Image by Ritu Rawat
By Jo Nova
It’s just another wake up call in the Green fairy fantasy land
It’s a nice idea to think we can store electricity in liquid fuels and effectively run our planes on wind or solar power, but the numbers are not your friend. The chief of Europe’s second largest airline presumably thought it was time to remind our planetary saviors that aviation really needs Avgas. There is no realistic option to decarbonize flights.
German airline Lufthansa says it would consume half of Germany’s electricity if it were to switch to green fuels
By Prarthana Prakash, Fortune
…while Lufthansa has tried to do its bit to adopt sustainable practices, the company’s chief says that switching the airline to green fuels like e-kerosene could come at a big price—half of Germany’s electricity supply.
“We would need around half of Germany’s electricity to create enough of the fuels,” Lufthansa’s Carsten Spohr said at an aviation conference Monday, Bloomberg reported. He added that while green fuels made using renewable energy sources would help Lufthansa decarbonize its fuel consumption, the likelihood of having enough electricity to produce such materials was low.
Essentially, to decarbonize Lufthansa about 30 million people would have to live in the dark. And we’re only talking of decarbonizing the flights, not the manufacturing of planes, runways and airports.
Carsten Spohr also pointed out that Lufthansa was “among the biggest buyers of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)”, but there just wasn’t enough in existence, even if passengers were willing to pay for it.
“If the Lufthansa Group were to use all the SAF currently available, it would only be able to fly for just under two weeks.”
Only a few months ago, the experts announced that the lifespan of electric plane batteries was “only a few weeks” pouring more doom on the idea that planes can be “NetZero”. France announced that instead of short flights, people would have to catch the train (unless they owned a private jet, in which case it was fine).
Avgas is God’s gift to the masses.
The trouble with green fuels is that this usually means plants for ‘bio fuel’ and the amount needed would consume vast areas of our farmland. Bearing in mind most of it seems to have been earmarked for rewilding, forests, housing, industrial estates, solar farms and on shore wind farms, it is difficult to know where food is supposed to be grown.
Obviously cattle and sheep won’t be required in this brave new world so i suppose we can always plough up the grassland and put some nice solar panels on it.
410
tonyb
Food?
That’ll be reserved for the Great ones. The Wa-Benzi and their bosses.
We [very] mortals will need to live off, well, insects at best, if we’re fortunate.
Ahh, but, as we won’t be wanted . . .
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mum-starved-baby-death-after-31045563 – very nasty, but it may be our future – living on sunlight.
Auto
190
That didn’t end well.
90
We need to start taking the evangelists for this cult and especially their spokespeople like Bill Gates at their word when they tell us the ultimate goal is serious population reduction. They’re serious about it and the word needs to go out.
110
Tell them that they can go first.
00
I am minded to remember George Orwell and 1984 when reading such articles as Jo has just posted, which presupposes that climate change is real, dramatic and happening now and that there is no precedent so something MUST be done. Sadly, history seems now to be mostly a vague concept and historical climate an even more obscure subject, as past weather is gently erased. In this respect Big Brother has, as Orwell predicted, captured and molded society to its own programme.
The ‘nudge unit’ in Whitehall partly operates out of part of a historic palace owned by Henry V111 who was a past master at changing peoples perceptions on religion to suit his own ends. The nudge unit is now primarily a private co with offices in many countries, including Australia and runs seminars in the dark arts of gentle persuasion or, as we might term it, “social propaganda”.
from 1984
“Winston is an editor in the Records Department at the governmental office Ministry of Truth, where he actively revises historical records to make the past conform to whatever Ingsoc wants it to be. One day he wakes up and thinks,
Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past… The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc. Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records, and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it.”
560
Tony, quite clearly you did not attend a woke school. Don’t despair, you may be forced to undergo a re-education.
280
I’d prefer a bottle in front of me.
170
Unfortunately Glen, the alarmists are those, and led by people, who made the other choice
80
When it was written 1984 was set about 40 years into the future. It was taken out of your schools about…40 years ago.
40
It was in the year 9 curriculum in 2019 so nah.
02
Bull’s tits. Would you like to give a reference?
