. You pay for a service of continuous delivery of electricity to meet your millisecond by millisecond demand.
Again, he makes the same mistake at 12:25, which is the mistaken assumption that building enough solar to handle winter months means that he has lots of spare valuable electricity during summer months. He’s treating it like a commodity, and this simply isn’t true. He says that if he’s off grid, that’s an “absurd amount of wasted energy potential”. My response is: No, it’s not wasted. It was never valuable in the first place. You can’t use it. Also, everyone else cannot use it for the exact same reasons that you can’t use it. It is not a commodity. Stop thinking of it like a commodity.
To supply this service, about half of the money cost is transmission line construction and maintenance, which is basically the same whether you use solar or not. During the year, your peak consumption from the grid is going to be about the same with or without solar because there will be days where your solar doesn’t work and you still need electricity.
To supply this service, they also need to guarantee millisecond by millisecond generation of electricity when there is no sun. Much of this is capital costs, non-fuel operation and maintenance costs, decommissioning costs, and other costs which are not fuel costs.
The brute fact is that a fair net-metering scheme would involve selling back electricity at something like like 10% of the price that you buy it from the grid.
My preferred ideal system of charging for electricity would be something like a charge based on your max power usage (Watts) during grid peak usage hours over some period of time (e.g. one month) to account for transmission costs and capacity payments, and another smaller charge based on total energy (Joules) consumed over a period of time (e.g. one month) with costs that vary over the day based on availability of generators including residential rooftop solar. The result would be that in some areas of California where solar is saturated, you don’t get any money from net metering, but your total bill would still go down (slightly) because you consumed less total energy (Joules) while still maintaining about the same peak usage (Watts).
And the video author doesn’t seem to discuss in the video the other subsidies involved, including direct federal and state subsidies to the individual rooftop solar owners that directly subsidize purchase and installation of rooftop solar and any loans. And he doesn’t seem to discuss other subsidies, such as government renewable energy credits, renewable energy portfolio standards, merit order rules, and more.
The video author also says that it’s not the responsibility of consumers to ensure the financial solvency of a business. In this case, it is. Grid operators are highly regulated by the government. They are natural monopolies, and regulated as such. To say that it is not the concern of the ratepayer or taxpayer to ensure that the regulated natural monopoly stays financially solvent is flagrantly ridiculous.
Perhaps sensing their previous rebuttal was compromised…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles
That was never your claim, was it?
The introduction to the post is about your claim:
“There’s [sic] concerns that homes with solar panels are reducing their utility bills at the expense of their neighbors without solar panels. The phenomenon is referred to as “cost shifting”: the idea that the credits utilities pay to solar homes for the solar energy they produce ultimately results in higher bills for customers without solar panels.”
Remember?
At the time, I was referring to my own locale, and noted how I pay a supply charge and a solar metering charge for the actual network maintenance.
—
As for it being unusable, well, I refer you to my #28.
(or: it would be more usable were there, say, fleets of cars with large batteries to suck it up)
sonofrojblake @46, heh.
I guess the Grauniad still cares somewhat about their reputation, in this sphere at least.
I was responding to your video source which made the claim, paraphrase “if I built my solar to fulfill my needs in winter, then I would have way too much solar energy in summer, and that energy is valuable and would be wasted”. I am responding to that claim. That precise bit was clearly responding to the claims made in your video, and not to whatever other claims you made. That’s why I cited and timestamped the video instead of quoting and responding to claims that you directly made.
And I want a pony.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20want%20a%20pony
Yes yes John. We’ve been over this before. I mention that all proven battery technology cannot scale because the raw materials are too scarce (Li-ion, lead, nickel, most sodium-ion because they use nickel) or way too expensive, and then you mention unproven new battery technologies that I think are probably vaporware, and then we end the conversation.
An alternative that looks promising is to rely on machine learning to create new catalysts and enzymes that can split biomass into affordable and practical buofuels as slot-in replacements for petroleum products.
Like biodiesel and butanol, the latter being a much better fuel than ethanol.
A biorefinery with GM yeast capable of modifying molecules with several chemical steps might be able to compete with conventional fuel sources.
No exotic batteries, overall zero carbon footprint.
@ 39 Holms
I do, in fact, relate to the resident troll’s comments as punishment in the sense that constant eye-rolling at the sheer fatuousness in not pleasant.
Can you imagine any other commenter utterly botching their HTML like Morales at #42 and then using it as an opportunity to claim superiority?
@ 43
Honestly. Clowns are supposed to be entertaining, but this clown’s special skill is being superhumanly boring.
Gerrard:
Dunno about a pony, but the EVs are coming in ever-greater quantities.
So that’s a thing.
(Look at the installed base, look at the exponentially-growing number of sales, look at the supply chains being set up, look at the commitments by car manufacturers (cough, such as Volvo))
—
Uh-huh. Be aware that there is no indication on my page whatsoever that you had set some timestamp, since you failed to avoid the embedding by posting a naked link.
Anyway, in the case of a non-grid connected (off grid) setup, there is no effective wastage to the network itself; rather, a reduced load to the grid means someone else can get that scarce resource. Oh, sorry, that service, in your estimation.
