On Mobility (part 2)
Issues With The Narrative
Previously we asked some questions. Those questions were the following:
1. If this electric vehicle technology goes back 200 years, are you telling me in the early 1990s they could make smart bombs and track you everywhere you went using you cell phone, but in the 2020s they can’t make a car that gets much better range than a car in 1909? No I’m telling you the range of some current electric vehicles is less than that vehicle in 1909 which were sold at a fraction of the cost (factoring inflation). This would be true if the below Babcock advertisement is to be believed:
2. If a 1982 Volkswagon Jetta Diesel was able to get 50 miles per gallon, why can’t my vehicle in 2022 get 50 miles per gallon?
3. Why was a mandatory “kill switch” in new vehicles part of the 2021 infrastructure bill?
4. In the 90s through early 2000s Ford Motor Company had problems with Ford Explorer, the NHTSA began studying the problem of Firestone tires after approximately 4 complaints, later over 68 deaths were attributed to the issue. As of this article’s publishing on Medium, Tesla has over 232 deaths, why is Tesla treated differently? Why are those vehicles still on the road?
Not surprisingly, at the time of writing our previous article Elon Musk had been dumping Tesla shares, to the tune of over 1,000,000,000 (1 Billion) USD and that trend has continued. Currently it is estimated by some that over 100 Billion of Tesla stock has been liquidated. That figure may be exaggerated, but the point remains that many investors are running for the exits.
Those questions are pertinent and they will develop our thought on the subject of mobility, because some things simply do not make sense if the goal was to develop cheap and affordable alternatives to the petroleum powered combustion engine.
Further, as one investigates the electric vehicle movement, additional
impractical issues come up. These issues have to do with the current technological advancement from 1828 to 2022 for electric vehicles on practical issues like: 1) range on a single charge 2) cost of ownership and 3) pollution (which according to the WEF, is why you need to own an electric vehicle) and 4) well believe it or not, it has to do with fossil fuels and food production, more on that at the end of this article.
As a comparison, the 1908 Fritchle batteries generally lasted for more than 10,000 mi and could be replaced at a cost of US $208. The cars were advertised and trademarked as “100-mile Fritchle Electrics,” and they lived up to this claim. Another feature of the Fritchle was a regeneration system in which the motor became a generator when the car was coasting downhill, thereby partly recharging the batteries.
Yes, the max speed of 1908 Fritchle Model A Victoria was only 22 MPH. Nissan Leaf is also heavier 3,300 lbs vs. 2,100 lbs for 1908 Fritchle Model A Victoria. But we are talking about 1908. Today’s battery makers have over 100 years of scientific R&D experience on those from the late 19th — early 20th century, and we are still at about 350 miles per charge.
2) Cost of Ownership:
What about battery cost? What does it cost to replace the battery system in a Nissan LEAF today? It is about $8000 total and that figure will increase. Essentially for the 90% a few paychecks from the street, the cost of ownership makes owning one impractical long term compared to a petroleum powered vehicle. What about a first generation Tesla, what does it cost to replace the battery system? Depending on the model, about $22,000–28,000 USD.
Battery manufacture now accounts for 60% of the 125,000 tonnes of cobalt mined globally each year.
A move last year by the London Metal Exchange to ban the sale of tainted cobalt was opposed by a consortium of 14 NGOs, including Amnesty, on the grounds it would simply drive the trade underground. They called for greater traceability of the mineral’s sources.
The World Economic Forum’s Global Battery Alliance notes two major challenges:
“First, raw materials needed for batteries are extracted at a high human and environmental toll. This includes, for example, child labour, health and safety hazards in informal work, poverty and pollution. Second, a recycling challenge looms over the eleven million tonnes of spent lithium-ion batteries forecast to be discarded by 2030, with few systems in place to enable reuse and recycling in a circular economy for batteries.”
Today’s governments wants you to perceive lithium mining as green, since they talk about taking all the precautions. Let’s be clear — green and mining cannot even be used in the same sentence, let alone together. There’s no such thing as green mining, not even remotely. The one thing that’s causing the real trouble and it will haunt us in the future is another kind of mining that uses prolific amounts of fresh water!
The OECD Forum on Responsible Mineral Supply Chains met in Paris in April of 2021, where members demanded companies identify their cobalt sources. Apple, BMW, Daimler, Renault, and battery maker Samsung SDI have already agreed to publish their supply chain data.
Amnesty says most manufacturing of lithium-ion batteries takes place in China, South Korea and Japan, where electricity generation remains dependent on coal and other fossil fuels. They said makers should disclose the carbon footprint of their products.
Amnesty International says human rights abuses, including the use of child labor, in the extraction of minerals, like cobalt, used to make the batteries that power electric vehicles is undermining ethical claims about the cars.
Kumi Naidoo, Amnesty’s Secretary General, told the recent Nordic EV Summit in Oslo, that climate change should not be tackled at the expense of human rights. “Without radical changes, the batteries which power green vehicles will continue to be tainted by human rights abuses,” he said.
