More Fake News Supporting Electric Cars

 

Another advertisement in The Telegraph today for electric cars, this on claining it only costs £4 to charge the batteries to the same level as filling the tank of a conventional car.

I fill up my car’s tank for just £4′: have electric cars reached tipping point?

Screams the headline over a picture of a couple of proud (and surprisingly unburned) Tesla owners and their pride and joy, £75,000 worth of what looks like a family sized car with nothing special about it, apart from the fact that by the time you get to the end of the street you will probably need to stop for several hours to recharge the batteries.

Tony Cuthbert with £75,000 Tesla (picture Telegraph)

 

But does the owner’s boast stand up to scrutiny?

The cost of owning an electric car could come down to equal petrol and diesel within two years, according to auditor Deloitte, but for savvy drivers, going green could already make financial sense  the Telegraph says.

The market for electric vehicles (EVs) is growing at a rapid rate, with the number of models available set to exceed 200 in the next two years. Analysts predict another 10 million electric cars will be on British roads by the end of the next decade. But while the number of models has increased, growth in the numbers of actual sales is positively sluggish.

As combating climate change becomes increasingly important to many consumers, according to maker’s publicity, yet electric cars accounted for only 1.15% of global sales in 2017. I could not find a figure for 2018, but reports say there was modest growth. There are also reports that energy providers are flooding the market with innovative tariffs specifically aimed at drivers of electric cars, but here too the low cost of energy does not compensate for the high initial cost of installation. .

Tony Cuthbert, 59, from Gateshead, has been driving his Tesla Model S for just over a year after deciding he could be doing more to save the planet. His conscience has paid off as the company’s national network of free-to-use charging points, combined with cheap energy at home, means his running costs have fallen. Mr Cuthbert, an IT manager, mainly charges his vehicle overnight at home. He uses Octopus Energy’s Go EV tariff, which provides power at the reduced rate of 5p per kilowatt hour for several hours overnight, meaning a full charge of the Tesla costs around £4.

 

It costs £4 to fill up the tank because the tank isn’t very big.

At 14p/kWh, £4 would get you 28kWh of electricity. 1 litre of petrol is equivalent to 10kWh.

Electric engines are more efficient, so it would give you the same number of km as 5kWh.

£4 is therefore the equivalent of putting 6 litres of petrol in your car, which would cost £7.38 at £1.23 per litre, which is what I paid on Thursday.

The tax on £7.38 (6 litres) of petrol is £4.82, meaning it costs £2.56 for the actual petrol. The tax on £4 of electricity is 19p, meaning the actual electricity costs £3.81. So the only reason electricity is cheaper for filling your car is because the tax is cheaper.

And while it does not entirely account for the discrepancy, I guess the tax is cheaper partly because electricity doesn’t pump exhaust fumes into the air as much at the point of use as petrol/diesel do, but simply moves the dirt to the places where mining of materials and manufacture of batteries takes place, (i.e. not in countrys that have committed to zero carbon targets.

When a newspaper publishes an advertisement disguised as an article isn’t there some law that says readers must be clearly informed the content is advertising material.
The article is just another ad for EVs and Tesla in particular, none of the problems of EVs are mentioned, not even the tendency of Tesla vehicles to barbecue theior occupants.

It isn’t until we get to the comments we read of the vast subsidies governments are giving EV makers due to the punitive taxes on petrol and diesel, or the absolutely filthy and energy intensive industrial processes involved in manufacturing batteries (especially the mining and refining of rare earth metals,) and the equally filthy and energy intensive processes involved in recycling or scrapping batteries.

 

 

Greenest politics = Brownest environment

You might well think that the countries whose politicians and luvvies spout the most pious bollocks about saving the planet would be leading the way in persuading their citizens to adopt Green lifestyle. Not a bit of it, talking the talk is one thing for they hypocritical politicians who try to guilt trip is into voting for their policies which will force us to sit shivering in the dark, while they and their luvvie mates (Yes Eddie Izzard, Stephen Fry, Emma the airhead Thompson, Leonardo di Craprio, George Clowney, and company fly around the world in private jets promoting the climate change Ponzi scheme.