(After all, everyone knows services can be stored for later use. Service batteries!)
Yet EVs aren’t vapourware, are they? They are real. There they are.
(Look at the installed base, look at the exponentially-growing number of sales, look at the supply chains being set up, look at the commitments by car manufacturers (cough, such as Volvo)
—
Anyway.
If anything, solar roof panel adopters are subsidising those without, since the cost of the infrastructure and its maintenance to the electricity provider is the exact same whether or not one has those panels; I mean, unless one is connected to the grid, one can’t supply power to it, can they?
And whatever power is supplied is in addition to what centralised large power generations provide, except very cheap at those times. In fact, free, according to your own claim, since it’s worthless. Who’d buy at $$$ from the centralised power generator when one could buy at $ from solar rooftop? Not electricity retailers, that’s for sure.
And of course, whatever power goes out to the grid from panels is the excess power of the household, when the panels generate more than is being used by the household.
—
In passing, perhaps have a look at the capacity, charge/discharge rate, cycles, cost per KWh, and so forth for batteries over time — because it sure seems to me that you’re still stuck in the distant past of a decade, a decade-and-a-half ago.
CacophonousBog:
Aww, you’re not that bad. Merely humanly boring.
(Don’t be so hard on yourself!)
birgerjohansson,
In principle, true.
But. Opportunity cost.
That land being farmed for raw materials for the biorefinery could be producing foodstuff, instead. All the inputs, all the fertilising, all the harvesting and transport and processing could also be used for foodstuff.
Lotsa people and animals around, you know.
Sorry John. Math is clear. There’s not enough lithium worldwide in estimated resources and reserves for the amount of batteries that we would need. Not even close. You continue to make arguments that do not address my points.
Well, Gerrard, it’s you vs. the world. Good luck there.
Aren’t you going on about how batteries are the same as 50 years ago and how solar power is useless and how BEVs can’t be successful over time because they use batteries?
Pretty sure I’ve addressed all of those. Which have I missed?
(Remember, the focus of this post and therefore its comments is best being on EVs)
As I write, Morales has posted 23 out of 56 comments.
*snore*
SquawkBoob, many a time I have told you that I tend to respond to your obsessive needling. You can’t complain you’re pricked when it is you who kicks against the prick.
You claim you do not wish for me to comment, you then proceed to post something you imagine is disparaging. I respond to those as I am responding to this one.
You can’t face that, basically, functionally, you’re the troll. All about me and my terrible failings, never mind whatever the subject at hand may be.
But hey, others may have a different opinion.
And you’ve only been my obsessed fanboi for a couple of years so far, so who knows? 🙂
What proportion of those, do you reckon, are responses to posts written to me?
You do get that any comment I’ve here directed to you has been in response to a comment from you to or about me. Basically, you and your choices are the very reason those comments exist. This one adds to the tally.
I know you’d rather I did not respond, but that would be most easily achieved by not provoking me. Your choice exhibits your true desire.
(What proportion of posts I write responding to you do you imagine are anything other than a response to your snipes?)
@ Morales
Have you considered growing tomatoes? I hear some people get a lot of joy from trainspotting. Quiots! Have you tried quiots?
There must be something else you could do with your days to spare the rest of us from this daily barrage of tedious waffle.
You do amuse, BobbaFetid.
*snore*, you went to the trouble of typing in the comment box.
Oh, yes, you care not one whit about me or my comments, and are bored to sleep.
Important to post a comment to that effect, no?
Yes. I have not only considered it, but done and am doing it.
Queensland, you know.
BTW, that’s ‘Quoits’.
You mean, I should stop responding to your efforts to assuage your neediness to engage with me.
I wouldn’t do that to you, BlabbyBug.
—
So, have you noticed how your comments are all about me, nothing to do with EVs or Rowan’s opinion or its merits or the (quite interesting) update sonofrojblake mentioned @46? I have.
—
As I’ve noted before, self-reflection is not your forte.
(“O wad some Power the giftie gie us / To see oursels as ithers see us!”)
#42 John
You keep hiding behind some of what he said being phrased as opinion. So, skip the subjective items and go for the fact claims. Which are false?
I had skipped #24 as it was not in reply to me, but your summary of the claim: “[not false], but he essayed that claim in a way that made it clear he endorsed it and considered it authoritative, universal and permanent.” No, he clearly showed that this was a claim made by Volvo. Nowhere is there any statement or even implication as to the claim being ‘authoritative, universal and permanent’. Though regarding authority, Volvo was was referring to their own manufacturing process when calculating that figure, and I might consider them fairly authoritative of their own manufacturing process.
Anyway, no falsified fact claim there. I don’t know why you’d make such a big deal of defending your claim that he stated misinformation, and not produce a single item of misinformation. Oh well, your time is yours to spend.
#44
The latter does not refute the former.
John,
Argument from popularity; really John? Is that the best fallacy you can do?