I’m not checking them all but the only thing a search returned was a module for Advanced English on Orwell’s essay Politics and the English Language’,
10
Flying is unecessary. Ban all fossil fuel aircraft. Bring back the green hydrogen Zepplin!
Problem solved
/irony
430
Its not a joke. Its a serious proposal. Ban all flights. Ban all meat eating.
https://www.ukfires.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Absolute-Zero-online.pdf
250
No more cheap sunshine and booze vacations. Reduced foreign food stuffs. More expensive products with greater latency. Aviation support industry gutted. Oh well. Stiff upper lip!
Alternately, less British money spent abroad
Biggest loser are the places abroad
240
Raving
Very interesting point. Us Brits spend some £63 billion a year going abroad on holiday or to visit friends and relatives.
If that amount was spent at home it would transform Britains economy.
221
Perhaps Tony, but you might find that more tourism money is spent by people visiting England than Brits spend abroad so it would actually be a loss to the economy.
120
The Brits always holiday in a warmer destination which is rather odd don’t you think, in this age of stopping the temperature from rising.
230
Less the billions we spend in the UK. Travel works both ways.
30
The forecast assumes that, for the moment, the government needed to enact this idiocy is voted into power but we are seeing a few politicians realise this is madness and the folk who have to live in this utopian future can neither afford it or, increasingly, do not want it. The time for a major pushback is coming forced by the realisation that they have to make a choice between saving the planet and feeding the kids; very few will sacrifice their children. While I often despair I do have faith in the plebs. I am also heartened by the hyperbole coming from various world leaders as they conclude that no one is listening to them anymore.
20
Yes, it is a Joke. The solution is to ban all leftist/marxist/liberals or require them to post irrevocable cash bond if their climate predictions are unrealized (75 Trillion USD per estimates). Claiming that these insane costs must be paid is untenable if the events claimed never happen. So, if the claimed harm arrives in 2100, and the claimed “necessary investment” to prevent the boogeyman from happening is 75 Trillion USD in 2030, then the Bond must be at least 21 x 75 = 1575 Trillion USD to backstop their claims if they are wrong. Most likely no insurer will touch this.
How does one place a value on lost opportunity, lost liberty, starvation, war, and suffering, that is the result of claimed necessities now, based upon group think, flawed models, political power grabs, subsidy grifting, and general ignorance? It is more likely that Governments will destroy civilization than CO2 might. Have a thought on that.
10
Have a laugh about this one:
New $4B Panasonic electric vehicle (EV) battery factory in Kansas requires so much power that the facility will need its own COAL plant to run
https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-09-26-panasonic-ev-factory-kansas-power-coal-plant.html
490
Here’s another laugh from the master race:
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/27/german-government-caught-hiding-assessment-that-keeping-nuclear-plants-open-would-sharply-reduce-co2-emissions/
270
That’ll go down like a Lead Zeppelin.
240
“Bring back the green hydrogen Zeppelin!”
For the elites only.
110
The elites can fly as much as they want in fossil fueled airplanes because they’re special. Just as John Kerry.
160
I’m not seeing where where mathematical or engineering plausibility count for much in the pursuit of Net Zero.
Which is aptly named.
Net Zero.
Decarbonization.
(Or my new gag reflex fav ‘embodied carbon’.)
They don’t seem to be hiding it exactly.
But my relationship with words and their meaning is old fashioned.
280
Imagine our first conversation with alien life.
Through a universal translation device.
Every time the alien refers to our species …
the translator uses the word ‘food’.
As presumably self aware, soon to be sequestered ’embodied carbon’…
this is how I hear the word ‘decarbonization’.
I think maybe we’re hearing but not listening.
230
To Serve Man – Damon Knight, 1950.
100
Indeed, Honk.
The ideology of the modern Left is based on post-modernism.
There is no objective reality.
“Truth” is whatever they think it is. That’s why you always hear modern Leftists talk about “my truth” etc.. Truth is subject to a personal interpretation.
180
‘The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.’
Winston S. Churchill. (the other Winston)
100
And….
You could have said the same thing in 1900 about cars and the availability of fuel, and I am betting that the horse lobby was doing just that
Lufthansa is just pointing out that necessary quantities are not yet available.
