Advertisements

U.S. EV Sales Surge to New Record in August

Tesla Model 3 is driving a massive surge in U.S. electric vehicles sales. According to Inside EVs, Tesla Model 3 sales hit 17,800 during August in the U.S. Meanwhile total U.S. EV sales likely hit near 35,000.

Advertisements

August Likely to Be Another Record Month for U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales

Inside EVs is predicting another record month for US EV sales in August even as the 300K annual rate falls into reach. Meanwhile Tesla production for Q3 is tracking for 70-80 K even as EV advances continue.

4 Million EVs on the Road Globally — To Hit 5 Million in About Six Months

 

The number of EVs on the road in Europe has hit 1 million with a 42 percent growth rate in the January to June timeframe. Meanwhile, Global EVs have hit 4 million with nearly 2 million sales projected for this year. From January to July, Tesla took the crown as top-selling EV automaker.

California Has Already Cut Carbon Emissions to 1990s Levels

California has reduced its electrical power sector related carbon emissions by 35 percent — enabling it to achieve a goal set for 2020 early. Looking ahead, California will need to rely an synergies between batteries and clean energy both in power and transport as it moves to cut emission further.

Setback Initiative Puts Colorado Fracking Fight in the Hands of Voters

Advocates for keeping fossil fuels in the ground have gathered enough signatures to provide a ballot choice for voters to increase setbacks for oil derricks and fracking pads from 500 feet to 2,500 feet. This would likely result in a curtailment of Colorado oil and gas production. A major political battle is likely to ensue. The success of this initiative provides a window into the larger choices we face as human caused climate change impacts start to ramp up.

California Close to Committing to 100 Percent Renewable Electricity

Yesterday, Senate Bill 100 passed the California State Assembly. If it makes it through a second set of legislative hurdles, it will reach Governor Brown’s desk for signing into law. If this happens, California will join 88 other cities and counties across the U.S. as well as the State of Hawaii in 100 renewable electricity commitments.

Climate Change Signal Detected in FL Governor’s Race

 

Climate change is a major issue that impacts us all. Increasingly, it is becoming a serious voting issue. Particularly for the residents of South Florida who stand to lose so much if climate impacts keep ramping up.

Why We Need to Shoot for 1.5 C Even Though We Might Miss — Part 1

Each day, as individuals and as a global civilization, we decide how difficult our future will be. We do this, ultimately, by deciding whether we will burn fossil fuels, and whether or not we will emit carbon into the Earth’s atmosphere. The most liveable climate change scenario is the one where we emit the least carbon, where we first switch carbon emitting energy systems with renewables, and where we then learn how to draw carbon down from the atmosphere. In scientific parlance, this best case response to climate change is described as the RCP 2.6 emissions pathway.

(Shooting for 1.5 C Warming — Risk and Necessity.)

What is RCP 2.6? How do we define it?

We do this in many ways. By one measure, it roughly equates to an average of 490 ppm CO2 equivalent greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere over the course of the 21st Century. By another, it equals an added average radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere of 2.6 watts per meter squared. By another, it roughly equals 1.5 C warming by 2100.

In short, it’s the best case that we could rationally hope for. A much more liveable world. But it is also a long shot. A heavy lift. One that will require great courage, moral fiber, innovation, and effort if we are to have any hope of achieving it.

In order to have a shot at hitting RCP 2.6 we’ve got to, as a global civilization, achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. What this means is that U.S. carbon emissions need to be net zero by 2035. And the world needs to quickly follow suit. That’s not going to be easy. But I think it’s doable, if we work hard and honestly and if we are lucky.

Ultimately, it’s something that we can’t not try to do and still be a good people. For in undertaking the path to 1.5 C we commit to the greatest rescue operation in the history of the planet and of humankind. And that’s what part 2 of this post series is about.

Hat tip to Greg

Trump’s Hot Air vs Australia’s Solar Revolution

What’s the difference between bad (Trumpian) energy policy and good (clean energy based) energy policy? For Los Angeles and San Diego which both experienced an extreme, climate change driven, heatwave over the past week, about 4 degrees Fahrenheit.

In other words, fossil fuel burning under Trump policies would be of much greater magnitude and extend for far longer into the future. This would pump more heat trapping carbon into the atmosphere and ratchet global temperatures much higher.

According to a recent science-based article from Joe Romm at Think Progress, what it means is that the 110 to 120 degree (F) heatwaves of today, under Trumpian policy, will turn into the 131 degree heatwaves of tomorrow.

(Trump’s heatwaves vs Australia’s solar surge.)

In other words, it’s not a question of whether climate change will worsen. It will, at least for a while. It’s a question of how bad things will get. And from Obama to Trump we have a clear example and contrast between various helpful policies like increasing CAFE standards, the Sun Shot Initiative, the Clean Power Plan, and the Paris Climate Summit to various attempts to force people to buy coal, allowing the most toxic high emissions trucks on the road, putting up vast swaths of public lands for drilling, all while denying the scientifically proven existence of climate change and doing everything possible to roll back and withdraw from past positive policies.

One of these governments is clearly not like the other. And while we, as environmentalists and clean energy advocates could criticize individual climate policies for not going far enough, we must certainly concede that they were, on net, significantly helpful.

To this point, I’d like to call your attention to a recent spot-on statement by Dr Michael E. Mann:

And we are coming to realize how much more F’d we will be if we let those like Trump win out.

In the end, so much of the future of humankind is decided by international, national, state, and city government policy. If policies support a transition away from fossil fuel burning and toward a renewable energy based economy, then fossil fuel burning will halt more rapidly and warming will be reduced.

If, on the other hand, governments (like the one under Trump) fight to extend fossil fuel burning indefinitely into the future, to deny access to clean energy and to prevent the advance of efficiencies and energy savings, then warming will proceed very rapidly along what is known as a business as usual pathway. A pathway that is better described as the fast lane to increasingly hot and hellish conditions on Earth.

One future is probably survivable by human civilizations. The other future is very painful and difficult, calling prosperity and even habitability for large regions of the Earth’s surface into serious question.

(U.S. Heatwaves under some climate response [RCP 4.5] vs Trump policies leading to no climate response [RCP 8.5]. Image source: Think Progress and The National Climate Assessment.)

That other future is the one that pro fossil fuel governments like the Trump Administration are fighting for by trying to delay or deny access to renewable energy all while attempting to extend the burning of fossil fuels indefinitely.

So we are at a crossroads in more ways than one. But we should hold a measure of cautious optimism due to the fact that the economics of renewable energy are increasingly superior to those of ailing fossil fuels. And, in some cases, these economic conditions have been enough to overwhelm the negative, pro-fossil fuel policy stances of certain federal governments presently holding sway.

Take Australia, for example, which since 2013 has been headed by pro fossil fuel parties led by Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. These governments, holding thin majorities have done whatever they could to water down clean energy policies, reduce emissions cuts and support fossil fuels. During recent sessions, they have repeatedly attempted to send taxpayer money to coal facilities so that they will continue to operate (sound familiar, Rick Perry?).