OK, so replacing the current internal combustion vehicle fleet with electrics can’t be done now with current technology due to insufficient rare metals etc. But what if we don’t actually need that many cars? Most of the time cars are sitting parked somewhere. What if cars were not owned by individual consumers but were rented whenever needed? Could we reduce the number of cars that need to be manufactured? There will be times of day when demand for cars is higher than others, but if more employers are flexible about hours this can be somewhat mitigated. And perhaps what we really need is better access to a good public transportation system. As a person who has been commuting by bus since about 2011 (minus the 1st year of the pandemic), it can be done if the system exists. (Yes, it takes longer than driving, but that’s when I do most of my reading for pleasure. And the added walking is built-in exercise, though that doesn’t work for everyone.) I’m aware this will require a huge cultural shift in the US (less so in less car-dependent countries), but at least it is physically possible.
[not really in the mood today, but I shan’t leave people hanging]
Appeal to reality, Gerrard.
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/executive-summary
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/hybrids-evs/why-electric-cars-may-soon-flood-the-us-market-a9006292675/
You don’t think it’s doable, yet it’s being done.
Just like with renewable uptake.
—
Holms:
I refer you to #46.
Oh, right. This, too.
Heh heh heh.
Of course not. They just want their manufacturing to be as polluting as possible.
““There is no long-term future for cars with an internal combustion engine,” Volvo Australia’s managing director Stephen Connor said.
“Instead of investing in a shrinking business, we choose to invest in the future, which is fully electric.”
“I am very confident we can achieve this, and even go beyond to achieve our aspiration of selling 20,000 fully electric cars every year in Australia.””
(https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-08/ev-volvo-ford-toyota-mazda-electric-car-tesla-polestar/101626808)
While I’m at it:
https://www.volvocars.com/au/news/sustainability/
“The all-electric Volvo EX30 is designed to have the lowest carbon footprint of any Volvo car to date”
#64 John
Can’t read it, not a subscriber. Use your words, even copy paste would be fine.
#65
Again, this does not refute their figure.
Yeah, you can. It’s free and publicly accessible. No paywall at all, whatsoever.
How you managed to fail to access it is beyond me.
I have used my words, and your psychological reactance has made them moot.
But since you ask so nicely, the piece is titled Fact check: why Rowan Atkinson is wrong about electric vehicles.
Here is a snippet:
“Atkinson is also wrong to say that the UK government’s plan to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 “seems to be based on conclusions drawn from only one part of a car’s operating life: what comes out of the exhaust pipe”.
For starters, the government’s cost-benefit analysis of its policy plans for cars talks in detail about life cycle emissions. Specifically, it mentions government-commissioned research that proves EVs offer a large and growing emissions benefit on a life cycle basis.
Echoing Carbon Brief’s findings, the analysis says: “BEVs [battery electric vehicles] are expected to reduce GHG emissions by 65% compared to a petrol car today, and this rises to 76% by 2030.””
You thought it was intended to be a refutation? It is a funny.
“The all-electric Volvo EX30 is designed to have the lowest carbon footprint of any Volvo car to date”
vs
“greenhouse gas emissions during production of an electric car are 70% higher than when manufacturing a petrol one”
So, grant both claims are true. That’s what we call a conjunction, when applying logic.
It follows that, even though greenhouse gas emissions during production of an electric car are 70% higher than when manufacturing a petrol one, the all-electric Volvo EX30 is designed to have the lowest carbon footprint of any Volvo car to date.
So, it follows that Rowan is disappointed that EVs are greener (even from Volvo) than their ICE equivalents.
(Such is his thoughtfulness!)
“Appeal to reality” — Translation: I’m correct because a most people in my country also share my quasi-religious preconceived conclusions.
Again, argument from popularity.
No, mate.
It’s like, you: “Can’t be done!”
Me: points at it actually being done.
You: “But it can’t be done all the way!”
Me: Points all the indicators, points at all the private enterprise and government policy directions, points at all the investment, points at all the sales.
You: “That’s just appealing to popularity!”
me: (sigh)
Evidence of achieving 1% of the goal is not counter-evidence against well known and reliable estimates of the worldwide availability of lithium which would prevent achieving even 50% of the goal. You’re delusional, and an asshole, but I repeat the obvious.
BTW, Gerrard, to point at reality some more:
https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1y&interval=1d
Shows the grid usage by source for South Australia for 12 months with a 1 day granularity.
Wind 45.6% 6519 GWH
Solar (rooftop) 32.1% 2599 GWh
Solar (utility) 5.3% 758 GWh
Adding up the percentages shows the total percentage of energy from solar and wind, which way exceeds 30%. Zero huclear. Zero coal. Net energy exporter.
Wikipedia notes SA is 1,044,353 km2 and had a population of 1,815,485 in 2022.
Because, of course, without lithium, one can’t have batteries.
But fair enough. Once lithium begins to run out (sometime into the indefinite future), we shan’t be able to make batteries any more.
You remember the couple of times I’ve pointed out to you new lithium mining projects?
Things are ramping up.
https://investingnews.com.au/lithium-mines-in-australia
(Of course, Australia is not the entirety of the planet)
Also, note that all the materials required to make a battery are present in a battery.