Well you’d be wrong, talking the talk is easy, we can all do it. And while many of us who realise the ‘science’ behind Anthropogenic Glbal Warming is bogus, we manage to walk the walk too because while the threat posed by Carbon Dioxide has been so ludicrously hyped only scientists, politicians and media / showbiz luvvies are stupid enough to believe it, there are lots of very good reasons we should cut back various aspects of the post industrial lifestyle (have you any idea how much highly toxic shite is put into the environment in the process of mining, smelting and refining the ores to obtain the fractions of grammes of rare earth metals used in your iPhone or iPad. An badly tuned 1965 Land Rover Cadillac gas guzzler is probably less harmful to the ecosystem than your latest Apple gadget.

It’s actually beyond ironic that two of the nations that have been obnoxiously politically correct in lecturing the rest of the world on the need to be green are among the world’s biggest per capita polluters:

Fossil fuel burning power station in Sweden? Erm no, it’s the Pripps Brewery actually

Sweden slammed for ecological footprint

from The Local
Sweden is among the world’s top ten polluters according to one of the largest scientific studies looking at the impact of humans on earth, produced by the WWF.

Researchers measured how countries around the world consume fossil fuels and looked at other relevant factors including forestry, fishing and farming methods.

Sweden came out tenth on the list, up three places from the last time the WWF released a similar study.

The report suggests that if everyone in the world lived like a Swede, the global population would need the resources from 3.7 earth-like planets. On the other hand if everyone in the world lived like a Stockholm politically correct media luvvie we would need 3.7million earth like planets to support us.

Continue reading:

Denmark’s ecological footprint is fourth largest

from The Local

Denmark is among the world’s top four polluters according to one of the largest scientific studies looking at the impact of humans on earth.

Researchers at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) measured how countries around the world consume fossil fuels and looked at other relevant factors including forestry, fishing and farming methods.

Denmark came out fourth on the annual Living Planet Report list, behind only behind oil-producing states Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Neighbouring Sweden came in tenth place.

The report suggests that if everyone in the world lived like a Dane, the global population would need the resources from about 4.5 Earth-like planets.

Gitte Seeberg, a spokeswoman for the Danish WWF, called the fourth place finish “absolutely poor”.

“It is the way we live and the way we have arranged our society that gives the big ecological footprint. Our country consists of roadways, cities and crop fields with hardly any nature. On top of that, we consume way too much meat, among other things,” Seeberg told Politiken, before driving off in her Humvee to catch a plane to the latest environmentalist conference in New York (I made that bit up but so often in the past I’ve included similar carcasm only to learn later it was true).

Continue reading:

Now remember folks Boggart Blog tells it like it is and we’ve told you for years when these sciencetits, luvvies and vote hustlers warn you of environmental catastrophe what the self – righteous, self – important, selfish hypocrites really mean is you should be happy to get by on less because wonderful people like them deserve much much more.

you don’t have to believe the shits of course.

Pollution Could Save Us From Dave’s Climate Change Disaster

Dave Cameron says climate Change is the biggest challenge facing the nation. It’ may be the biggest challenge facing him as he tries to sell it to a scpetical nation; “Pay lots more taxes or die.” “Yeah right Dave, we’ll take our chances.”

If you are one of those people who thinks for yourself, you will know by now that global warming was just a scam to justify higher taxes and big handouts to rich bastards who had spare land close to working class communities that could be stuffed full of giant wind turbines without pissing of anyone who matters (i.e. Labour or Tory donors.)

Or you might be once of those science worshipping ingenues who believe that pumping chemicals into the upper atmosphere or frigging about with the jet stream by directing EMPs into the stratosphere is the only way to save the reputation of scientists who said there would be no polar ice caps by now and we’d be frying eggs on the pavement and would at least be able to say “Yeah, well OK, our fuckwit schemes killed three billion people but at least we saved the planet (geo engineering scam ).