137
Did you fly on your recent trips to China, Peter, or perhaps you went on a hi-tech sail boat made with fossil fuel products like when Comrade Greta crossed the Atlantic?
250
I asked it that a few times, never answers.
Think he may have self-labeled as an intellectual, elitist, without understanding he is just a useful idiot, the useful being highly debatable.
80
Yes I did Fly.
By your comments I can tell that you never reuse or recycle, you use the roadside for waste disposal, and you only wear your clothes once before discarding them
As with MP – Grow Up!
010
At least you answered my question, it’s no longer up for debate.
Grow up you say, idiot.
60
Mr. Fitzroy: Wanna know what we can tell from your comments?
10
what gibberish!
Cars were filling up at hardware stores as well as others (even pharmacies) before a private company set up a filling station.
What horse lobby? Blacksmiths were selling fuel before filling stations. Refining crude oil for lamp oil precedes cars by centuries. The industry was much larger in the US than needed to fuel cars even in the early years of the Model T.
Not a chance in hell of your little fantasy being true.
40
Comedy gold!
hahaha….
90
Except a horse cannot eat coal.
Renewable energy is free electron opportunity. The unexploited resource finds a demand.
Our use of opportunistic electricity is increasing. We still pay for base load
60
No, what Lufthansa is saying is it’s not viable now and may never be, also costs are escalating.
150
But Peter, the rapid rise of mass produced automobiles, available for the masses (not just the elites), demonstrated the availability of fuel through simple supply and demand economics.
There was no ideological driven ‘oil lobby’ pushing cars.
No-one, including Henry Ford and Henry Royce, was mandating the forced phasing out of horses…
270
And governments didn’t build petrol stations either
230
but there is a fossil fuel lobby, which is making dupes out of a lot of people, particularly those who need donations, like 99.999% of all politicians
07
But the fossil fuel lobby — unlike the renewables lobby — isn’t 100% dependent on the government maintaining laws to ensure it has a market. So which lobby group pays the most?
1. Fossil Fuels selling a product the free world can’t exist without and wants despite massive taxation and 30 years of anti-fossil-fuel-propaganda.
2. Renewables, academics, emissions trading scheme bankers, bureaucrats in the Environmental sector, Greenpeace et al, Chinese communist lobbyists trying to weaken the West by pumping the green religion etc — all whose jobs and profits would disappear overnight should the government say “the sun drives the climate”.
Over to you o-conspiracy-watcher. Who is the dupe here?
190
so this is wrong , or this? After all your policy does say that when contesting a comment, you should provide links
As as for your other assertion, can you back it up?
18
Another strawman? Where did I say there was no fossil fuel lobbying? You post these diversions because you don’t have good answers and everyone can see that. Thanks Peter for the chance to point out that not only do the fossil lobby NOT fund me, they won’t even let me speak if they can stop me. Let’s remember the time Woodside went to the effort to cancel a Christmas speech.
Can I back up my claim? Only 104 times and starting with my Climate Money paper of 2009 displayed and linked on every every post and page on my site in the right hand column.
Indeed, it’s at moments like this I wonder why I let you comment at all, because you are such an ignorant timewaster. You don’t read my site, or you’d know the Climate Money theme is one of the driving forces for me running a blog. 105 posts on that topic. Did you miss them all?
Think of how arrogant and narcissistic it is to demand I publish you unmoderated (and I’ve published 5,000+ comments of yours) while you don’t read my site, waste our time, you ask silly questions and complain.
160
Owned again Panda Eyes, it doesn’t even sink in.
Do you get off on being slapped about?
40
There was NO such lobby in the early 1900’s while the attraction of the Ford Model T in 1908 was too much to ignore which is why it took off as it was a viable and cleaner alternative to the horse/buggy set up which is why it vanished rapidly.
Do you read world history Peter?
30
Except that, of course, there was no “horse lobby”…people were interested in progress back then.
The climate was accepted as natural and all intelligent minds were turned towards making life easier.
No-one is stopping you from catching a horse to work!