Rowan fondly imagines they have only a 10-year life, but actually they can be used a lot longer than that, and, when its performance is sufficiently degraded, it can be put in the pile of retired batteries.
So, you end up with a pile of all the materials needed to make batteries.
What do you reckon? I reckon there might be economic incentives ($$$) to recycle batteries as the world lithium reserve runs out?
As for achieving 1% of the goal, that’s… well, not evincing an understanding of the actual proportion of EVs to ICEs as it stands, nor does it evince an understanding of the way S curves work. And you seem to be mixing up the proportion of new car sales with the proportion of extant vehicles.
There are 1.4+ billion cars on this planet.
The goal is to replace highly polluting cars with hardly polluting cars.
Nowhere near 1% in those terms.
But, you know, S curves.
#67 John
It gave me a ‘make a free account to continue reading’ blocker, and no thanks to that. But in general, if you want to present something, put it in the text of your post. Anyway…
I asked for fact claims he made that were false. You quote the rebuttal quoting him saying ‘seems to be based on…’ which is clearly a surmise or subjective impression rather than a claim of fact. He also accepted that running costs were lower and that the vehicles were overall a good thing, so the rest of what you quote invalidates none of what he said.
The 70% figure was calculated by Volvo in 2021 for the cars they had in production then. The ex30 is a new design that will be available in 2024. So, the claim does not refer to this new car but their old ones.
Cool, good chat.
Heh, Holms. Getting in the mood, now. Ta.
Very weird.
Let’s recapitulate:
Me@24: “That he echoes fossil fuel misinformation is understandable; wrong, but understandable.”You: “Which claim of his in the excerpt qualifies as ‘fossil fuel misinformation’?”Me: “The claim is, as noted @1 and endorsed@2, basically one of the fossil-fuel talking points — yes, the operating costs of ICE may be far more polluting, but the creation costs of EV are greater in terms of resources, so it’s much a muchness.”You: “You still have not identified any particular claim of Atkinson’s as misinformation i.e. false.”Me: “Can’t be “misinformation i.e. false”, since he is just putting out his opinion.That it echoes the themes, theses and insinuations as the propaganda employed by the fossil fuel interests is just coincidental. ”
[and so forth, until]
You: “#42 JohnYou keep hiding behind some of what he said being phrased as opinion. So, skip the subjective items and go for the fact claims. Which are false?”
Me: [posts #67]You: “I asked for fact claims he made that were false. You quote the rebuttal quoting him saying ‘seems to be based on…’ which is clearly a surmise or subjective impression rather than a claim of fact.”(You do amuse, and I am entertained)
John, recycling is irrelevant. There simply isn’t enough lithium, nor nickel, nor lead, nor cobalt. As in if you sig it all up now and make it into batteries, there’s simply not enough. Recycling can’t conjure more material when we’re already short using all of it. It’s rather simple to look up stuff like the USGS estimate of worldwide resources and reserves and calculating from first principles how much energy it could store using known battery voltages. (Convert the millions of metric tonnes to number of ions using avagadros number, and multiply by voltage, and then you have a unit of energy).
Listen to yourself!
(Resident troll is now up to 33 out of 76 comments. By comparison, his main fall guy Holms has eight.)
One person writes to me. I respond once. Then six people do that.
Result?
I comment 6 times, they each comment once.
But only ever one comment to me, and one comment from me.
The math is beyond you, DoltishBub.
Meantime, I write about EVs and about the topic at hand.
You write about me.
Every. Single. Comment. So. Far. About. Me.
Call me a troll all you want, but every time you are trolling me.
We (both you, I, and everyone else) knows who the true troll is.
(And, hey, as I’ve noted countless times before, you have just added another comment to my tally, as I perfunctorily swat you)
I understand Mano moderates with a very light touch, and I applaud that. I’m reminded of this post:
https://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2022/09/12/walking-away-from-endless-arguments/
But surely there’s a limit. I don’t think I’m alone in wanting intelligent discussion here. Instead we have to put up with this utter idiot ruining every thread, treating Mano’s blog as his personal playground, openly boasting that he’s taking advantage of Mano’s tolerance and doesn’t care:
Could we at least do a partial ban, like with Holms? Say, Morales is allowed to do one comment per thread? Then in the unlikely event he ever has something worthwhile to say, we can still hear it. Of course, we’d never hear from him again because the only reason he trolls Mano’s blog is to disrupt and annoy everyone else, so if he were restricted to one comment his entire rationale would cease to be.
I doubt I’m alone in being fed up with this one troll who is not the least bit interested in anything Mano writes about, derailing every thread for his own personal amusement.
FlapperLips:
Indeed. Holms and I tested it some little time ago, and I was duly chastened.
You and I are testing it now, so I shall henceforth desist from appeasing your obsession on this thread.
But, of course, regarding the topic at hand, I am most happy to respond to anyone addresses me.
Pathetic piteous puling.
Yes, you’ve made that claim for literally years now, all the time sniping at me.
It ain’t working yet.
Won’t ever work, since anyone who has any nous knows I am not a troll.