And because they have done stuff before anything happened, nobody will be able to prove it was not going to happen anymore than we skeptics and free thinkers can prove it is not going to happen.

But what if I was to tell you the best way to save the planet is to get bigger cars, light more barbecues and burn more energy generated in coal and oil fired power stations.

Has he gone raving mad, you might well ask.

No I haven’t, this is cutting edge science. You’ve heard of phrases like “nuclear winger” and “volcanic winter”. Either of these would cool the atmosphere but would be very unpleasant for a lot of people. For my solution however things could carry on as normal. And that’s not just me being self indulgent, it’s scientists that say so.

Scientists Liken Chinese Smog To Nuclear Winter

smog in china
Smog and pollution in China – source prideangel.com

ution in parts of China is now so extreme it could lead to conditions similar to a “nuclear winter,” scientists say. The smog that covers the country has become so thick it is impeding photosynthesis, potentially disrupting China’s food supply.

China’s pollution problem is reaching crisis point, with acrid smog covering six southern provinces for the past week. Over the last few days a total of 19 cities have recorded levels of pollution drastically exceeding the World Health Organization’s (WHO) safety levels.

The toxic smog is having severe consequences, with aircraft being grounded across the country because of poor visibility, roads closing and a significant reduction in tourist numbers. An associate professor at China Agricultural University, He Dongxian, told the South China Morning Post that if these conditions continued, China will experience something akin to a “nuclear winter.”

Read more on Smog Nuclear Winter at Russia Today

You couldn’t make it up.

Leonardo DiCaprio must have missed the irony in his statement, “I will fly around the world doing good for the environment.”

So we are left wondering will he use scheduled airlines or his private jet.

According to a press release from Mother Nature Network the “Hands off my Parts” campaign “is a week-long effort tied to WWF’s Stop Wildlife Crime campaign to raise awareness and mobilize support to end the illegal trade of wildlife.”

So polluting the fuck out of the upper atmosphere is going to help save the planet? Or is the stunt really about saving the notoriously malodorous actor’s career?

Womens’ Legs Are Destroying The Planet

Now that everybody except the kind of people who insist Apple gadgets are great technological advances for humanity rather than toys to amuse the simple minded has come to the understanding that the role of carbon dioxide pollution in driving climate chaos is about as significan as a flea bite on an elephants arse, we turn our attention to other threats to the human race (and I’m not talking about Torchwood here).

CO2 pollution was about creating an excuse to impose massive carbon taxes. Now that avenue of income generation is all but closed to governments they must seek other ways to steal from us or like Gaddafi simply say “Give me all the money or I’ll send my goons to kill you”.

Water shortage is one threat nobody likes to talk about. We are dragging water out of the bowels of the earth (how Bear Grylls is that?) polluting it with chemicas and shite and dumping it in the sea faster than nature can replenish it. And as those of us in new properties with water meters are already paying through the nose there isn’t much scope for generating extra revenue through taxes.

Thus the powers that be must try to scare or shame us into using less.

This is the reasoning behind a report out today which estimatates that 50 billion litres of water a year are being wasted by women shaving their legs.

This seems a tad on the low side to me. I asked the Boggart Blog technical team to run an investigation and they found that my daughter’s leg shaving related activities used around 49 billion litres each month.

Links

New EU Jobs Law Will Derail The UK’s Recovery

Recycling water is contributing to global warming

TheThing Nanny State Most Wants To Ban

Pollution Health Warning For Easter Weekend

From The Daily Telegraph


Vulnerable people, such as asthmatics, the elderly and heart patients, were advised to be particularly vigilant to any change in their conditions and seek medical help if they experience difficulties.

Officials advised people who suffer from a shortage of breath on hot sunny days to avoid strenuous outdoor activity, especially in the afternoon.

Children with asthma can play outside normally, but might need to increase their use of medicines such as inhalers.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued the warning, covering the whole of England and Wales, ahead of what is expected to be the hottest Easter since 1984.

