Are we being conned over electricity and the Green agenda?
We have had access to free energy since 1954 but we are denied it. Why?
Electric cars are being toted as clean and green and the future. Far from it. 1 in 5 Californian electric car owners are trading their electric cars back in for gasoline cars - because the range isn't there, nor is the quickness of charging time or availability of charging points.
Motor manufacturers are currently engaged in an apparent race to the bottom by not planning or introducing new models of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles as governments career headlong into a potential fool's paradise of no having no new ICE vehicles sold as of 2030. The future is not electric cars. It is not battery cars. It is bio fuelled cars.
In California, they are apparently falling out of love with Electric Cars!
Modern vehicles are infinitely more efficient and cleaner and they have ever been, the future for transport is bio fuels not the direction being navigated down the battery route. Battery power units are not at a development stage that means we are going to get a really good range or power output then there is the question of the battery charging rate that will differ between batteries and of course the costs to charge a battery. We likely don't have the source power to charge the batteries required.
Battery cars are driving the wrong end of the problem - they drive the wheels directly, losing 25% efficiency there due to frictional forces, plus the load on the battery. Why not use the battery to drive a brushless generator and create through rectification more power than you put in, thus your battery car would go further and quicker for long operations such as motorway driving, perhaps a 70mph motorway cruise range of 400 miles could be achievable this way, not the environmentally heavy demanding theoretical ranges now in place.
As I predicted, this battery technology is quite new and what happens if like computers, one system quickly supersedes another? You are going to have Apple envy and a divisive battery car snobbery, with entry level vehicles looked down on, rather than a level playing field battery system.
What happens to old batteries? Can they be recycled, what happens to the rest of the vehicle which less the battery is about valueless except for scrap? Because the battery is built in to the structure in current vehicles and is not easy to remove.
Slowly, some proponents of the carbon neutral folly are removing their green tinted spectacles and starting to see that China effectively now controls the majority of materials needed for battery cars and renewable energy.
A lot of these resources are situated where China has invested in their extraction and controls the materials holdings in the regions. If China holds considerable access rights to these materials, it can dictate the price to supply and even if it wants to supply other nations.
The risk is that when 2030 hits and people cannot buy ICE cars perhaps because of battery cost just for example leave alone the availability factor, what then? Some people could be looking mighty stupid as the rest of us say 'we told you so'.
The risk is that having lost 10 years of development on ICE cars which may be even more cleaner then and possibly using greener by development, and use of bio fuels, we will be doubly disadvantaged.
The Covid situation has meant more people can work from home and are choosing to do so, thus a 'commuting less workforce' saves the environment by cutting car use painlessly. This will probably achieve as much as this battery vehicle folly might in CO2 reduction alone.
In 2030 when we are standing around wanting batteries or materials, we are going to look like a load of fools when these are either not available or priced at a premium rate many will not be able to afford. This is akin to the largest schoolboy error in the history of our species occurring, within plain sight. A real slow motion car crash if ever there was one.
So then in addition, how does using child labour in some countries to extract Cobalt and other rare earth minerals sit with the typically left-leaning, climate change wokesters bent on sending us down the electric and renewables route?
These are the sort of people who spout on media platforms on black lives and slavery issues, yet seem strangely less vocal when effectively both of these issues these days can involve their pet causes, such as obtaining materials for their beloved electric cars in some cases? Strange that.
Face the facts - in the United Kingdom alone, 33 million vehicles will need replacing with electric ones, plus the charging point infrastructure and the generated power required to fuel these items to be in place in less than 9 years, it is probably not achievable in the timescale nor practical. Nor likely affordable to the average motorist.
Yet some politicians and activists are intent on careering the motoring population down their sanctimonious road to a situation that is probably the wrong road. (We have been encouraged to adopt private transport by governments of all persuasions in the past.) Many people can't afford the alternative to ICE vehicles, the savings of these electric cars are lost in other costs - the worst cost is to the planet.
Covid 19 has slashed air travel, much of which was a luxury, unnecessary and a colossal waste of resources. A large jet aircraft for instance generates on takeoff the equivalent of one automobile's total CO2 output for 10 years of average driving during that 10 minutes of takeoff activity. Multiply that with every jet leaving Heathrow in a day and you'll see the obvious savings to the planet. by reducing air travel alone.
How are we going to have a net CO2 output with air travel operating at previous levels? Have these people not thought this through? How can you have a commerce based economy without generating CO2? It is not presently possible.