I am a commenter. Opinionated. Irritating, to some. Dominating threads, as now.
(I adopted truth machine as my sifu, back when)
—
I don’t suppose you care to share your thoughts on the topic at hand — you know, Rowan’s opinion regarding EVs, his disillusionment after lo these many years owning them on the basis that he had studied electrical engineering back when, and how after all this time he is dismayed to think they are not the panacea he had hitherto thought them to be. I mean, soulless he thinks them, but they’re wonderful mechanisms: fast, quiet and, until recently, very cheap to run.
Heh. Sorry, that one amuses me so. Not so cheap anymore, apparently. Since recently. No comparison there with running ICE cars, because… well. I can only speculate.
Where was I?
Ah, right. So, Rowan, all disillusioned with EVs after lo these many years of ownership of multiple ones, has come to the realisation that they are not a panacea. Even worse, he is aware that back in 2021 Volvo claimed that electric cars (well, theirs, but EV is EV, right?) are 70% more polluting to produce than ICE cars, and he mentions that as a factor in his awakening to the impure status of EVs. He doesn’t mention how Volvo itself, less than a year later, commits to entirely EV production on the basis of greeniness. (Sorry, Gerrard)
Anyway. So the Guardian puts out an opinion piece on their website, which Mano latches upon and features in this very post, and thus this thread is born.
Now, as Holms noted ” #14 John
He did not claim to be an authority. If you read the source article, Atkinson mentions it [his credentials] only to set up his early adoption of electric vehicles.”
I take this opportunity to note my perhaps somewhat gnomic “Very weird.” @74, since Holms after that claimed not to be able to access articles on that very website. But, then, the correction came out in the “analysis” section, not in the “opinion” section, so who knows? Might be only one of those is behind a subscription wall.
Anyway, where was I? I kinda forget, what with being a rambly old fart.
Ah, right.
So, you got any opinion about any of this stuff (excluding Holms’ inability to access public content)?
You know, about Rowan, his opinion, The Guardian, EVs that sort of thing?
Yes, thanks for the recap… I can’t help but notice nowhere do you point to a bad fact claim in that excerpt at the top of all this. You make a great fuss over the 70% figure and how happy it makes ICE proponents / EV sceptics, but fail to produce anything suggesting that it is false. And so you twist and turn some more.
I don’t know why you make such a big deal of this for so long without having anything better than that.
Don’t count me amongst those who consider Sbob the resident troll. It’s you. Sbob quick to anger, which can lead to some ranty posts, but the intentional troll is you.
Holms, back for more! Yay.
LOL. Who’s making a big deal out of this?
Again: you wrote “You keep hiding behind some of what he said being phrased as opinion. So, skip the subjective items and go for the fact claims.”
Then you wrote: “I asked for fact claims he made that were false. You quote the rebuttal quoting him saying ‘seems to be based on…’ which is clearly a surmise or subjective impression rather than a claim of fact.”
Presumably, you saw the original quotation (you know, “If you read the source article”) but somehow you have to rely on the rebuttal that I quoted “quoting him saying ‘seems to be based on…’”. So, have you or have you not seen the source article?
(That’s on the website you can’t access, by your own claim)
So. Your contention is that his opinion is not a fact, because it “is clearly a surmise or subjective impression rather than a claim of fact”. This, after you wrote “You keep hiding behind some of what he said being phrased as opinion. So, skip the subjective items and go for the fact claims.”
Do you really not see the irony there? The hypocrisy?
You really don’t get it, do ya?
Again: he wrote (it’s quoted in the OP, you don’t need to access the site to get that)
“The problem with the initiative is that it seems to be based on conclusions drawn from only one part of a car’s operating life: what comes out of the exhaust pipe.”
Now, this is his opinion, right? Not a claim of fact. Or is it? Are they mutually exclusive?
Here’s where you are equivocating.
I know I’m belabouring the point, but you’re being wilfully obtuse about it.
Is that “clearly a surmise or subjective impression rather than a claim of fact.”?
(Can’t have it both ways)
Gotta love your attempted spin. I am making a big deal out of it.
He. Claimed. Stuff. That. Was. Factually. Incorrect.
But, because it was his opinion, it is not a fact.
It is a fact that it is his opinion.
(heh)
Um, perhaps I was too unclear for the likes of Holms.
“The problem with the initiative is that it seems to be based on conclusions drawn from only one part of a car’s operating life: what comes out of the exhaust pipe.”
OK, that’s from his opinion.
So… it’s a claim about how he sees it. Subjective.
Yet the actual conclusions and their basis are publicly available, have been for some time. As the rebuttal you claim you cannot access (but which I quoted) noted: “For starters, the government’s cost-benefit analysis of its policy plans for cars talks in detail about life cycle emissions.”
So. He claims that it seems (to him, the now-disillusiioned aficionado) that “it seems to be based on conclusions drawn from only one part of a car’s operating life: what comes out of the exhaust pipe”, whereas the actual policy is explicitly based on life cycle emissions.