But despite these efforts, solar energy is surging throughout Australia. Recent reports indicate that solar adoption rates will grow threefold in 2018 over the previous record year 2017. In total, Australia is on track to add about 4 gigawatts (GW) of solar to its present 7 GW total capacity.

(Major increase in clean solar adoption in Australia has primarily been driven by falling solar prices even as various Australian states continue to push hard for adoption despite the federal government’s fossil-fuel backing. Image source: Green Energy News and WA Today.)

What’s driving all this new solar? Well, for one many regions in Australia still incentivize solar. Meanwhile, some federal policies supporting solar still remain in place. But the one factor that has changed dramatically is that the cost of solar energy now out-competes practically every other major source in Australia. Panel prices are presently around 50 cents per watt down under and are falling to 40 cents per watt. This means that many customers can now recoup their investment in 3-5 years time. And with electricity prices running high, this is a really big incentive.

Solar possesses what is called a positive learning curve. What this means is that the more solar panels produced, the lower the future cost of solar panels. Both wind and batteries benefit from the same economies of scale. But if politicians like Trump increasingly use subsidies to prop up fossil fuels while fighting to kill off clean energy, then that horrible business as usual future that Joe Romm mentioned above is a very distinct possibility.

Or as Michael Mann put it — how F’d up do you want to see things get. From where I’m sitting, they’re already messed up enough.

Hat tip to Kassy

US EV Sales Likely Hit 26,000 in June

The big surge in electrical vehicle sales within the U.S., primarily driven by clean energy leader Tesla, continues.

According to reports from Inside EVs, total U.S. EV sales are likely to hit near 26,000 for the month of June. Such sales increases have primarily been driven by Tesla — which sold over 11,000 EVs in the U.S. for the month — representing nearly half (42 percent) of the entire U.S. market.

(Unpacking why EVs are so important to confronting climate change.)

Tesla’s dominance was spear headed by its Model 3 — which sold over 6,000 in June to the U.S. (and approximately 2,000 to Canada). Meanwhile, combined Model S and Model X sales were in excess of 5,000 in the U.S.

Other U.S. clean energy vehicle leaders for the month of June included Toyota Prius Prime (a plug in hybrid electrical vehicle), the Nissan Leaf, The Chevy Bolt and the Chevy Volt (plug in hybrid). In total, all of these four models combined represented less sales than Tesla — approximately  5,900 in total or about 55 percent of Tesla’s sales. Of these, only the Prius Prime cracked the 2,000 mark (see more here).

(U.S. EV sales are rapidly increasing in 2018. Image source: Inside EVs.)

Overall, it appears that U.S. EV sales are likely to hit near 400,000 on the back of Tesla’s rapid expansion in production rates. In addition, GM has recently acknowledged that it is unable to meet high demand for the Bolt in the U.S. and has stated that production lines are set to expand by 20 percent. Though this is unlikely to satiate rising EV demand, it will add to the widening trend of ramping clean energy sales here.

GM recently saw big Bolt sales gains in South Korea. And the company recently acknowledged that it is not doing enough to meet consumer’s clean energy needs in North America. Though a bump from 26,000 to approximately 31,000 Bolts sold from 2017 to 2018 is a drop in the bucked compared to the approx 100,000 or more new EVs Tesla will be adding by itself vs 2017 (100,000 total EVs in 2017 to approx 200,000 total in 2018).

(Tesla hits past 5,000 Model 3’s per week in late June and early July. Image source: Bloomberg.)

Looking ahead, Tesla appears set to sell well in excess of 10,000 Model 3s alone in the U.S. in July as weekly production rates surge. According to Bloomberg’s Model 3 Tracker (image above), the company has sky-rocketed weekly Model 3 production rates to above 5,000 during late June and early July. And while some wag is likely between the mid 2,000s to mid 5,000s as Tesla continues to work on its lines, the company is on a clear path for increased production — aiming at another surge to 6,000 per week by August.

Tesla Achieves Model 3 Production Goals

Tesla achieved a major surge in clean energy vehicle production during the second quarter of 2018.

According to reports from Tesla, the all renewable energy corporation produced a whopping 53,339 electrical vehicles during Q2. Of these, 24,751 were Model S and X. Meanwhile, Tesla produced an amazing 28,578 Model 3s.

Overall, this is almost double the 25,708 EVs produced during Q2 of 2017. A very impressive jump that included Tesla exceeding 5,000 Model 3s produced during the final week of June with a total weekly EV production rate of nearly 7,000 (see below).

(Tesla hits clean energy vehicle production milestones during Q2 of 2018.)

These are huge numbers for Tesla — showing that the company is achieving its goal of mass produced clean energy automobiles. A feat that is even now setting off shock-waves through the global auto market (and a major smear and fear campaign at the hands of pro-fossil fuel Tesla shorts).

Tesla appears to be well on its way to hitting around 200,000 EVs produced by the end of 2018 — with 88,000 coming out of Tesla’s factories in the first half of the year. If present trends hold, it appears that Tesla will hit between 60,000 and 75,000 EVs during Q3, with still more on the way during Q4.

(Tesla crushes Q2 production during big Model 3 surge. Image source: Inside EVs.)

Such high rates of production from Tesla’s multiple vehicle lines are now likely to enable Tesla to begin leveraging economies of scale to increase cash influx. Setting up Tesla’s planned profitability during the second half of the year. Meanwhile, Tesla revenues continue to rapidly grow. All good news.

I’ve said it before here, but I’ll say it again. Tesla’s success is critical to the clean energy revolution. It is the only major all-clean energy automaker in the West. One that is leveraging a combination of 100 percent renewable energy technologies — solar, batteries, and EVs — to rapidly and competitively move into markets traditionally dominated by fossil fuel based industries. And it is this kind of direct replacement of fossil fuels with renewables that will enable rapid global carbon emissions reduction and movement away from a future blighted by catastrophic climate change.

(Tesla team celebrates its achievement of 5,000 Model 3s produced within one week. Image source: Tesla.)

 

Full Tesla press release follows:

PALO ALTO, Calif., July 02, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — In the last seven days of Q2, Tesla produced 5,031 Model 3 and 1,913 Model S and X vehicles.

Q2 production totaled 53,339 vehicles, a 55% increase from Q1, making it the most productive quarter in Tesla history by far. For the first time, Model 3 production (28,578) exceeded combined Model S and X production (24,761), and we produced almost three times the amount of Model 3s than we did in Q1. Our Model 3 weekly production rate also more than doubled during the quarter, and we did so without compromising quality.

GA4, our new General Assembly line for Model 3, was responsible for roughly 20% of Model 3s produced last week, with quality from that line being as good as our regular GA3 line. We expect that GA3 alone can reach a production rate of 5,000 Model 3s per week soon, but GA4 helped to get us there faster and will also help to exceed that rate.