210
The great horse dung problem? International conference about the ‘consequences’ of lots of horses in big cities e.g. London and New York. Some time later a spokesman claimed “that cars had clean up New York”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_horse_manure_crisis_of_1894
or better (as by Stephen Davies whom Wikipedia notes)
https://fee.org/articles/the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/
or
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/
140
Just imagine the air pollution from the thousands of tonnes of horse manure lining the streets and the noise pollution from thousands of steel tyred wheels clattering on the cobblestones.
140
Sure and the governments of 1910 gave everyone subsidies to trade in their horses and buy up a motor car. They had laws you know, charging people with horses a pound of silver a day for driving in London just to get them to switch faster to the horseless carriage things.
Eventually everyone realized the government was right and stopped complaining about being forced to use something that drove all day and night, faster, longer and stronger, without needing hay or a toilet.
210
Nice one, Jo!
40
Jo,
Thanks. Many here understood you.
But – is it possible that some of the panic-stricken watermelons, reading yours at 5.6.1.1.1, might sincerely believe that Asquith’s Government did indeed subsidise the nascent motor car in the UK in 1910?
Their characteristics include a lack of historical perspective [and possibly other failings, too!].
Auto
40
Ms. Nova: In response, I’d like to do an impression….Ahem, aaaahem (clearing throat to prepare to amaze everybody) So there IS a fossil fuel lobby! Pete Fitzroy.
How’m i doin?
30
“A hundred years ago city streets were ankle deep in horse excrement. What kind of pollution do you want? Would you rather die of cancer at eighty or typhoid fever at nine?”
P. J. O’Rourke
101
Moving from horse-drawn vehicles to fossil-fuel-powered devices was a net gain for us all.
Ruinable electrical generation is a step backward in energy density so your example is moot
100
The issue, PF, is that aviation biofuels or synfuels will NEVER be available in sufficient quantity or economic value to make what you promote, possible. Biofuels violate most turbine manufacturer’s warranties and requirements for service. Synfuels are ridiculously expensive. Some 10 times that of JP4.
You do realize that all synfuels rely upon the Fischer-Tropsch process which has a maximum efficiency of 51%.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016236113002019
So, if you are willing to generate liquid hydrocarbons from gaseous hydrocarbons and pay 2 times as much energy for the condescending, virtue signalling, Right, to be pompous, you can have “green jet fuel”.
To resolve your cognitive dissonance, acquire some knowledge of Chemical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering, Economics, and the host of Practical Matters that limit your imaginary solutions to imaginary problems that are encased in the Real Constraints, Real Economics, Real Geo Politics, Real Thermodynamics, and Real Physical Chemistry.
Navel Gazing imagination does not conquer Reality.
30
It won’t be an issue anyway because if the Left are allowed to continue with their economic and social destruction, we serfs will be confined to walking within the virtual prisons of our 15 min cities and only Elites will be allowed to fly their private jets.
Don’t forget, NET ZERO doesn’t mean ZERO CARBON (sic). It means the serfs get to use vastly less carbon-based energy and the Elites get to use vastly more.
It is a complete reversal of the greater egalitarianism that (more or less) free enterprise has allowed everyone to obtain.
320
Yes the ‘net’ means overall or such.
So that the we, the majority, will use less and they, the elite left intelligencia will just carry on business as usual.
160
I have thought for a while now that ‘Net Zero’ is about the economy, not about CO2.
140
A plane or a flying machine,
On green fuels like e-kerosene,
Is too costly to fly,
Green pie in the sky,
Unlike aviation gasoline.
370
Synthetic kerosene sounds only slightly more plausible than “green hydrogen”.
At least kerosene is a usable liquid hydrocarbon fuel with machines and infrastructure that use it, regardless of whether it’s from oil or made by a costly synthetic process.
150
Synthetic Kerosene is not new. Not sure about the e bit. It is made from coal!
Australia should invest in this technology ASAP and become fuel independent.
110
Australia’s politicians don’t want Australia to be fuel independent.
That’s why they have banned gas and oil exploration and fracking over large parts of Australia.
And Howard gave much of our gas supply to the Chicomms at world’s cheapest prices on a bizarre 30 yr contract with no provision for inflation or market prices. https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-australia-blew-its-future-gas-supplies-20170928-gyqg0f.html
The plan is to destroy the economy and our standard of living.
150
Fundamentally the Left don’t want serfs to have convenient and ultimately no travel.