Now, I get that he can be just a clueless knob (seems so to me, on the basis of what he’s written), so how it seems so to him when it’s very easy to ascertain that’s not the case by actually looking at the proposal as published is not mysterious. It’s wrong, it’s counterfactual, it’s ignorant, but it’s opinionated and by damn it’s his opinion.
Which the Guardian duly published, before being shamed into correcting itself.
Hey, Holms, how about this:
What, if anything, did he actually get factually correct in his opinion?
(Let’s not be negative here)
He was really good as Blackadder, but. So there’s that.
Holms, trying to be inimical:
Oops. Sorry, should not have given you any credit for nous.
And sure, multiple years of continuous obsessive sniping and elseblog specifically targeting me and having nothing to do with the topic at hand is definitely not trolling.
Dozens, hundreds of such snipes over the years is just the way of ranty posts, nothing like trolling at all.
Quoth the Bub: “I doubt I’m alone in being fed up with this one troll who is not the least bit interested in anything Mano writes about, derailing every thread for his own personal amusement.”
Because Bibby is very much interested in Rowan’s opinion, on EVs, and so forth.
You know, what “Mano writes about”, specifically in this post.
Look at each one of his comments here, tell me which are not about me and something (anything!) to do with what “Mano writes about” in this case.
The obvious is obvious.
You are. Firstly, by the only objective measure we have: you’re the one apparently most motivated to post in this thread, 39 of 86 now, compared to my measly 11 (including this). Nearly quadruple my count, and mostly at much greater length. And even a quad post directed at me!
Secondly, because you in particular have indicated that you consider a person commenting on a thing at all indicative it being a big deal for that person.
So, 39 bigness for you in this thread. So far.
Oh! And you have linked about 8 further articles on the subject, and presumably you also read or skimmed them. Odd behaviour for one attempting to affect detachment from the topic, especially when you claimed you did not even read the source article due to disinterest. I suspect the disinterest evaporated once an argument broke out, because you’re you and arguments fire you up.
I skimmed Atkinson’s piece linked in the OP. I did not read any article linked by any commenter, though I tried one of yours and was blanked.
Is that some of what he said is clearly a subjective judgement (EVs being “wonderful mechanisms” yet also “soulless”), some are phrased to indicate an estimate rather than a definite fact (“seems to be based on” caught your ire, but compare that to “is based on”), and plain old fact claims (“Volvo released figures…”). I will grant that some people use weasel words to make stronger claims than might be warranted, and some present fact claims disguised as opinions, which at least in part is why I said “So, skip the subjective items and go for the fact claims. Which are false?”
Aaaaaand you’ve gone for his surmise. Ah well, what a damp squib that turned out to be.
Me-ow! You go gurl.
Yes, he sure gets angry. At me for [censored]. At snof for whatever their last spat was about.
And at you, for trolling.
P.S.
Surely you could have seen the foolishness of claiming “We (both you, I, and everyone else) knows who the true troll is [i.e. sbob].” Have you not read a single one of Gerrard’s posts telling you to ‘die in a fire, troll’ multiple times? It was just a dumb thing to claim.
Indeed. John Morales is a shameless liar and troll, worse than anyone else here by quite a wide margin. He displays zero integrity or remorse.
The piece linked in the OP is this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson
I did not provide any link to the Guardian, that was @46.
This is it:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles
Same site. Mysterious subscription wall on the latter, no prob on the former.
Now now, Gerrard’s intellect is not the relevant considertion.
So, since you have apparently given up referring to EVs and Rowan’s opinion thereof, I suppose I’ll appease your neediness this once and let you have the last word.
—
Also, there, there, Gerrard. I know, because you’ve told me, you have sympathy for me.
(Aww)
You know, if everyone else thinks that you’re the biggest troll in these comment sections among all regular posters, do you think we’re all part of grand conspiracy to get you? Have you considered the possibility that you really are an asshole?
Gerrard, remember this?
“Argument from popularity; really John? Is that the best fallacy you can do?”
<snicker>
41 of 92 posts now. Big fuss over something as simple as the opinion of some “clueless knob” whose opinion you “care nothing about”. Because you’re you and arguments fire you up.
I said “I did not read any article linked by any commenter, though I tried one of yours and was blanked.” Maybe it was one of the ones you linked to, rather than the one Snof linked? But I don’t know which one and I’m not going to click through them to check.
I specifically referred to Atkinson’s EV comments in my prior comment. So now you’re just lying about things everyone can see. Further evidence of trolling.
Implicit admission that normally you insist on having the last word highlighted. Also, you could simply have desisted without getting in a last jab at me and two at Gerrard, but, a troll trolls.
No worries, Holms. And, remember, I am gonna let you get the last word.
(Obs, not just yet)
Forms of argument that are fallacious in one context are not fallacious in others. For example, that’s why appeal to authority is sometimes fallacious and sometimes not, e.g. appealing to proper respectable (scientific) authorities is usually not fallacious.
Appealing to the consensus of people in your community about whether you are an asshole? Probably not fallacious. Appealing to the consensus of decision-makers around the world when the brute facts of lithium availability disagrees with their long term plans? Definitely fallacious, or at least a very weak argument compared to the citation of studies on the worldwide availability of lithium from USGS and other respectable scientific authorities.