Tesla expects to increase production to 6,000 Model 3s per week by late next month. We also reaffirm our guidance for positive GAAP net income and cash flow in Q3 and Q4, despite negative pressures from a weaker USD and likely higher tariffs for vehicles imported into China as well as components procured from China.

Q2 deliveries totaled 40,740 vehicles, of which 18,440 were Model 3, 10,930 were Model S, and 11,370 were Model X. Model S and X deliveries are in line with our guidance provided on May 3. As we previously noted, we are in the process of changing the quarterly production pattern of those vehicles for the various worldwide regions to ensure a more linear flow of deliveries through the quarter. Both orders and deliveries for Model S and X were higher in Q2 than a year ago. Our overall target for 100,000 Model S and Model X deliveries in 2018 is unchanged.

11,166 Model 3 vehicles and 3,892 Model S and X vehicles were in transit to customers at the end of Q2, and will be delivered in early Q3. The high number of customer vehicles in transit for Model 3 was primarily due to a significant increase in production towards the end of the quarter.

The remaining net Model 3 reservations count at the end of Q2 still stood at roughly 420,000 even though we have now delivered 28,386 Model 3 vehicles to date. When we start to provide customers an opportunity to see and test drive the car at their local store, we expect that our orders will grow faster than our production rate. Model 3 Dual Motor All Wheel Drive and Model 3 Dual Motor All Wheel Drive Performance cars will also be available in our stores shortly.

The last 12 months were some of the most difficult in Tesla’s history, and we are incredibly proud of the whole Tesla team for achieving the 5,000 unit Model 3 production rate. It was not easy, but it was definitely worth it.

**********************

Our delivery count should be viewed as slightly conservative, as we only count a car as delivered if it is transferred to the customer and all paperwork is correct. Final numbers could vary by up to 0.5%. Tesla vehicle deliveries represent only one measure of the company’s financial performance and should not be relied on as an indicator of quarterly financial results, which depend on a variety of factors, including the cost of sales, foreign exchange movements and mix of directly leased vehicles.

Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements herein, including statements regarding future production and delivery of Model S, Model X and Model 3, expected cash flow and net income results, and growth in demand for our vehicles, are “forward-looking statements” that are subject to risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations. Various important factors could cause actual results to differ materially, including the risks identified in our SEC filings. Tesla disclaims any obligation to update this information.

 

 

Tesla’s Mass Clean Energy Production as Response to Climate Change Surges in June

Surging wind, solar, electrical vehicle and battery storage production provide the world with the opportunity to start reducing annual carbon emissions in the near term. And one clean energy leader appears set to break new ground toward achieving that helpful goal.

(Tesla appears set to achieve goals, squeeze shorts, and help make clean energy more accessible for everyone.)

According to recent reports from Electrek, a Tesla employee recently leaked that Gigafactory battery pack production for the Model 3 has averaged 5,000 per week during June. If true, it shows that one key portion of the Tesla Model 3 line is humming along at a very strong rate of production commensurate with the company’s sky-high goals.

In addition, we have recently discovered that Tesla has not one, not two, but three production lines running for the Model 3 at its Fremont factory. During April and May Tesla constructed a second production line. And by late May these two lines surged to 3,500 Model 3 per week production.

(Tesla has constructed a massive semi-permanent structure to house a third Model 3 line in an effort to hit 5,000 vehicles per week. This line appeared in a very short period of time and shows that Tesla may indeed be capable of very rapid jumps in the number of electrical vehicles it produces. Image source: Teslarati.)

Meanwhile, during June, reports emerged that a hard-shell semi-permanent shelter had been erected to house a third Model 3 production line at the Fremont factory site. This third line is dedicated to producing dual-motor and performance versions of the EV — which are now officially on offer.

Overall, it appears that the clean energy company likely produced between 25,000 and 30,000 Model 3s during Q2. With total EV production including Model S and X in the range of 45,000 to 55,000. By comparison, Tesla produced approximately 100,000 EVs during 2017. So they are on track to at least double clean energy vehicle production during 2018.

(Indicators point to between 25,000 and 30,000 total Model 3s produced during Q2 — a massive surge over Q1. Image source: Bloomberg.)

This big surge reminds me a bit of the mass production effort that occurred in response to Axis power aggression during World War II. Although, the present clean energy production wave is in response to a serious and ramping climate threat posed by fossil fuel burning. A response that is peaceful, global, and occurring both in a chiefly capitalistic fashion (for Musk and Tesla) and in a socialistic (market-command) fashion for countries like China.

In the end, what’s most important is that a clean energy transition happens, not which political or ideological forces are engaged to achieve it. And what we see now is a mix of society-enhancing policy coming from a variety of cities and states with various market responses. In fact, it is this kind of mixed response that provides the most healthy and broadest-based solutions to the threat of human-caused climate change. So we welcome it in all its various forms.

Accelerating Sea Level Rise is Being Driven by Rapidly Increasing Melt From Greenland and Antarctica

From 1993 to the present day, global sea level rise has accelerated by 50 percent. And the primary cause, according to recent research, is that land glaciers such as the massive ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are melting far faster than they have in the past.

(Assessment of factors involved in the presently increasing rate of global sea level rise.)

Antarctica, in particular, is melting much more rapidly — with melt rates tripling in just the last ten years.

The primary factors contributing to global sea level rise include thermally expanding oceans and the melting of ice on land. During the decade of 1993 to 2004, the World Meteorological Organization notes that oceans rose by 2.7 mm per year. During this time, land ice sheets amounted to 47 percent of that rise — or about 1.35 mm. The same report found that from 2004 to 2015, oceans rose by around 3.5 mm per year and that land ice contribution had risen to 55 percent (1.93 mm per year). Looking at sea level measurements from AVISO, we find that from March of 2008 to March of 2018, the average rate of sea level rise accelerated further to 4.3 mm per year.

The net takeaway is that the rate of global ocean rise has increased by more than 50 percent since the early 1990s and that this acceleration has been driven by increasing melt from large land glaciers like those in Greenland and Antarctica.

(Sea level rise contributors as reported by the World Meteorological Organization in its 2017 report on the state of the global climate.)

Over the coming years and decades, this rate of rise is likely to continue to accelerate — surpassing 5 mm per year sometime rather soon, and likely exceeding the 1 cm per year mark by the 2040s through the 2060s. Melt rates will likely increase substantially as we approach the 1.5 C and 2.0 C warming marks. However, the net heat pressure from fossil fuel emitted greenhouse gasses will also drive sea level rise rates. As a result, it is imperative that we work to cut fossil fuel emissions more rapidly and that we pursue a swift as possible transition to clean energy.

Tesla is Racing Ahead of the EV Competition. Can Major Automakers Like BMW Catch up?

During the first quarter of 2018, Tesla’s Model 3 production ramp enabled it to steal the top EV producer crown from BYD and BMW. But with Tesla now building as much as 3,500 Model 3s and 5,500 EVs in total per week, it appears to be set to establish a major lead in the critical clean energy auto segment.