Citing the study, conducted by Peter Achten and co-author Victor Timmers at the University of Edinburgh, the Daily Caller explains that electric cars’ “zero tailpipe emissions” selling point is deceptive:
Electric vehicles tend to produce more pollutants from tire and brake wear, due in large part to their batteries, as well as the other parts needed to propel them, making them heavier.
These pollutants are emitted when electric vehicle tires and brakes deteriorate as they accelerate or slow down while driving. Timmers and Achten’s research suggests exhaust from traditional vehicles is only about one-third of the total emissions.
In other words, while people understandably focus on what’s released from exhaust pipes, the research indicates that two-thirds of total emissions come from other sources. And these particulates may be especially problematic. As the Caller further relates:
“We found that non-exhaust emissions, from brakes, tires and the road, are far larger than exhaust emissions in all modern cars,” Achten wrote in the study.
He continued: “These are more toxic than emissions from modern engines so they are likely to be key factors in the extra heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks seen when air pollution levels surge.”
4. The Haber-Bosch Process is a secondary issue. Wind, Solar and Hydroelectric do not contribute to the inputs of the Haber Bosch process.
This process may be the very reason for the population explosion that began 175 years ago. The issue is that one cannot continue the demographic increase without this process, which relies on the petrochemical industry, not lithium and cobalt. The WEF may also consider it a Carbon intensive process.
You see a scientific debate was raging in Europe over the importance of N for the growth of plants. British scientists Bennet Lawes and Joseph Henry Gilbert settled the debate when they published research showing that the addition of N fertilizers increased wheat yields in England. Fifty years later, industrialized nations were challenged with how to feed their growing populations and Great Britain was importing the majority of its wheat. In 1898, William Crooks, president for the British Association for the Advancement of Science, called for chemistry researchers to find solutions to aid in the manufacture of N fertilizers to help solve the coming food crisis.
The solution soon came from German scientist Fritz Haber, who discovered in 1909 that the chemical reaction of N and hydrogen-produced ammonia — the main component in nitrogen-based fertilizers. In July of that same year, Germany’s largest chemical company, BASF, funded German chemist and engineer, Carl Bosch, to develop commercial scale production of ammonia.
The process wasn’t easy, however. Ammonia production depended on high temperatures and pressures, as discovered by Haber. Much of the necessary machinery had to be invented to handle the extreme production conditions. Bosch’s machine, unveiled in 1914, stood 26 feet tall and could produce 198 pounds of ammonia per hour.
Soon after the plant was built, World War I began, and the new plant was used to manufacture material for explosives. Following the war’s end, Germany attempted to keep the Haber-Bosch process a secret. During negotiations at Versailles, however, Bosch, who was a member of the German negotiating team, offered the French government the technical details they would need to build their own Haber-Bosch plant. The French began producing ammonia in the early 1920s, followed soon by the British and Americans.
Haber’s and Bosch’s contributions to ammonia production were honored with two Nobel Prizes. Haber was presented with the Nobel Prize in 1920 for his research that unlocked the ammonia production process. In 1932, Bosch and Frederick Bergius received the Nobel Prize for their contributions to the invention and development of chemical high pressure methods. Today, a modern ammonia production facility produces approximately 1,000 tons of ammonia per day.
So as you can see, the ESG mantra of “green energy” and “electric vehicles are going to save the earth” type of sloganeering is all bullshit and it is bad for you. It is bad for you because it acts as a “mind virus” bypassing your neo-cortex and getting you to think emotionally rather than logically. This type of “mind virus” is addressed in the writings of Gad Saad who does an excellent job logically breaking down the mechanics of emotional arguments.
The modern electric vehicle is highly toxic, comprised of materials which pollute the Third World so that the wealthy in the First World can “virtue signal” how they are ‘saving the World”. It is the most absurd and objectively false premise one could come up with. Understanding the Haber-Bosch process underscores this third order affect on the most vulnerable in our world. Literally while saying they are “saving the world” the ESG movement is poisoning and starving out the Third World. Don’t get me wrong, the Developing World and the First World (if you buy into this kind of categorizing) won’t escape the ramifications either. So how in the world did they package it, sell it and the idea become so wildly popular?
Unmasking the Narrative
So what exactly is the point of electric vehicles marketed to “save the Earth”?Well the point of a vehicle is mobility, have we forgotten this? Whether an electric vehicle or a petroleum vehicle is best should be your choice. One should not have to be “brow-beaten”, guilted or manipulated into such a choice.
In regards to EVs it appears that all of this innovation and technological know how has been used to produce highly inefficient results. Why in the world would a system create such a product? It just doesn’t make sense. In the next article we will go a little deeper into the underlying research that produced our modern EVs and then uncap a few alternatives in the “do it yourself” sphere when it comes to mobility. As we put the epitaph on the arguments for the modern mainstream electric vehicle, we are going to show you a few ways you can do it better.