PS: See? I’m citing respectable scientific authorities, and you’re citing politicians. It’s probably impossible to find a better dichotomy of trustworthy vs untrustworthy authorities.
Just noticed:
I have. You’re living in a fantasy. In the real world, the lead-acid batteries that you could buy 50 years ago are only slightly more expensive than the cheapest batteries today. We have not see and likely will not see a radical decrease in battery costs in the future because of relatively simple to explain physics and engineering. What we have seen is a radical decrease in battery mass, which was revolutionary for certain application where weight matters, such as cell phones, laptops, and electric cars. In terms of battery grid storage, the costs today are pretty similar to the costs 50 years ago. Nothing like Moore’s law decreases that you see in your fantasy.
Gerrard, heh. This is just too much fun. But I’ll try to be on-topic.
So, here are the naked links (embedded video not counted) I’ve adduced in this thread.
Let’s see:
@15: PS Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle
(ICE is more polluting)
Appeal to popularity!
@27: Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ford-calls-extension-post-brexit-trade-rules-2027-2023-05-17/
(“Ford is calling for current trade requirements to be extended to 2027, to allow time for the battery supply chain to develop in Europe and to meet EV demand,” the U.S. carmaker said in a statement.)
Appeal to popularity!
@32: Increasingly. Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure://electrek.co/2023/04/26/global-electric-car-sales-iea/
(“The share of EVs in total car sales globally jumped from 9% in 2021 to 14% in 2022, more than 10 times their share in 2017, according to the International Energy Agency’s new EV report, released today.
[…]
Based on projections, the IEA reports that globally, electric car sales are expected to grow by another 35% this year, compared to last year, to 14 million – more than 2.3 million have already sold in the first quarter. This rapid growth means electric cars’ percentage share of the overall car market is expected to climb to 18% in 2023.”)
Appeal to popularity!
@64: Appeal to reality, Gerrard.
Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/executive-summary
Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure://www.consumerreports.org/cars/hybrids-evs/why-electric-cars-may-soon-flood-the-us-market-a9006292675/
(EVs, another prognostication)
Appeal to popularity!
@65: (Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-08/ev-volvo-ford-toyota-mazda-electric-car-tesla-polestar/101626808)
While I’m at it:
Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure://www.volvocars.com/au/news/sustainability/
(Getting tired of summarising, feel free to go to the actual comments and see the context and whatever I’ve quoted)
Appeal to popularity!
And so forth.
Now, Holms recently claimed that:
Which is interesting, since
Me @60: “So, have you noticed how your comments are all about me, nothing to do with EVs or Rowan’s opinion or its merits or the (quite interesting) update sonofrojblake mentioned @46? I have.”
Holms: <silence>
Me @64: “I refer you to #46.”
Holms: “I did not read any article linked by any commenter, though I tried one of yours and was blanked.
Me: “I did not provide any link to the Guardian, that was @46.
This is it: [link]
Same site. Mysterious subscription wall on the latter, no prob on the former.”
Holms: “I said “I did not read any article linked by any commenter, though I tried one of yours and was blanked.” Maybe it was one of the ones you linked to, rather than the one Snof linked? But I don’t know which one and I’m not going to click through them to check.”
So. sonofrojblake posts #46.
Holms ignores it.
I draw Holms’ attention to #46.
Holms ignores it.
I draw Holms’ attention to #46, again.
Well, I haven’t read any articles, but I tried one of yours and I failed.
None are blocked, of course, but pesky facts matter little in the ever shifting retrograde crabdance.
Apparently, to Holms the fact that I have from the beginning specifically referred to and referred him to #46 is occult.
—
Of course, the thread jumped the shark about, um, #51.
Just badinage, now.
Citing examples where you were not fallacious does not excuse examples where you were fallacious. This is just distraction, a red herring.
Oh, dear. You are so ignorant, Gerrard!
Here:
https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_battery#/media/File:Battery-cost-learning-curve.png
Fallacious examples in your estimation, no doubt.
Of course, that an example is not an argument and that only an argument can be fallacious are esoterica with which you care not to bother.
(Do you know what constitutes a category error?
[hey, remember when NiCads were a thing?]
Oh, look, a source about lithium battery costs being used to refute claims about lead-acid battery costs, and a second source that doesn’t actually quote any relevant cost numbers either. You really are a fucker. Go die in a fire already.
Well, yes, Gerrard. I’ve repeatedly tried to explain to you that there are many, many chemistries for batteries, including simple salt and air and iron and so forth.
Pointless, because no matter how many citations I adduce you can’t bring yourself to accept reality.
I’ve linked to it, you clearly haven’t tried to expose yourself to facts.
Emphasis in original, https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/executive-summary. Lots more where that came from.
And, of course, grid storage need not consist of batteries — certainly no need for Lion other than for grid stability, their weight and size don’t matter in that case.
Anyway. Just trying to keep at least related to the topic.
I mean, the topic is Rowan’s personal opinion, but I think it’s fair to talk about electric vehicles and the technologies and the policies that are relevant to them.