(Other automakers appear to have been caught somewhat flat-footed by Tesla’s high-quality EV surge. Traditional manufacturers like BMW have got a lot of work ahead of them if they want to catch up.)

Overall, total electrical vehicle production from all automakers is surging during 2018. And BMW is a credible part of that surge. During early 2018, it established a goal of producing and selling 140,000 EVs for the year. This would be almost 40 percent growth on its sales during 2017 — which hit just over 103,000.

Pretty impressive. But it’s nothing compared to what Tesla is now doing. During 2017, the high-quality EV manufacturer sold just over 101,000 electrical vehicles. But during 2018, that number is likely to double to around 200,000 — driven by a very rapid ramp in Model 3 production. The effects of this ramp are clear as day. It will propel Tesla into the position of global EV sales leader for at least the next 1-2 years.

(Tesla Model 3 Production appears to have surged to around 3,500 during mid-May. This is evidence of Tesla hitting its targets. Model 3 production is likely to surge to around 5,000 during June. No other automaker presently produces EVs in such high volumes. Image source: Bloomberg.)

Tesla’s advantages in the early stages of this race are multiple. It owns a massive supercharger network that is presently without parallel. It owns a very large battery and growing battery production capability. And it presently produces the fastest, longest range, easiest to recharge EVs in its market segment. Not only that, hundreds of thousands have reserved Tesla vehicles for purchase — so a huge chunk of future demand is in the bag.

Traditional automakers like BMW presently possess none of these advantages. BMW must contract out with other battery producers to guarantee its electrical vehicle ramp. This makes it less able to respond to demand signals than Tesla. BMW’s charger network is also third party — and it presently lags behind Tesla in supercharger capability. And BMW won’t be producing EVs capable of competing directly with high-spec Tesla cars until 2020 at the earliest. This due, primarily, to the fact that Tesla has a leap or two ahead in battery tech. BMW, in other words, is waiting on lower cost batteries from Samsung.

(Tesla has a luxury that most other EV manufacturers don’t — owning battery production allows it to rapidly ramp its EV offerings. Only BYD possesses a similar capability. And, presently, Tesla battery tech appears to have achieved economies that are 1-2 years ahead of the competition. Image source: Building Tesla.)

Moreover, automakers like BMW will see increasing competition coming from Model 3 for their high-margin luxury and sport ICE vehicles. Model 3 performs as well or better than pretty much all of these cars, has a lower cost of ownership by far, and doesn’t spew nasty fumes.

In short, Tesla has established for itself a top pole position in the race to provide win the future of automobile manufacturing. The rest of the pack is pretty far behind at present. And if we know one thing about Tesla, it’s very good at acceleration.

Tips for Responding to Climate Change Denial and Anti-Clean Energy Attacks in the Media

It is becoming more and more obvious that powerful economic interests associated with the harmful fossil fuel industry often spread anti-scientific, anti-factual misinformation relating to climate change and clean energy in the mainstream media. This post will explore some recent examples while providing you with a few simple methods for countering what is essentially a PR industry of lies for profit.

(Day after day we can see The Madhouse Effect in action in the form of major media sources providing a platform for the agents of the fossil fuel industry to cast doubt and aspersions on both science and clean energy.)

Typically, it would fall to a responsible government to reign in bad media actors that spread such fraudulent reports in the press. Reports by paid industry agents that masquerade as news and fact, but are just the opposite. Daily we are inundated with false and misleading attacks on clean energy leaders like Tesla even as major sources baldly spread the anti-factual claims of climate change denialists.

But despite a broad assault against basic reason enabled by some of the most powerful media outlets in the land, the tools are there for us regular folks to counter such attempts to spread doubt, uncertainty, and fear (FUD). We just require the will and the wherewithal to use them. Today, I’m going to pull two blatantly false reports — one from the Wall Street Journal, and one from Politico — to provide examples of the variety of crud we are subjected to every single day.

But before I do, I’m going to share with you my simple little method for dealing with the nonsense. In short — QUADS is a good basic rule of thumb:

  1. Question strange claims.
  2. Ask a scientist who works in the field.
  3. Do the research.
  4. Speak out.

The Wall Street Journal Makes the Ridiculous Statement that Sea Level Rise isn’t Caused by Global Warming

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published this ludicrous article written by known climate change denier S. Fred Singer. The article, entitled ‘The Sea Level is Rising, But Not Because of Climate Change’ is quite frankly not worth the paper or the electrons used to bring it to our eyes. Simply put, Singer baselessly casts doubt on long established scientific facts related to sea level rise caused by climate change. Then he makes the equally baseless claim that we can’t do anything about it but build dikes (Fred has long attacked policies promoting carbon emissions reductions — like those that advance the needed transition to renewable energy).

These are indeed strange claims worthy of questioning. And if we were to ask an actual climate scientist, we would find this to be the response:

Doing a little research we find that NASA states:

Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of seawater as it warms.

A statement of fact that is validated again and again and again across the field of climate science by such luminaries as the World Meteorological Organization, the Met Office, the IPCC, NOAA, JAXA and ever other major climate science body known to man.

Facts that put Mann’s rebuke to Singer in the context of yes, this guy just basically said the climate science equivalent of ‘objects are falling, but not because of gravity.’ Making Singer here more than just a bit of a voice in the wilderness. Which begs the question — why would the Wall Street Journal give him such a large platform from which to project his nonsense statements?

Turning our ‘do the research’ focus back to Singer we find that he’s a big name among the usual suspects of climate change denial nonsense. According to Desmogblog:

Singer founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in 1990, a 501(c)(3) “educational group” focusing on global warming denial….Leaked documents obtained by DeSmog revealed that Fred Singer has also been receiving $5,000 a month from the Heartland Institute(emphasis added).”

For those who don’t follow climate deniers, the Heartland Institute is an organization that feeds off the money of fossil fuel donors (like Exxon) and then turns around to publish numerous anti-scientific and anti-factual reports that attempt to fog the issue of climate change. This serves the simple polluting industry purpose of delaying or denying helpful government policy, business and social action meant to address climate change. Which is the main reason for the existence of Fred Singer as a media figure and for the endless repetition of his quack-quackish statements.

Politico Says Electrical Vehicles Increase Air Pollution — Which is a Complete and Utter Bullshit Claim

In a similar vein, but along a different tac, on the same day the major media source — Politico — published an equally ridiculous report by the appropriately named Jonathan Lesser falsely stating that electrical vehicles increase air pollution. Our response to Lesser and Politico calls them out for what amounts to publishing a gigantic stinking heap of nonsense:

Digging into actual research and looking at what actual scientists at The Union of Concerned Scientists have to say we find that:

Electric cars and trucks are powered by electricity, which as an energy source is cleaner and cheaper than oil. Even when the electricity comes from the dirtiest coal-dominated grid, electric vehicles (EVs) still produce less global warming pollution than their conventional counterparts, and with fewer tailpipe emissions (or none at all).