As a start to this process, France has already banned short haul commercial flights although these seemingly don’t apply to the favourite travel method of the Elites, private jets.
https://www.forbes.com.au/news/innovation/france-legally-bans-short-haul-flights/
140
“the ban doesn’t cover private jets,”
Or King Charles 111.
210
Jo,
Avgas is high octane petrol (still containing loverly lead) used in piston-engined aircraft. Jets wouldn’t like it.
160
Jet engines would run on Avgas or indeed any volatile hydrocarbon liquid fuel in an emergency but Avgas and other non-jet fuels are not recommended. For Avgas the flash point is low and also lead would deposit on the turbine blades and the engine would need rebuilding, as for other unapproved fuels.
I believe some aviation turboshaft engines are however specifically designed to run on Avgas or at least allow its use.
71
Jets would run on it, but not for long.
60
Correct. Jets and helicopters run on Avtur.
50
Avtur = kerosene
20
Given the profound scientific, engineering and technical ignorance of the Left, I’m surprised they are not mandating “electric jet aircraft”.
120
Yes, I am still waiting for the first electric turbine.
90
Rubberband motor aiplane is the solution:
Net Zero Flight
130
Alex Epstein tells us the full sorry tale of left wing extremism gone mad.
This Prager Uni video only takes 6 minutes to watch but he covers a lot of ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEFmVgjdLfs
60
Cost of synthetic kerosene.
I suppose since only Leftists Elites will be able to afford to fly so cost is irrelevant.
Note that the following figures come from the International Council on Clean Transportation. So they will be biased toward saying the cost will be lower than the true cost.
Also note the statement “Thus, financial incentives are necessary for large-scale adoption of e-kerosene so that it can play a role in aviation decarbonization, especially in the near term.“. That means subsidies and subsidy harvesters will have their snouts in the trough.
171
Proving yet again that without government subsidies this “green” fuel is not viable. In 2050 they are still wanting subsidies.
I suppose they are at least a little bit more honest than the windfarm promotors. By their own words they should be self sustaining by now but that is not the case.
The “green” industry would not survive without government subsidies and market interventions.
120
Adjusted from 2010 costs to 2023, the cost of synthetic kerosene / JP4, is some 1.8 USD/L to 4.3 USD/L ( 2.3 – 5.6 AUD/L)
But it still requires reformed natural gas and even if ‘green H2’ is used (at 58% theoretical efficiency), the process always consumes more energy that the products produce.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00665
Why is it that every “green” answer requires more energy than it displaces? This is simply stupid.
10
You can see where this is headed. Air travel will eventually be banned for the plebiscites and will only be allowed for the ruling elites, all in the name of saving the planet.
141
AGAIN here’s where we get our energy from today. This is for the World in 2022.
And this is the Primary Energy Share by Source from OWI Data.
Oil, Coal and Gas =85.37%
Trad Bio mass = 6.91%
W & S = 2.13%
Hydro = 2.7%
Nuclear = 1.67%
Modern bio- fuels = 0.75%
Other Renewables = 0.48%
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy-share-inc-biomass
160
Don’t worry folks, I think our good old CSIRO have magiced up some science and they contend they have a process to make e-fuels more efficiently. It’s in a lab, not yet commercial or upscaled, but hell, that doesn’t matter. They’ll be wanting another couple of hundred million $ any time soon, just to prove it. We can add it to all the other valuable science they’ve done lately. You know, like adding seaweed to cows diet to prevent methane. Like their GENCOST investigation into energy transmission costs. They invented WIfi afteer all, it must be good.
120
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/Articles/2021/January/renewable-fuels-set-to-take-off
21
“The Bureau of Meteorology has issued a warning that this summer, expected to be hotter due to the El Nino effect, poses a risk to Australia’s energy grid.”
Another woke organisation getting in on the climate hype.
110
“Renewables” and associated political paper shuffling poses a far bigger risk to the grid than any El Nino ever has
100
On The Bolt Report last night, Andrew Bolt interviewed a person from some important organisation (I forget which) about the coming grid shortfall. The person tied himself in knots trying to make out that coal was as likely to fail as wind. Andrew Bolt went very quiet, which is very unusual. I suspect that he was using the ‘enough rope’ approach. Hopefully the audience was smart enough to pick it up.
