Posted: July 4, 2016 by oldbrew in data, Emissions, Energy, ideology


Motoring in Norway

Motoring in Norway

Renewable energy has no hope of replacing the 90-odd million barrels of oil used daily around the world.

Robert Lyman looks at some of the inconvenient facts.

Friends of Science Calgary

Contributed by energy economist Robert Lyman @ July 2016

Environmentalists across Europe and North America seem determined to wage war on oil-fueled motor vehicles, including private cars, light trucks and heavier trucks used for freight. The most recent example of this is the announcement that Norway and the Netherlands, heavily influenced by the European Green Party, may ban car manufacturers from selling cars and light trucks fueled by gasoline or diesel fuel by 2025. It wasn’t enough to raise fuel taxes and carbon taxes to punishing levels; an outright ban was called for. The Environment Minister for Germany was quoted as saying that Germany might do the same, but quickly retreated from that after a strong public reaction.

This is all allegedly to “save the planet”, the often repeated mantra of those who believe in the theory that humans are causing catastrophic climate change and that this can be stopped…

View original post 706 more words

  1. We need a referendum on whether we stick to our ruinous, unilateral and self inflicted “carbon reduction targets”, or whether we consign these to the dustbin of history, where they belong.

  2. oldbrew says:

    ‘Norway and the Netherlands, heavily influenced by the European Green Party, may ban car manufacturers from selling cars and light trucks fueled by gasoline or diesel fuel by 2025.’

    All that means is people will have to buy them direct from Sweden, Germany, Belgium etc.

  3. E.M.Smith says:

    Easy enough… Flex Fuel cars & trucks can run on Ethanol to gasoline. Butanol is a drop in direct replacement for gasoline…. soooo

    You make a Flex Alcohol car that can run on any mix of ethanol, propanol, or butanol. All green. Just an accident that then gasoline is a drop in replacement for butanol…

    Similarly, straight vegetable oil can be used with added heating in Diesel engines. So make Veg Oil Cars. Just accidental that Diesel will work just fine…

  4. BoyfromTottenham says:

    Yup, I can see that car ban working (not)! The US and Asia will just ramp up their production of ‘real cars’ and voila, Europe loses another million car manufacturing jobs. How smart is that?

  5. David A says:

    The US government, federal and state, receive far more net revenue from fossil fuels then fossil fuel companies. Fed and state tax per gallon, corporate profit tax, payroll tax of all fossil fuel employees, So called “green” energy producers of solar and wind re net negative draws on the system, and exponentially so when considering what the do to the cost of energy.

  6. dscott says:

    You assume the end game is to have vehicles run on alternative energy. Isn’t the real issue that personal liberty and freedom is demonstrated by the ability or opportunity to exercise choices? The limitation of energy choices is a bank shot on the ability to make choices that do not conform to an agenda. It subtly creates the precedence that government or elites can restrict personal choices. Once you accept the premise that any reason, no matter as how reasonably presented is a right of government to restrict or take, you have accepted a limitation upon your liberty to conduct your activities and make choices. What business does a government have to interfere in an economic transaction between you and a car manufacturer or for that matter an energy supplier? Maybe as an American this point is lost on an European? Maybe it is an American cultural construct to NOT accept the appeals to authority as a legitimate means to limit personal liberty? In my culture, the appeal to authority is a fallacy of logical thought called the Imprimatur Fallacy.

    If I choose to heat my house or run my car on human waste, wood, coal, natural gas or an oil distillate what business is that of government? The choice is mine to make. Now clearly, as a member of society I have the responsibility to NOT negatively impact my fellow members of society for that we accept the government’s role to regulate the waste products of the energy choices we do make IF said products are in amounts that would negatively impact other members of society. A choice is not a choice if someone else decides what the choices are. It’s the child’s card trick of presenting cards to pick while firmly holding all the other cards they have determined you are NOT allowed to pick and then telling what you picked implying they are reading your mind.

    IF the object of government regulation is to protect society, then the burden of proof is upon government to demonstrate an effect that is negative to society to justify a regulation. CO2 emissions have NOT been demonstrated as a negative effect, the theory of AGW notwithstanding. There has been ZERO demonstrated negative effects of CO2 emissions as far as AGW theory is concerned, ZERO. There have been many claims, many of which have been debunked like hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. A claim is not evidence. A claim not yet debunked or not attributed to another cause is not proof or evidence of a claimed effect. E.g. Sea level rise has not been shown to be attributed to CO2 emissions, it has been occurring since the late 1800s, it has only been claimed that it may increase it more than natural variation in a hundred years.

    So what is the end game of the green movement through the limitations upon personal liberty? A restriction on travel or movement? The imposition of government permits to allow travel or movement by the populous? After all, IF you are emitting CO2 unduly, you are affecting the welfare of society therefore government must restrict the unnecessary movement of individuals. Therefore government gets to decide what constitutes a legitimate movement or travel to prevent the emissions of unnecessary CO2 emissions. Unheard of?

    This is what was done in the USSR sans using the justification of AGW. It sounds more like means to impose Communism upon society by fiat without the public’s consent to the end game. Maybe the principle of the consent of the governed is uniquely American?

  7. J PAK says:

    Internal Combustion Engines are inefficient and begging evolution. One existing idea is to use the energy in the exhaust gas. BMW made a heat exchanger in the early exhaust pipe which boiled water and drove a sort of steam turbine attached to the front of the crank-shaft. Many of their cars already have the bolt holes for retro-fitting this technology.
    A better approach would be to have paired cylinders exhausting into a third, wider bore cylinder to extract some low pressure work. This is sometimes called a 5-stroke engine but requires an entirely new motor.
    A simpler idea is to electrolyse hydrogen and oxygen from water and run this into the inlet manifold. Diesels in particular develop more complete combustion with only a 2% HHO enrichment. A 4.2 litre Toyota Landcruiser will gain a minimum of +15% economy and leave a cleaner engine with cleaner exhaust gases.
    A very simple economy measure is to fit a tin catalyst in the fuel line. My old Ford Transit 2.4 diesel gained between 5 and 6% economy and had much better torque at low revs. This cost me Au$300 and lasted the life of the vehicle and I’ve now transferred the little unit to another vehicle.
    IMO all the talk about CO2 and sustainability is a façade behind which the corporate world can weadle more money out of us and exert more power and control over more aspects of our lives. In reality most alternative technologies cost end users more money but I agree that coal and oil are finite resources and we will be in strife if the Third World nations want to use them as flagrantly as we currently do.