Such widely varied and notable institutions like the Department of Energy  and NRDC agree.

So how did Jonathan Lesser produce his claim? In short he double counted the impact of electricity based emissions, assumed all electricity comes from coal (just 30 percent and falling comes from coal in the U.S.), ignored the fact that EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, overlooked the massive efficiency gains that come from EVs, and ignored the fact that EVs mated with wind and solar produced zero emissions in use. Further, Lesser seems to have fiddled with material lifetime emissions results to generate the most pessimistic view imaginable. One that has no basis in actual fact or reality.

(According to this report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, EVs keep getting cleaner and cleaner at a pace that is impossible to match by their fossil fuel based counter parts. See comparison tool here.)

To be clear, if EVs were only plugged in to coal power plants on net, then it is likely that we would see some specific instances of particulate pollution rise (which Lesser appears to be cherry picking). And when more EVs are used, electrical power demand increases. But not all power generation comes from coal. In fact, coal plants are being shut down all over the world due to an inability to compete with renewables and natural gas. And as cleaner sources of energy keep getting added at higher rates, total life cycle emissions from EVs, which are already lower than ICEs keep falling.

On a net basis, the Union of Concerned Scientists is correct. Due to the simple fact that an electrical motor is x2 to x3 more efficient than an ICE, simply switching the motor results in considerable emissions reductions. However, add in the battery and you have a vehicle that is capable of zero emissions in use when mated to wind and solar.

Moving on, we find that Johnathan Lesser happens to be a rather biased source of information. According to both Politico and Desmogblog, Lesser is a writer for the Manhattan Institute. According to Desmogblog:

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, originally known as the International Center for Economic Policy Studies, was founded in 1978 by Anthony Fisher and William Casey and in recent years has promoted climate science contrarianism while defending policies supporting the development of fossil fuels (emphasis added).

The Institute notably receives most of its funding from fossil fuel related interests. Including 1.7 million from the Mercer Foundation, 1 million from Exxon Mobile, and 2.7 million from the Koch Brothers. So reading Lesser’s article is like getting a direct shot of fossil fuel industry PR messaging. In other words — not an honest report devoid of serious conflict of interest related issues.

Speaking Out is Necessary to Expose Bad Actors

It’s understandable that individuals may feel powerless in the face of vast media empires like Politico and the Wall Street Journal who brazenly publish the slanted and unscientific views of fossil fuel industry shills without even providing responsible warning or qualification. However, each of us has a voice with its own degree of power as well. A power that is lost if we stand silent. But one that is enabled if we lift our voices and speak out. The truth itself is a powerful tool. And if we first learn what is true and then communicate that truth, we can have a shot at overcoming the harmful interests who’ve generated such a vastly damaging, short-sighted, and self-serving fire-hose spume of misinformation.

 

Tesla is Pwning Markets Traditionally Dominated by ICEs as Manufacturers Desperately Call for More Battery Production

Last year, the world produced more than 1.2 million electrical vehicles. This was nearly 60 percent growth from the previous year when just shy of 800,000 EVs hit the world stage. During 2018, the world is expected to achieve anywhere between 1.6 and 2 million electrical vehicle sales. And by 2020, the number is likely to exceed 3 million. In other words, clean transportation that transitions away from climate change producing fossil fuel burning is a major emerging and rapidly growing global market.

(Tesla is surging ahead in the race to produce clean energy vehicles. But Volkswagen has promised to spend 48 billion on batteries in a bid to catch up. Image source: Inside EVs.)

Today, Tesla presently dominates global clean transport sales. Producing just three models — the S, the X, and the 3 — this new automaker is seriously disrupting a number of traditional segments. During most weeks, Tesla now produces more than 4,000 all electrical vehicles in total. This makes it the largest global EV producer by a long shot at a present pace of more than 200,000 vehicles per year. In the key U.S. market, Tesla appears to have sold between 5,000 and 8,500 vehicles during April alone. And the mass-produced Model 3 is presently making up more than half those sales at between 3,875 and 4,777 according to estimates by InsideEVs and CleanTechnica.

For Tesla, it’s just another milestone on the road to mass vehicle electrification. By summer, the clean energy company expects to be producing around 7,000 electrical vehicles per week in total — with fully 5,000 of that number coming from the Model 3 alone.

What this means is that Tesla is both racing ahead of other automakers in the EV field and that it will also start to dominate markets traditionally ruled by carbon-belching ICE makers. As one example of this trend, the Model 3 is presently the #21 best-selling car in the U.S. — out of all cars sold. By summer, it is likely to be #6. In its segment — small to medium sized premium cars — it is presently crushing the likes of Acura, Infiniti, and Jaguar to take the #5 spot. But with 5,000 per week production on the way, in just a few months it will assuredly take the crown from Mercedes and BMW.

(According to CleanTechnica analysis, Tesla appears likely to dominate the small to mid-size luxury vehicle segment in the U.S. come May to June. Image source: CleanTechnica.)

This from a type of vehicle — electric — that was once thought to be humble and non-competitive. One can practically hear the crack of the world-spanning shot running through the global auto industry at this time. An industry that has been mostly caught flat-footed by a trend that us clean energy advocates have long been predicting.

The reaction by traditional industry has been predictably varied and chaotic. Ford appears to be in full retreat from segments that are now increasingly dominated by high-quality EVs — recently announcing that it will no longer build sedans, but will instead focus on trucks and SUVs. On the other side of the spectrum, a Volkswagen still reeling from the PR disaster that was dieselgate appears to have seen the electric light. That OEM has now pledged to spend 48 billion in battery orders in an effort to beat or at least confront Tesla in the market that it created.

Batteries are the key enabler to mass EV production. Hyundai had a hard lesson in this over past days as the all-electric Ioniq — celebrated for its efficient design — ran into a supply wall. The reason? Hyundai had only planned for 1,200 battery packs per month. But demand for the clean energy vehicle quickly outstripped supply. Hyundai subsequently stretched Ioniq production to 1,800 per month. But, at that point, the automaker was dead in the water on further expansions due to a 2 year lead time for battery contracts. In other words — if you don’t have battery production or suppliers, then you’re out of luck if you want to produce EVs in higher volumes.

(Global lithium battery supply and demand keep running ahead of expectations. By 2021, racing global battery producers are likely to supply 344 GWh of battery production or more. Image source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance.)

Battery manufacturers are thus scrambling to meet a rapidly rising demand. In 2017, global battery production capacity stood at about 100 gigawatt-hours (GWh). And global expansion plans appear to be aiming for around 300 to 350 GWh by 2021. But even this estimate could be low. For Volkwagen’s own recent 48 billion dollar call for EV batteries is likely to generate even more supply chain expansions even as other automakers call for more production.