150
Nett Zero seems to be colliding with reality at an ever increasing pace as 2030 approaches. Stories like this on the stupidity of government edicts formulated in a virtue signaling bubble are appearing regularly. The recent coal fired EV battery factory story was another classic. Political back-pedaling is also firing up , but who knows what the Germans will do, they appear pretty far gone. A report emerged recently that they would have saved more of the dreaded CO2 if the had kept their nuclear power plants open. They still closed them as one set of dogma over ruled their other set of dogma.
140
The Germans closed their last nuclear power plant in April 2022 in the midst of an energy crisis and increased dependence on electricity as per govt mandate, a bit like the 600,000 plus immigrants while we have a full blown housing availability/affordability crisis here in OZ.
70
UK – ditto.
Also about 600,000 growth in population in 2022.
Not many of those are ‘extra’ babies over and above old folk like me dropping off our mortal coils.
Auto
20
More fun in Germany
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/nothing-working-volkswagens-factories-germany-paralyzed-after-massive-it-malfunction
30
Green power = STUPIDITY. Unless of course, you believe in WEF fairies and Unicorns
80
But don’t worry the SMH and Bloomberg assure us that we can fight their so called Climate Crisis by WASTING another 300 TRILLION $ for a guaranteed ZERO return.
But I’m sure our silly blog donkeys will think this is a wonderful idea. And their mates in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea etc will be laughing all the way to their banks.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/300-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-and-that-s-a-bargain-20230706-p5dm2m.html
80
If $295 trillion is a “bargain” (lower price than usual), what is the normal price?
At that cost, the do nothing option seems attractive to me.
Just deal with it as it happens.
Actually the default option in NZ now anyway, what with cyclones wreaking havoc:
Cost Of Natural Disasters Table (NZ)
https://www.icnz.org.nz/industry/cost-of-natural-disasters/
Just the top two Cost ($m)
2023 Feb 11 -17, Cyclone Gabrielle, Storm, 1,657.6
2023 Jan 27 – Feb 02, Auckland Anniversary Weekend to 1 Sept 2023, Flood, 1,843.1
Scroll down to:
11 – 17 Feb 2023 Cyclone Gabrielle – regional breakdown of claims and costs to 1 Sept 2023
Top costs are Business $770.94m followed by House $630.31m.
If those funds had already been spent to “stop global warming”, where would these funds come from?
30
Pre-emptive response for “global warming causes cyclones” in NZ:
Storm of 1897
Pre-1900 South Pacific cyclone seasons
1900–1940 South Pacific cyclone seasons
1929 New Zealand cyclone
1936 New Zealand cyclone
1940s South Pacific cyclone seasons
1950s South Pacific cyclone seasons
1960s South Pacific cyclone seasons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tropical_cyclones_in_New_Zealand
40
Of course, all the disaster costs have gained the attention of “researchers” seeing an opportunity to snare some easy money:
Climate change impact on natural hazards explored
https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/328045-climate-change-impact-on-natural-hazards-explored.html
1) Dream up flimsy premise
2) Collect handout
3) Make models
4) Laugh on the way to the bank.
20
More fun in Germany
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/nothing-working-volkswagens-factories-germany-paralyzed-after-massive-it-malfunction
20
Used EV Prices Slashed As Drivers Lose Confidence In Electric Cars
https://climatechangedispatch.com/power-down-used-ev-prices-slashed-as-drivers-lose-confidence-in-electric-cars/
Tesla brand has been one of the worst affected, as well as other high-end models from BMW and Mercedes-Benz.
Luxury used electric motors saw prices slashed by more than £10,000 [$12,240].
“It has been so volatile, dealers have been very frightened of getting involved with EVs.
“Many of our members have been stuck with EVs on their forecourts that they cannot shift, even as they are falling by £2,000 [$2,448] to £3,000 [$3,672] a month.
“That’s a phenomenal amount.”
100
Looks like Aircrash Investigators have found that the Green elephant in Lufthanda’s hangar took over control and has landed the plane.
100
Incidentally, flying on commercial jets is significantly more economical than driving a car.