With Covid starting to recede in some areas there is a rush to get air travel going again - how does this square with the same politicians clamouring for switching to electric vehicles on environmental grounds trumpeting a return to flying? You could not make it up. The hypocrisy is both obvious and risible. Wanting one pie in the sky ideal and another highly polluting one simultaneously.
Around Heathrow airport a new low emission zone for road vehicles is in force whilst the same airport is planned for massive air travel expansion dubbed 'good for business'. Road vehicles (who use the is new zone) pay 80% of the cost of their fuel purchase price already as tax, aircraft fuel is devoid of tax I believe? What is the logic here? Pollute massively for no cost, pay to pollute and be charged twice?
Free energy you are asking? Yes. It exists, we have been standing on the basis of it since our species first stood on this planet. It is under our very feet. 'We have the means to take ET home' it has been said, so that means we already have very advanced power systems available to us, far in excess of what we mostly know of today, which we could be using to subvert climate change perhaps with clean energy.
'We have had the potential for 'free energy' since 1954' - we have also been told - but you can't tax free energy or control it unless you control the technology that can utilise it. We could have changed our way of living more than 60 years ago it seems for the better, for cleaner and quicker travel - but it's all about control - control of resources, control of energy, control of political power, revenue, taxes from things we use and lastly control of the population.
How much of our atmosphere is made up of CO2? a small percentage, less than half of 10%. In the time of the Dinosaurs, CO2 made up a far bigger proportion of the atmosphere than today. This is one reason why trees and vegetation grew so large in those times, not to mention the creatures. Less gravity was a factor too, of course.
Hydrogen as a usable fuel is a pipe dream today, it can be used but it is not feasible at present - by more efficient use of fuels we have, use of bio and synthetic fuels which will capture CO2 in their growth will help, as will reduction in the human population are the solution. Even the ecologists agree on this last point.
Like racism, climate change has been stoked up into an emotive subject that some see as a means of making a career from, or a bandwagon in some cases to jump onto.
We live in a commercial world based on trading, manufacturing and commerce - like it or not since the last industrial revolution at least. That world needs resources, fuels and energy at a minimum to operate on. Free energy isn't in that equation today, but it should be.
We do not live in a 'one world society', we do not enjoy a civilisation that is geared to a common set of ideals to maintain the population and its future for one population, living in a harmonious and forward thinking situation.
We exist in a world divided by factions, religious and political outlooks, one where the forces of nature - dog eat dog et al, operate. We really need to change society, change who we are as people to change the world and that isn't going to happen all the time that there is money to be made from societal division, warfare, where a supply and demand commerce situation exists and is actively helped to exist.Whilst beliefs differ, so will outcomes. You only have to look at the Palestine situation to see the rocky relationship there.
Ask yourself who really gains from Carbon neutrality? Who has their fingers in the Green pie? Sure as eggs is eggs, a lot of the same movers and shakers in commercial business will be taking their fingers out of one pie and sticking it into the eco industry one. As the saying goes, 'where there's muck, there's brass.' This applies here to this subject.Carbon seen as muck, there's money in a solution - the brass.
The frightening thing is how school children have as a result been scared and mentally damaged by the climate change doom and gloomers, into thinking the world is going to end in 10 years or less.
How does business work? It is basically making a profit by taking care of someone else's problem and providing a solution for the problem at a cost - Carbon neutrality is that problem being promoted today and there are probably plenty of organisations lining up to take care of it and present their invoices for doing so.
Sure, they will have skilled public relations messaging and content to soft soap the population into accepting how 'good' this low carbon solution is for our world, but you can be darn sure that there are those looking to make big money from the 'problem' by being part of the 'solution.' That's how business works. Think about it for yourselves and ask yourselves where is the smart money being made today? 'Solving' the climate issue.
At the moment, unless we change to the potential free energy situation and re-evaluate what we are doing and where we are going as a species, we are prisoners of Doctors who seemingly allow infection to continue but also provide medication to help cure it every so often.
The question you should be asking is why not change the world beyond this issue? Can you not see that replacing one mode of transport's motive power is not the end of the problem. There are a set of problems to conquer. Not just one.
The world's outlook needs changing. Who we are, who we want to be in the future, do we need this type of world or society? What is the human future, what should we be doing for mankind's future? The problem is that we are all such different people, that it is unlikely to work or for people agreeing to a common plan of action.
These are the type of questions that need to be asked. Just messing about like kids in a sandpit pushing toy cars about and pretending yours is electric powered and is going to save the world, is just a diversion from what really needs to change and why. The species has to fundamentally change to make this truly work.
The bottom line with business is making a profit. Until humanity is put on the spot to redefine their future and come up with a workable plan, it is likely to just be business as usual.