Returning to Tesla, we would be remiss if we didn’t highlight one of its many key advantages — it owns its battery supply chain. Tesla’s Gigafactory in Reno, through its partner Panasonic, is expected to be able to produce 35 GWh of batteries all by itself over the next year or two. This is enough to support annual Tesla EV production in the range of 400,000 to 500,000. Gigafactory battery capacity is expected to expand to 150 GWh by the early to mid 2020s — which would support two million or more EVs each year.

(Without the Tesla Gigafactory in Reno, U.S. battery production would be dead in the water due to myopic and harmful policies produced by the republican-dominated federal government and various similar state legislatures. Europe, China and Tesla have realized that large scale battery production is necessary for a clean energy future and a related strong response to climate change.)

By contrast, Volkswagen is presently targeting 3 million EVs per year by 2025. In 2018, it is well behind Tesla — unlikely to see sales across all EV models exceeding 100,000 while Tesla is likely to at least double that number. So VW will have to race to catch up. A 48 billion dollar battery buy will be key to achieving this goal. It’s a very aggressive move that will enable the manufacturer to produce millions of EVs in the future. But, at the present time, it is seriously lagging. A situation that doesn’t have much chance of changing until the early 2020s even as Tesla gains both credibility and market share.

At least Volkswagen appears to have seen the proverbial writing on the wall. Transition is, after all, the best option in the face of competition from far more healthy and desirable EVs. For the other laggards in the traditional auto industry — time’s a-wasting.

Tesla’s EV Lead Expands as Production Hits 13,000 to 17,000 in April

In the present day, two forces are helping to drive the potential for a rapid and much-needed transition to clean energy. On the one hand, we have countries like China and states like California providing clean energy leadership and incentive. And on the other hand, we have clean energy innovators like Tesla who continue to stretch the bounds of what’s possible.

This month, Tesla proved naysayers wrong by consistently producing more than 2,000 all electric Model 3 vehicles per week. During late March, Tesla produced 2070 Model 3s in one week. The next week they produced 2100. And the following week they produced 2250. During the third week of March they probably produced around 1,000 as the line shut down for improvements for 3-5 days. However, it’s likely that the final week will show in excess of 2,200 as the production line again expanded.

(Tesla EV production rates saw a big jump in Q1 as Model 3 began to hit a stride. However, Q2 2018 results will likely more than double that of Q4 of 2017 with Model 3 likely averaging over 2,000 per week. Image source: Statista and Tesla. )

Assuming that average weekly Model S and X production rates of around 1,000 (each) continued throughout the month, it appears that Tesla achieved a total rate of 4,000 BEVs produced each week. In sum, that adds up to a yearly rate of 200,000 per year.

Such a rate would make Tesla the present fastest-rate producer of EVs in the world. It would outstrip BYD and BIAC. It would leave BMW, Volkswagen, and Nissan in the dust.

Since Tesla rates of production can vary from week to week and month to month, the estimate I’ve given ranges from 13,000 to 17,000 EVs produced for April. Implied in this number is a one-month rate for the Model 3 that approaches all of Q1 production.

(CO2 emissions per 100 kilometers driven is greatly reduced when EVs are mated to grids with high clean energy penetration — like the one in Ontario. And it is for this reason that mass replacement of ICE vehicles with EVs is a key climate solution. Image source: Plug’n Drive.)

By May, it is likely that we will see 1 week rates for Model 3 exceed 3,000 as Tesla adds a third shift and continues to refine its line. Average total EV production for the month could exceed 20,000 if this ramp is achieved. By June, Tesla is aiming for a peak Model 3 production above 5,000 per week — which would imply a total EV production rate of 7,000 per week.

What all these numbers mean, and what few are reporting, is it appears that Tesla is achieving a break-away rate of electrical vehicle manufacturing. One that other automakers will have major difficulty catching up with. Such large volumes of EVs will displace a significant amount of carbon emitting ICE demand. Fossil fuel luxury and sport vehicles by BMW, Toyota, VW, Volvo, GM and many others will increasingly be replaced by this flood of high quality electrical vehicles. And a signal will be sent to the markets that higher margin ICE sales are taking a serious hit.

(Tesla Model 3 production rates significantly accelerated during early Q2 of 2018. Image source: Bloomberg Model 3 Tracker.)

If Tesla’s ramp continues, it will easily be selling 300,000 to 350,000 EVs per year by 2019 — which is considerably more than Volvo’s annual U.S. sales. This high volume will force other automakers to respond in kind. But since none will likely be able to produce in comparable volume and quality until at least 2020, Tesla is developing a major head start.

Top Global EV Automaker? Telsa Electrical Vehicle Production Surges During Early 2018

The Tesla bears have all sorts of reasons to cry today.

Not only did Tesla manage to produce four times the number of revolutionary Model 3 vehicles it made during the fourth quarter of 2017, it also hit multiple additional milestones even as CEO Elon Musk derided unfounded rumors that the company was in need of an immediate cash infusion.

Model 3 Surge

Tesla bet its future on the Model 3. And after a nine month period of production chaos and uncertainty, it appears that the bet is starting to pay off.

Late in December of 2017, after struggling through a hellish maze of bottle-necks, Model 3 production rates briefly hit above 1,000 vehicles per week. At year start, this rate slackened somewhat only to reassert by early February. During late February, the Model 3 line was shut down briefly for improvements. Meanwhile, the battery-mass-producing Gigafactory in Nevada (at 11 GWh per year and growing) had opened up a second line for Model 3 batteries after new equipment was shipped in from another Tesla factory in Germany.

With a number of bottle-necks addressed, by mid-March Model 3 production was again surging — hitting around 1,400 per week. A final big late push by the end of the month resulted in weekly production in the range of 2020.

This impressive effort by Tesla generated nearly 10,000 Model 3s for Q1 of 2018. Of this number, about 8,200 are thought to have been sold.

Record First Quarter

With Model 3 selling at nearly as high a rate as Model S and Model X, Tesla appears to have rounded out the first quarter of 2018 with a record 29,980 vehicles delivered. A number that is likely to top 30,000 once all sales are counted. Tesla produced far more — hitting 40 percent growth and 34,494 all-electric vehicles made.

The clean energy company also announced that Model S and X orders were at an all time record high. A slight lag in S and X production during Q4 of 2017, therefore, was the likely cause of slightly lower S/X sales during Q1 of 2018. However, it appears that Tesla is rapidly catching up as it reports that 4060 of these cars were in transit to customers at the start of Q2 even as another 2040 Model 3s were also en route.

Top Selling EV Automaker Globally

Given approximately 30,000 cars sold and 34,500 produced in Q1 of 2018, it appears that Tesla is again in the running for the best-selling maker of electrical vehicles the world over. For it looks like other top contenders — BYD (China) and BMW (Germany) — will sell in the mid 20,000s during the first three months of this year. At the very least, current tracking indicates that Tesla will likely be in the top 3 with BAIC and Nissan trailing behind.

(Top global EV sellers list for January and February from InsideEVs puts Tesla at 5th globally. But a surge in sales during March likely pushed Tesla into the top spot for Q1. Image source: InsideEVs.)