But I already have your sympathy, Gerrard.
Hey, in passing, did you know other battery chemistries as instantiated in current technology are less prone to catch fire than lithium-ion? I did.
Poor Gerrard, you posture a lot, you bluster a lot. You get no satisfaction.
In inflation-adjusted dollars, care to cite data that indicates what the cost and capacity and charge/discharge rate and number of cycles and amount of maintenance required (anyone remember topping batteries with sulfuric acid) for a lead-acid 1950s battery? Never mind the size and weight, just those.
Betcha anything you want that the bang for buck nowadays far, far exceeds what was available then.
Of course, I know you shan’t even try, since you deep inside know I am right.
(Belief, alief)
I lost my source, and it’s surprisingly hard to find a source for this. Here’s one I just found.
https://www.aarp.org/money/budgeting-saving/info-2022/prices-compared-to-50-years-ago.html
The technology really has not changed that much in a hundred years. 80 amp-hour at 12 V is about 1 KWh. So about $112 / KWh. Li-ion today is around $150 / KWh AFAIK. Of course, li-ion has a longer lifetime in terms of cycles. With depth-of-discharge concerns and such, IIRC li-ion is only about 3 times cheaper than the lead-acid batteries of 50 or even 100 years ago.
What part of “not enough lithium” do you not understand?
Again, already mentioned this back in #49, that apparently all cost effective sodium-ion chemistries use nickel, which is also too scarce to scale. Please try to keep up.
And again, they all use relatively rare materials like lithium or nickel or cobalt or lead, or they’re unproven vaporware. I see a couple new vaporware technologies ever year. I’ll believe it when they’re selling to the public at that claimed cost so someone can take apart the battery and see if they’re using any rare materials. Until then, it’s just pure willful-delusion.
Remember how we keep having the same conversation every year, and history keeps proving me right because none of your cockamamie vaporware battery techs are ever proven to be real?I It’s been, what, at least 5 years now? Maybe 10? And still no clear storage technology that can scale at cost?
The thing is, other people have been having this conversation since circa 1970, when people like Amory Lovins have been making the same outlandish claims that we can replace fossil fuels with Green technology. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now, and they’ll very probably be wrong another 50 years from now. Amory Lovins is still active and hugely influential now; peddling the same lies as 50 years ago. Amory Lovins is widely acknowledged as the most influential thinker behind Germany’s current energy transition policy. Believing these quacks is textbook delusion.
When will you admit that you’ve been duped and are part of a quasi-religious cult? Dr James Hansen has described your beliefs with the exact words “quasi-religious” and said that it’s almost as bad as believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy -- again, near exact words.
Will it take another 5 years? 10 years? How much evidence do you need to let go of your religious beliefs and to stop believing the same liars who have been peddling the same lies for 50 years now?
Which is why EVs these days run on lead-acid batteries. 😉
heh.
What part of “there are other chemistries” do you not understand?
What part of “recycling” do you not understand?
What part of “there are other chemistries” do you not understand?
Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_redox_flow_battery
Do try to keep up.
Whoa. OK, I’ve interacted with you enough to know the warning signs.
So I will actually henceforth and forthwith leave this thread.
Non-sequtir.
What part of “all of the other chemistries use rare materials like lithium, cobalt, nickel, or lead, or they’re vaporware” ?
Currently an example of vaporware. Can I buy it? What’s the cost? What are the actual material inputs to see if there are any rare material inputs which cannot scale? You might as well link to the Wikipedia article on fairy dust.
Not just my opinion, but the opinion of many, seemingly most, climate scientists around the world, including famously the preeminent Dr James Hansen. Don’t pretend I’m crazy when I have such illustrious people saying the same things; when I have seemingly the consensus of climate scientists on my side.
https://youtu.be/KnN328eD-sA?t=2041https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/jim-hansen-presses-the-climate-case-for-nuclear-energy/http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110729_BabyLauren.pdfI’m not crazy. It might be controversial to characterize the Green energy movement as a (quasi) religious cult, but it is not crazy to do so.
49 of 110 now. From the guy that thinks posting about a thing indicates the thing is a big deal, yet he still tries to scoff at the suggestion that this posting spree indicates he is making a big deal of anything. 45% of the thread, dickhead. Has anyone else seen someone so helpless to resist the urge to post as John? At #89 he says he will let me have the last word “this once” -- a telling slip already -- and then immediately breaks this to say ‘not just yet’ later that same day, then posts about me again an hour or two later.
Is anyone else reminded of Kramer?
_
#91 John, replying to Gerrard calling John the resident troll:
An impressively rapid about face, as only moments earlier, John was the one trying to claim unanimity of sentiment against Sbob:
I guess it’s fine when John is dishing it, but fallacious when receiving it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But as Gerrard pointed out, it is not fallacious to point out where public sentiment lies when the fact claim in question concerns that very matter of public sentiment. But this is not interesting to a troll.
Me sometimes.
But at least I am not purposefully an asshole when I do it.
I can’t believe I read that whole thing. By the way the popcorn was delicious