Spoiler: “Any serious risk analysis will result in a determination of high risk…Net Zero cannot be regarded as a wise course of action by wise men. It is a foolhardy attempt to bet the farm on a theory that is unproven.”
Good graphs and serious analysis. Well presented. Conclusions are difficult to dispute.
25 minute video summarizes the analysis which included data from both sides.
If the YouTube video is censored or blocked, let me know and I will reload another version.
There’s no shortage of claims about the pros & cons of electric vehicles. Everything from an overheated battery catching fire in a confined parking lot & burning everything around it, to the inability to recycle batteries and the expensive provision of charging stations across the country plus, plus!
Well it seems this presentation is about one of the clearest explanations as to what the future holds in relation to the Green ‘push’ towards electric vehicles. Let it ‘wash over’ you & you be the judge!
Jim Simpson
Convener
“De Omnibus Dubitandum” – Question Everything!
Sydney, Australia
Visit our YouTube Channel
All the Greens don’t want you to know about electric cars & ‘Green’ electricity
When I saw the title of this lecture, especially with the picture of the scantily clad model, I couldn’t resist attending. The packed auditorium was abuzz with questions about the address; nobody seemed to know what to expect. The only hint was a large aluminum block sitting on a sturdy table on the stage.
When the crowd settled down, a scholarly-looking man walked out and put his hand on the shiny block, “Good evening,” he said, “I am here to introduce NMC532-X,” and he patted the block, “we call him NM for short,” and the man smiled proudly. “NM is a typical electric vehicle (EV) car battery in every way except one; we programmed him to send signals of the internal movements of his electrons when charging, discharging, and in several other conditions. We wanted to know what it feels like to be a battery. We don’t know how it happened, but NM began to talk after we downloaded the program.
Despite this ability, we put him in a car for a year and then asked him if he’d like to do presentations about batteries. He readily agreed on the condition he could say whatever he wanted. We thought that was fine, and so, without further ado, I’ll turn the floor over to NM,” the man turned and walked off the stage.
“Good evening,” NM said. He had a slightly affected accent, and when he spoke, he lit up in different colors. “That cheeky woman on the marquee was my idea,” he said. “Were she not there, along with ‘naked’ in the title, I’d likely be speaking to an empty auditorium! I also had them add ‘shocking’ because it’s a favorite word amongst us batteries.” He flashed a light blue color as he laughed.
“Sorry,” NM chuckled, then continued, “Three days ago, at the start of my last lecture, three people walked out. I suppose they were disappointed there would be no dancing girls. But here is what I noticed about them. One was wearing a battery-powered hearing aid, one tapped on his battery-powered cell phone as he left, and a third got into his car, which would not start without a battery. So I’d like you to think about your day for a moment; how many batteries do you rely on?”
He paused for a full minute which gave us time to count our batteries. Then he went on, “Now, it is not elementary to ask, ‘what is a battery?’ I think Tesla said it best when they called us Energy Storage Systems. That’s important. We do not make electricity – we store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid. Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. [much more in Australia] is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?”
He flashed blue again. “Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five thousand pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.”
He lit up red when he said that, and I sensed he was smiling. Then he continued in blue and orange. “Mr. Elkay introduced me as NMC532. If I were the battery from your computer mouse, Elkay would introduce me as double-A, if from your cell phone as CR2032, and so on. We batteries all have the same name depending on our design. By the way, the ‘X’ in my name stands for ‘experimental.’
There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.
Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium.
The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.
All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.
In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle batteries like me or care to dispose of single-use ones properly.
But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive embedded costs.”
NM got redder as he spoke. “Everything manufactured has two costs associated with it, embedded costs and operating costs. I will explain embedded costs using a can of baked beans as my subject.
In this scenario, baked beans are on sale, so you jump in your car and head for the grocery store. Sure enough, there they are on the shelf for $1.75 a can. As you head to the checkout, you begin to think about the embedded costs in the can of beans.
The first cost is the diesel fuel the farmer used to plow the field, till the ground, harvest the beans, and transport them to the food processor. Not only is his diesel fuel an embedded cost, so are the costs to build the tractors, combines, and trucks. In addition, the farmer might use a nitrogen fertilizer made from natural gas.
Next is the energy costs of cooking the beans, heating the building, transporting the workers, and paying for the vast amounts of electricity used to run the plant. The steel can holding the beans is also an embedded cost. Making the steel can requires mining taconite, shipping it by boat, extracting the iron, placing it in a coal-fired blast furnace, and adding carbon. Then it’s back on another truck to take the beans to the grocery store. Finally, add in the cost of the gasoline for your car.
But wait – can you guess one of the highest but rarely acknowledged embedded costs?” NM said, then gave us about thirty seconds to make our guesses. Then he flashed his lights and said, “It’s the depreciation on the 5000 pound car you used to transport one pound of canned beans!”
NM took on a golden glow, and I thought he might have winked. He said, “But that can of beans is nothing compared to me! I am hundreds of times more complicated. My embedded costs not only come in the form of energy use; they come as environmental destruction, pollution, disease, child labor, and the inability to be recycled.”
He paused, “I weigh one thousand pounds, and as you see, I am about the size of a travel trunk.” NM’s lights showed he was serious. “I contain twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside me are 6,831 individual lithium-ion cells.
It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each auto battery like me, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just – one – battery.”
He let that one sink in, then added, “I mentioned disease and child labor a moment ago. Here’s why. Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?”
NM’s red and orange light made it look like he was on fire. “Finally,” he said, “I’d like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being ‘green,’ but it is not! This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.
The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- Di selenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.
Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades. Sadly, both solar arrays and windmills kill birds, bats, sea life, and migratory insects.
NM lights dimmed, and he quietly said, “There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions. I predict EVs and windmills will be abandoned once the embedded environmental costs of making and replacing them become apparent.
I’m trying to do my part with these lectures. As you can see, if I had entitled this talk “The Embedded Costs of Going Green,” who would have come? But thank you for your attention, good night, and good luck.”
NM’s lights went out, and he was quiet, just like a regular battery.
———-
Well, shock & horror! Who would have known! It seems going ‘Green’ is not all it’s cracked out to be after all..!!
By George Gammon
The Great Reset explained.
If this video does not work or has been banned, let me know. I have another copy.
Reblog
Please get some perspective on what you have unwittingly or willfully consented to, and set in motion, especially concerning elders, the disabled, children and workers — before this gets totally out of control. And not just concerning continuing “mask hysteria”, but the continuing demolition of small businesses, our communities, and of all of our lives as well.
Perhaps an overview reading of summary of the Nuremberg trials is in order, with the excerpt below from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
The definition of what constitutes a war crime is described by the Nuremberg principles, a set of international legal guidelines created as a result of those trials. The horrific medical experiments conducted by German doctors and prosecuted in the so-called Doctors’ Trial led to the creation of…
View original post 267 more words
DARPA’s Pandemic-Related Programs
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
June 30, 2020
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11446
By Paul Elias Alexander January 22, 2022 29 minute read
Assisting with this article are
Consulting firm McKinsey estimates $9 trillion per year spending needed to comply with the Paris climate accord! Running that out to the 2050 date for 50% achievement of the “net zero” plan implies spending over $275 trillion. That’s $9 TRILLION PER YEAR …all loss and no gain. No reduction in CO2 and no reduction in warming will result.
McKinsey is a global consulting firm and they are usually expensive. Who is paying them?
Links to download the full report and exec summary are here: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
Down at the bottom on McKinsey’s reports on this, there is a place to register for their online web conference. It will begin 6 am Hawaii time on February 1, 2022.
I registered for their conference and sent an email to their editor, as follows:
To whom it may concern.
This is a shock and awe letter to McKinsey executives and editors.
Is there a chemist or scientist in your organization? Did they have any input to this report? Is this reported anywhere?
Thousands of chemists like me, physicists and other scientists and engineers know “net zero” is not plausible scientifically, nor is it needed. For example, “Stop treating it [i.e. AGW…human-caused global warming/climate change] as a worthy opponent. Do not ascribe reasonableness to the other side. It is not reasonable, not true, not even plausible.” ~ Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“More carbon dioxide will certainly increase the productivity of agriculture and forestry. Over the past century, the earth has already become noticeably greener as a result of the modest increase of CO2, from about 0.03 percent to 0.04 percent of atmospheric molecules. More CO2 has made a significant contribution to the increased crop yields of the past 50 years, as well. The benefits to plants of more CO2 are documented in hundreds of scientific studies.”
“There is no climate emergency. Americans should not be stampeded into a disastrous climate crusade. The medieval crusades did far more harm than good, destroying the lives of many decent people of all faiths, and leaving a bitter legacy that complicates international relations and social harmony to this day. A climate crusade that destroys economies and ultimately lives will be as bad, or worse.” ~ Professor Richard S. Lindzen, PhD., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Professor William Happer, PhD. Princeton University.
You might find interesting this short lecture by Professor Happer. https://budbromley.blog/2021/12/06/professor-william-happer-on-co2-and-global-warming/
$9 trillion spent per year would not reduce warming nor would it reduce net global average CO2 concentration nor its growth rate. There would be no measurable effect on net global average CO2 concentration. That is because the phase-state equilibrium that determines the CO2 gas partition ratio between ocean surface and the air above that surface is independent of the source of the CO2. The source of the CO2 is not a variable in the CO2 concentration. CO2 concentration and its partition ratio between air and ocean are variables ONLY of ocean surface temperature primarily, and in local condition salinity, alkalinity and partial pressure changes of CO2 gas in air and ocean surface due to winds, currents, storms, waves, etc.
‘Emission of human-produced CO2 is offset by an equivalent amount of absorption of CO2 into ocean, soils, lakes and plants,’ referencing atmospheric physicist Murry Salby, PhD.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration today is the same as it would be if humans never existed. The percentage of CO2 in air which is originally emitted from human sources has no effect on net global atmospheric average CO2 concentration. Local CO2 partial pressure increases significantly around your face when you exhale, very localized CO2 concentration increases from about 0.04% to 4%, that is about 100 times increase immediately around you…with every exhaled breath. That very localized partial pressure change is rapidly distributed and remotely re-balances to the CO2 partial pressure ratio required for equilibrium according to Henry’s Law at the local conditions, which is dominantly by ocean surface temperature. The CO2 molecules do not move to the ocean. The CO2 partial pressure gradient is distributed not the molecules.
This has been understood by real scientists (as compared to climate modelers) since about 1830 when William Henry documented the science known as Henry’s Law. Today, Henry’s Law is used in chemistry and physics in many multi-billion dollar per year industries, e.g. scientific instruments (my background) such as gas chromatography, and also in fermentation beverages, chemical plants, etc. This is not arcane or out of date science, though it is clearly not understood or ignored by politicians, media, IPCC, etc. Tables of Henry’s Law coefficients derived for various purpose are found in text books, online workstations for chemists, and reference handbooks found in almost all chemistry labs. No amount of politics or expense will change atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The area of ocean surface above 25.6C has been slowly increasing since about 1918. That is the reason net CO2 concentration has been slowly increasing. And by the way, that increasing CO2 trend has brought us many decades of increasing greening of the earth, increasing crop yields, etc. Above 25.6 C (the tropics) ocean surface emits CO2. Below 25.6 C (higher latitudes) ocean surface absorbs CO2.
This of course begs the question: why spend any money on a futile effort to reduce atmospheric CO2?
So, my question again, is there a chemist or physical scientist in your house who has reviewed your report? Is this reported anywhere?
Sincerely,
Bud Bromley,
Hawaii
BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
(TREATY OF ROME STATUTE, ART. 15.1 AND 53)
Subject of complaint:
– Violations of the Nuremberg Code
– Violation of Article 6 of the Rome Statute
– Violation of Article 7 of the Rome Statute
– Violation of Article 8 of the Rome
– Violation of Article 8 bis3 of the Rome Statute
December 6, 2021
“Perpetrators:”
Prime Minister for the United Kingdom BORIS JOHNSON,
Chief Medical Officer for England and Chief Medical Adviser to the UK Government CHRISTOPHER
WHITTY,
(former) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care MATTHEW HANCOCK,
(current) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care SAJID JAVID,
Chief Executive of Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) JUNE RAINE,
Director-General of the World Health Organisation TEDROS ADANHOM GHEBREYESUS,
Co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation WILLIAM GATES III and
Co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation MELINDA GATES,
Chairman and Chief executive officer of Pfizer ALBERT BOURLA
Chief Executive Officer of AstraZeneca STEPHANE BANCEL,
Chief Executive Officer of Moderna PASCAL SORIOT,
Chief Executive of Johnson and Johnson ALEX GORSKY,
President of the Rockefeller Foundation DR RAJIV SHAH,
Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) DR
ANTHONY FAUCI,
Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum
KLAUS SCWAB,
President of EcoHealth Alliance DR PETER DASZACK
Excerpt from page 26: “There is good reason to assume that a large percentage of the UK population (and world population) is now at risk of either serious illness or death due to the recent mRNA ‘vaccines’. Animal studies conducted in 2012-2013 (Appendix 35 and 36) to test mRNA vaccines found most animals died within 2 weeks of receiving the treatment, this is equivalent to 1.5 years for humans. The vaccinated have been exposed to the very same ‘man-made spike protein’ as the virus. Both the virus and the vaccines have been proven to be able to change human DNA (Appendix 37). The immune system is unlikely to ever return to what it was after receiving a covid ‘vaccination’. Several high-level immunologists and vaccine designers including joint applicant on this request Dr Mike Yeadon, have warned, in the worst possible scenario, most of the human race who have received these m-RNA treatments will perish.”
Site to download pdf file, 46 pages including appendix and references. https://www.docdroid.com/WUjv6iw/icc-complaint-7-1-pdf
“The Court is participating in a global fight to end impunity, and through international criminal justice, the Court aims to hold those responsible accountable for their crimes and to help prevent these crimes from happening again.” About the ICC: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about
https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html
Discussion hosted by U.S. Senator Ron Johnson on January 24, 2022. Discussion begins about 40 minute mark in this recording.
Over 1 million views.
budbromley 
You must be logged in to post a comment.