Tesla Model 3 is also likely to hit within the top 6 EVs sold the world over for Q1. Nissan Leaf and the BAIC EC series will likely claim the top two spots. However, the story going into Q 2 is likely to be considerably changed as Tesla tests new limits.

Model 3 Production Likely to Hit 17,000 to 27,000 During Q2

In the U.S., the Model 3 is the uncontested top selling EV already. And its lead is likely to continue to widen.

Tesla notes that it will continue 2,000 Model 3 per week production during the first week of April. If past trends are any reliable indicator, this rate is likely to slacken somewhat as Tesla pauses for breath by mid-April. It doesn’t look like the 3’s production will drop significantly lower than the 1,200 per week mark going forward into April and May, however.

And as the quarter continues, Tesla will also likely attempt another period of surge production aimed at hitting the 5,000 vehicle per week mark. Such a surge will likely occur in June. But we might be treated to a mini surge or two by early to mid May as Tesla tests the 2,000 to 2,500 vehicle per week (or higher) mark again within the next five to six weeks. We expect weekly production during Q2 to average between slightly more than 1,400 per week to 2,250 per week with the number of Model 3s produced approximately doubling to tripling when compared to Q1.

The result is that Tesla appears to be on track to sell between 39,000 and 49,000 EVs (including Model S and Model X) during the second quarter. A surge in sales that will almost certainly propel it to the world’s top EV manufacturer even as Model 3 begins to hit breakout production velocity.

Traditional Automakers Shoot Their Future in the Foot by Attacking CAFE Standards

“Rolling back strong national fuel economy and emissions standards will undermine the global competitiveness of the U.S. auto industry. In the absence of federal leadership, states need to continue to lead on clean car standards.” — New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer.

*****

Notable news on the climate and clean energy fronts over the past couple of days. On one side, we have Tesla surging ahead with clean energy vehicle production (more later). Meanwhile, a legacy industry clinging to old, dirty, climate wrecking, fossil fuel driven combustion engines and a perception that such machines mean easy profits, is actively fighting to undermine its own future.

(Polluted skies, more respiratory illness, higher energy costs, less energy independence, ramping climate destruction, the loss of auto industry leadership. Reduce CAFE standards and that’s what you end up with.)

A Crooked Old Business Philosophy

The mainstream U.S. auto industry represented by legacy fossil fuel vehicle manufacturers continued in their decades-long campaign to roll back vehicle fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) this week. The campaign, which was born at about the same time the Environmental Protection Agency first attempted to cut back harmful vehicle based air pollution and related high fuel consumption at the same time, is a creature of purest short-sighted profit motive gone wrong.

Auto industry executives myopically looking at quarterly reports and not at the need for more desirable vehicles in the form of less polluting and non-polluting, more efficient cars have long seen these government standards not as enablers of innovation, but as an onerous constraint. In the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, automakers achieved numerous legislative and executive victories that allowed them to produce slightly modified versions of the same vehicle designs exhibiting only slow, marginal improvements. But these improvements, when achieved, were often used to increase vehicle size and acceleration — not to improve overall efficiency.

A Stated Commitment to Advance Clean Energy

(Increasing fuel economy standards produce massive benefits to the United States. Families save money on fuel, carbon dioxide pollution is greatly reduced, the U.S. becomes more energy independent, and the harmful impacts of climate change are blunted. What is not communicated in the above graphic, however, is the fact that fuel efficiency standards spur American business leadership by encouraging continuous innovation in the form of more attractive, cleaner, more advanced products. Image source: Obama Whitehouse Archives.)

This trend changed with the oil shocks of the middle 2000s and the related establishment of new, more aggressive fuel efficiency standards during the Obama Administration. These stronger CAFE standards followed a massive public bailout of the U.S. auto industry after the Great Recession. A bailout that was predicated on the notion that automakers would improve. That they would innovate in order to become competitive. That they would be more forward-looking.

Promises along these lines were made by auto industry leaders at the time. The Obama Administration subsequently joined with clean energy promoters across the country like California in establishing an aggressive plan to reduce harmful carbon and particulate emissions by rapidly increasing vehicle fuel efficiency. In 2010, these new standards were set. The ultimate goal was to achieve an average fleet fuel efficiency of around 55 miles per gallon by the middle 2020s.

(Obama Administration fuel efficiency increases and targets. Image source: Obama Whitehouse Archives.)

Implied in this goal was a great deal of U.S. auto industry innovation and leadership. Such strong goals would enable automakers to produce world-leading vehicles by pushing them to rapidly improve their designs. In other words, they would develop vehicles that were outside of traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) based platforms. Since electrical vehicles were the lowest cost, easiest to mass produce, and easiest to support non-ICE technology, the 55 mpg standard implied that U.S. automakers would ultimately become electrical vehicle leaders. A new market would be produced. And because of responsible public policy, the U.S. auto industry would have a critical competitive advantage on a global level.

Backsliding and Backwards Thinking

But the old industry didn’t want to innovate. And it often resisted the production of electrical vehicles which were so foreign to its business models and more conservative, traditionally lazy way of thinking. For years, they resisted the increase in CAFE standards by every means imaginable. Instead of asking the government for added incentive and reward for progress achieved, the industry returned to its old tradition of flogging progress through lobbying. Mileage standards were watered down — reduced to 51 mpg by 2025. But the ultimate goal appeared to be to plateau fuel efficiency averages near 36 miles per gallon. A number of mainstream electrical vehicles were produced by these automakers. But many either appeared as token efforts or as reactionary responses to real EV innovators like Tesla.

By the time a backward-looking, corrupt, and autocratic Trump Administration wrested executive political power from the hands of the majority of the American people, these old industry players were ready for a change back to harmful business as usual. So through their ties and lobbying groups, they again pushed for reduced mileage standards.

As of yesterday, Trump’s EPA, hollowed out and corrupted by fossil fuel cheer leader Scott Pruitt, was aiming to roll back Obama’s clean vehicle standards and the potential for broader U.S. clean energy leadership along with it. In other words, a great leap backward — but one that will put Trump’s dirty-fuel-promoting executive branch directly in conflict with both EPA’s stated and lawful mission as well as make foes of state clean energy leaders spear-headed by California. From this against-the-future decision-making a battle will almost certainly ensue. One which will ultimately be fought in the courts.

Shooting Themselves in the Foot

If big auto wins this most recent push to pollute, will it really be winning? To be clear, none of the rest of us will. We’ll be treated to worse climate change and worse health-harming pollution combined. Higher gas prices, higher cost of living, less efficiency and ease in our daily lives. And much more risk and danger.

But what does big auto get out of it? Public ire? Less advanced vehicles that are less competitive in a world that is rapidly moving toward electrification? Lower competitiveness with emerging industries in China? And the inability to compete with the likes of Tesla at home? Taking these variables into account, the auto industry’s push to reduce CAFE standards looks a lot like a pathway to another set of bankruptcies five to ten years down the road. Are a few quarters of extra profits really worth all that?