It is the first smog alert in two years, the last being on July 17 2009, but such warnings are normally annual events.

How wonderful to us those caring, concerned leftie elitists are. Having made smoking a crime almost on a par with genocide they then embarked on campigns to demonise alcohol, tasty food, sex with people you don’t know (spreads diseases), sex with people you know (is probably some form of abuse), sex with yourself (you must be depressed), eating (causes obesity), not eating (causes anorexia), cars (cause accidents), loud music and quiet music (both annoy people), music made by non ethnic people – i.e. black – because it annoys ethnic minorities, anti social behaviour (because it annoys the crap out of the authorities when they are asked to do something about it), social behaviour (leads to drinking eating, smoking and sex), sunshine (causes skin cancer), being working class (leads to smoking, drinking, sex, independence and reading George Orwell, Christianity, Christmas and Easter (both might offend non Christians you know), chocolate and bad taste humour.

Not content with trying to ban or control all that they are now sticking health warnings on the first bit of decent weather we have had in months.

Mustn’t go outside kiddiwinks, the air on hot days might poison you.

Ignore them. Do they thing they really most want to ban you from doing but dare not say so. Think for yourself !

Happy Easter.

RELATED POSTS
Parenting Classes Are Not Nanny State, They’re Worse
The Tail Of The Easter Bunny
Nanny State
Does smoking cause lung cancer? No, is the legal verdict.
Sex and folk music, a dodgy cocktail

In The Future You Will Not Be Allowed To Die.

Logging onto Yahoo to check my mail today I noticed a Press Association story on the news page.

AIR POLLUTION CAUSING 55,000 EARLY DEATHS A YEAR IN UK

screamed the headline in that quiet, mumbling, self deprecating way Internet headlines have of screaming because they know they will never be able to match Screaming Banner Headlines of the tabloids.

On reading the story I learned The House Of Commons Environmental Protection Committee, with a title like that not a body one would expect to come up with a pzazzy headline, is concerned that Britain’s poor air quality is causing 55,000 early deaths every year.

If these self righteous idiots think air quality is bad now it just shows they have never looked at a Lowry paining or a picture of London or any of the big cities in the 1950’s. Or maybe I am misreading the whole thing and with “climate change science” discredited ( latest: sea ice loss science challenged) they are just looking for an excuse for a new tax to replace the carbon tax they were relying on to make us pay for their financial mismanagement.

When I read stories like this I’m always reminded of a story Jill, a friend of my wife, likes to tell. Jill used to live next door to a very old lady who would sometimes, in bad weather, ask for help with her daily shopping. She went to the shop about 100 yards from her house every day because it got her out of the house where she spent most of her time alone. The shopping list was always the same. Two tins of tomato soup, a small loaf, a half bottle of sweet sherry and ten cigarettes. At weekends she also bought butter.

When the woman died aged 87 it was Margaret, a nurse, who found her and called the doctor. With the death duly certified the Do. said “I told her many times to give up smoking. She might have had a few more years if she had listened to me.

Yeah, and maybe she would not have thanked anyone for those few more years.

The point these self righteous do – gooders always miss is that we all die of something, sometime. The alternative, living and ageing forever, is too horrible to contemplate. The powers that be don’t want us to drink or smoke because it might hasten our demise, they don’t want us to pollute because we will damage our hearts and lungs so no Barbies, bonfires, hot curries or things that involve industrial processes, they want to tax us off the road to stop us colliding with trees or driving off cliffs, they want us to give up tasty food because fats might clog our arteries. Risk (aka fun) must be eliminated from everything. For the sake of our own safety and longevity they want us to forswear everything that makes life worth living.

Meanwhile medical advances manage to delay death without delaying decrepitude to anything like the same extent.

So in the future when nobody is allowed to die because it will mean some civil servant has missed his target we will all have to commit mass suicide to avoid dying of boredom.

The most exciting pastime we will be allowed to take part in, at a safe distance of course, is Trainspotting.

Choose life.

Pollution Causing Early Deaths