It’s not about fuel consumption or “carbon” (sic).
It’s about keeping the serfs locked up in their 15 Minute Cities.
Model First flight Fuel efficiency per seat
Boeing 737-300 1984 3.46 L/100 km (68 mpg‑US)
Boeing 737-600 1998 3.59 L/100 km (65.5 mpg‑US)
Boeing 737-700 1997 3.19 L/100 km (74 mpg‑US)
Boeing 737 MAX 7 2017 2.77 L/100 km (84.8 mpg‑US)
Many more figures at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft?wprov=sfla1
120
Except people fly long distances on holidays and cars are filled with more thsn 2 people on family trips.
Flying allows people to travel to far away places quickly.
Expect that airlines make more money per flight mile on long haul flights. Lesss wear and tear of liftoff and touchdown, less waiting on the tarmac.
I remember the day’s one could show up 1/2 hour before an international flight..Now the low cost is n travelling the long distance. . No wonder cheap airfare aims to cut terminal costs.
30
I love the smell of burning batteries in the morning…..
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-27/tesla-battery-fire-at-queensland-renewable-energy-project/102905302
90
There’s always rail….
Kiwi comedian shares wild 11-hour UK rail-replacement epic
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/kiwi-comedian-shares-wild-11-hour-uk-rail-replacement-epic/ar-AA1hm6yq?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=70bc369adab646b5ad4107c1b8868740&ei=40#image=1
Around 9:20 news came down:
Alternative transport had been arranged.
Bus? An extra train? Horses?
No.
Taxis. For hundreds of people. To a city 3 and 1/2 hours away.
70
James Nokise @JamesNokise
40
So where’s their so called Climate Crisis in 2023?
AGAIN why are Humans flourishing and have much better lives today?
How have we increased our population by 5.5 billion since 1950 and increased our life expectancy from 46 years then to 73 years today?
And how have we increased our calorie intake to the very high levels today?
We’re supposed to be facing a Climate Crisis but Humans are flourishing today.
Here’s the Human calorie intake since 1960 for the world and selected countries.
IOW where’s their so called Climate Crisis or EXISTENTIAL THREAT?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-caloric-supply?tab=chart&country=CHN~IND~KEN~BRA~OWID_WRL~USA~OWID_AFR~AUS~GBR~OWID_EUR~CAN
70
BTW if you hold your mouse ( above graph) on China you can observe the largest recorded famine in human history.
This started in about 1959 and lasted until the early 1960s and about 50 + million people were estimated to have died.
Calories dropped for a number of years.
40
The Germans closed their last nuclear power plant in April 2022 in the midst of an energy crisis and increased dependence on electricity as per govt mandate, a bit like the 600,000 plus immigrants while we have a full blown housing availability/affordability crisis here in OZ.
60
Housing crisis in every country importing the most violent cultures in the world. Sky news stated the other day, we are flying them into Australia at 2000 per day, though I believe this includes students. Labors importation rate is nearly 500,000 per year, housing crisis is not the only crisis we face.
The western world governments are destroying their own countries, and we know one thing, it’s not because their caring about us humans, so the question is why?
Lib/Nats stopped the boats and started the flights. The UNMSM avoids any mention of this.
71
Will some of the feedstock for SAFs come from plantations? If so, what type of plantations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE&t=5439s
(the last couple of minutes of Planet of the Humans – distressing content)
30
Yes DD and yet that’s what we can expect if these delusional loonies are able to con more idiots to their cause.
Terrible devastation for the animals and the environment when we should be using fossil fuels.
And we wouldn’t have the numbers of whales today if we didn’t start to use fossil fuels and related products 150 + years ago.
Happily the Earth has been GREENING for the last 40 years, thanks to the extra co2 fertiliser in the atmosphere.
30
Another interesting observation is that the average Chinese calorie intake didn’t reach 2,000 calories per day until after the death of Mao in 1976.
But a very rapid increase since then and 3,000 by 2009 and above 3200 calories today.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-caloric-supply?tab=chart&country=CHN~IND~BRA~OWID_AFR
30
But the green electricity used to make efuel won’t be available to pump water uphill to charge the batteries coming back down.
30
[…] JoNova […]
20