Fossil-Fuel Spear-Headed Fake News Attacks on Electrical Vehicles Intensify as Sales Ramp

In China, the world’s largest automobile market, something amazing is starting to happen. A swarm of electrical vehicles is hitting the streets. The smoggy, smoke-choked air is starting to clear. And oil demand is slowly starting to slacken.

Ramping electrical vehicle production in China takes a bit out of oil demand. Image source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Fossil fuel profit-addicted investors are starting to panic as oil’s very real carbon-spewing death-grip ’round the neck of what is now the world’s largest economy is slowly being pried off.

But big oil is nothing if not a tricky and resourceful beast. So as electrical transportation leaders are marching the world away from dirty energy sources, the fossil-fueled monstrosity is fighting back tooth and nail with its primary weapon of choice…

Fake News 

It’s one of those blanket terms that has been dramatically mis-used by those like Trump to generate a million false impressions of late. To attack credible, public-serving media sources and to generate an assault on freedom of the press in total. But the term has its origins in a very real problem that each of us have to deal with every day. That problem being that some news sources can and often do, intentionally or unintentionally, get the story wrong.

Why?

Well, it can happen for a hundred different reasons not the least of which is social and individual bias. But a key issue for the present day is news generated by special-interest related media aimed at creating an impression that serves that particular interest’s goals. In other words — media that sells to or pushes from a particular political, ideological, or business-related frame of reference.

Public relations campaigns aimed at misinforming the public about harmful products or to tamp down competition by more benevolent industries have long been funded by fossil fuel interests. Image source: Smoke and Fumes.

If, for example, you’re a Fox News viewer, then your information comes with such a heavy conservative and pro-established industry bias that you tend to believe fallacies like ‘climate change isn’t real or dangerous,’ ‘Hillary Clinton sold Uranium to the Russians,’ ‘giving more money to rich people by cutting taxes pays off the national debt,’ ‘Russian interference didn’t alter the outcome of the 2016 election,’ ‘social security is an entitlement and not a government run savings program that you pay into so you have a cushion for retirement,’ and ‘all real energy comes from fossil fuels.’

These media objects and impressions could well be considered fake news.

Fossil Fuel Special Interest Fake News

In the climate and clean energy sphere, we are confronted with these kinds of targeted messages every day. More specifically, what we see is a proliferation of messages aimed at delaying a transition to clean energy and enabling the continued dominance of fossil fuel based energy sources on and on into the future.

The primary messaging issues that we deal with here are smears, doubt promotion, distractions, and myth propagation.

Lately, for anyone that’s been paying attention, we’ve seen an amazing amount of smear-based hyperbole aimed at clean energy leaders like Tesla. Not a single day goes by when we don’t have some ‘journalist’ who holds a short position in Tesla as a company beating the old hackneyed drum over which terrible demise Tesla is ‘destined’ to suffer this day or that. And this short interest is not focused on predicting so much as it is on manufacturing reality.

‘Short EV Interest’

If we’re honest with ourselves, we realize that short interest in clean industry leaders like Tesla is primarily propagated by pro-fossil fuel sources. Most of the short ‘journalists’ have some association with the fossil fuel industry. And practically all take a negative view of the prominent and most widely available clean energy sources of the day.

Some will even promote a prospective clean energy source, like hydrogen, as a distraction from the larger mega-trend represented by wind, solar and batteries. But this is more as a shiny object in the form of systems that are 5-15 years or longer from actual realization. A kind of vapor-ware competition in impression vs the real trends.

Taking this week’s penchant to proffer the hydrogen economy distraction as an example, we find that during 2017 more than 1.2 million electrical vehicles sold worldwide. Hydrogen based vehicles sold far less well — at approximately 3,500 units in 2017 or about 1 hydrogen fueled vehicle to every 350 EVs hitting the roads. Moreover, global EV sales could hit as high as 2 million in 2018 and 4-5 million by 2020. Though hydrogen might get off its laurels and start to show real gains by the early 2020s or later, electrified transport is taking flight now.

Moreover, hydrogen presents its own emissions problems as it is presently 90 percent produced from reformed natural gas in a high-carbon emitting process. The promise of mass-electrolysis based hydrogen from renewables and other low carbon processes are, you guessed it, 5-15 years off. And, even more concerning, major oil companies like Shell are heavily invested in hydrogen — which increases the likelihood that it will serve as a spoiler and not as an enabler of the clean energy transition.

Just as electrical vehicles reach their moment of realization, major media attacks against the clean energy trend emerge. Image source: EV Volumes.

This week the flavor is hydrogen. Next week it will be nuclear. Next it will be something else that can be slow-walked. Anything to distract from the actual electrical, solar, wind revolution that is now in progress and achieving rapid advancements.

It’s at these critical times when the pro fossil fuel and anti renewable energy messaging tends to proliferate on a mass scale. And today is just such a time. For right now, global EV sales are surging. Spear-headed by industry leaders like Tesla and countries like China, the electrification revolution is on. And the oil companies know it. In rather short order, as occurred recently with coal, global oil demand could drop. And those magical, marginal profits that fossil fuel investors have been addicted to for so many years and decades could go up in one final puff of CO2 laden smoke.

Will Tesla Survive The Assault?

So it is at this crucial time that all of the major media guns associated with the fossil fuel industry are now unleashing a furious, focus-fire barrage on Tesla. We’ve hinted at some of the reasons above. But looking deeper we find that Tesla’s all-clean-industry business model is the exact antithesis to that produced by traditional industry.

From its lock to its stock to its barrel, Tesla is clean tech through and through. It builds battery plants, it builds solar panels, it builds battery storage for homes, it builds all clean energy vehicles, it builds EV charging networks. And it works to integrate them all. Not one dollar of Tesla capital is wasted on fossil fuel extraction or machinery that burns fossil fuels. Not one iota. Not one cent.

The Tesla model is the model of a pure path away from carbon emissions and if it gets duplicated in one subset or another by companies the world over, then big fossil fuel is finished. If Tesla generates competition by example, as it is doing, then the clean energy revolution takes flight and there’s nothing that the oil, coal, or gas industry can do to stop it.

So from the fossil fuel point of view, Tesla must die. And that is the primary reason why we are seeing so many negative news stories lately about Tesla. Not because of Tesla’s intrinsic weaknesses. Not due to some puffed up accident investigation. These are the facts — the negative bias against Tesla comes from fossil fuel industry based sources. Fin.

Facing such a massive wall of media, political, and industry opposition isn’t easy. In all honesty, it’s amazing that Tesla has made it as far as it has. And under the present barrage, Tesla’s survival is again somewhat in doubt. I think it will pull through this relatively difficult period to emerge as both a major automaker and a global clean industry leader. But if the shorts win and Tesla goes down it will be due to direct sabotage by fossil fuel special interests — not due to some other failure. And that’s not fake news.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: