Call me skeptic.

“The political left has shown its pattern of propaganda lies within their narratives so many times that it’s beyond me why anyone would blindly accept any narrative that the political left and their lapdog media actively push?”

Steve Witherspoon, 2022

Because I’m skeptical about all the social engineering and fear mongering propaganda that’s being presented in the 21st century regarding atmospheric carbon and battery powered electric vehicles, I’ve been diving in and learning more and more about atmospheric carbon and battery powered electric vehicles over the last few months and with the help of an interested reader that I conversed with privately I have learned even more since my last post on the topic.

I’d really like to offer a special thanks to readers, like the interested reader that I conversed with me via email, for sharing their opinions with me whether it’s offered as comments in blog post threads for everyone to read or via direct private email. We may adamantly disagree sometimes but there is value in conversation. Continue to voice your opinion(s), I’ll read them whether I choose to directly reply or not.

I’m making a genuinely honest effort to get a better understanding of this complicated atmospheric carbon issue outside of the social engineering propaganda so when I hear politicians, pundits and “settled science” activists spout their versions of propaganda I can reasonably understand how, or if, their propaganda proposals will actually help stop the predicted apocalypse that always seems to be just around the corner. I hope others can learn from my “research” (if that’s what you want to call it) and the mistakes I’ve made along the way. I’m fully aware that I’m not perfect, I simply want to come to some reasonable conclusions based on a set of reasonable facts and not based on apocalyptic and sometimes outrageously hysterical Chicken Little styled “the sky is falling” fear mongering social engineering propaganda.

I’m going to try and present this as a comprehensive essay of what I’ve learned; that said, it’s going to be a bit long and likely boring for some people, so sit back and relax as you read it and remember that you don’t have to read and absorb it all at once. I’ll try to be thorough, relatively brief considering the scope of the issue and hopefully present it in a manner which is reasonably easy to follow so maybe it will help increase your knowledge base like it has mine. Knowledge is power and moving beyond all the propaganda surrounding atmospheric carbon and electric vehicles and understanding facts is paramount to a reasonable understanding of the issue, and if that means swimming around in a pool of calculations until that light bulb of understanding lights up, then so be it.

First; I have a couple of things to correct from my last blog post on this topic…

1. I had an unintended error in my last post regarding the average amount of miles that are driven by passenger vehicles in the USA, I pulled a number from a source on the internet and either I flubbed in presenting it or the number I obtained was in error and I didn’t notice the difference with other sources, either way it was off by a factor of 1,000 and that is a very large factor to be off and I apologize for presenting it thinking it was accurate. What I presented was that vehicles in the USA drive about 3.2 billion average miles per year and it really should have been 3.2 trillion average miles per year. That inaccurate value was used in calculations in the blog post and of course that would make the results of those calculations to also be inaccurate. The correct value of 3.2 trillion average miles will be used in this blog post.

2. Also in my last post on this topic, I wrote in the first paragraph that “I learned that the amount of CO₂ that the United States is putting in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is only around 0.12% of the total carbon contributed to atmospheric carbon by burning fossil fuels world wide” and then I referred to that 0.12% in the third paragraph as being statistically indistinguishable from zero. In the Global Atmospheric Carbon & Fossil Fuels blog post I used the phrase statistically indistinguishable from zero in reference to the rounded to the nearest whole percentage value of 0.12%, which is 0, not the 0.12% value. In the post I related the “statistically indistinguishable from zero” phrase back to the 0.12% by using the word “those” and “they’re” and in this particular instance it was incorrect to do that, the previous references to the rounded to the nearest whole number percentage value were technically accurate even though some might disagree with presenting that opinion. To be completely accurate by making one simple change, that third paragraph should read simply, “Those are some really, really small percentages.”.

Also, it’s better to focus on either atmospheric Carbon (C) or atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) and be clear when shifting the discussion from one to the other. I know the difference and I don’t want people to think I’m trying to correlate the two. This blog post will focus primarily on the Carbon but I’ll try to make it clear if I need to change back to Carbon Dioxide.

Something everyone should fully understand is that outside of actual constants, relatively known and statistical values can, and do, change over time or with different studies, the best we can do is to derive our opinions based on what we can find that’s reasonably verifiable at some particular point in time, and try to use multiple sources if possible. There will be some people that will disagree with what’s presented here because the values aren’t the same as values they might have chosen, or maybe they have some updated information, or maybe it’s presented in a manner in which they don’t agree, or maybe they disagree with the conclusions, or maybe they just want different conclusions, but I say to them, I’m presenting my understanding of the information I’ve gathered, not yours.

Here’s the dry boring part that glazes over the eyes of some people, presenting technical data.

Constants For Later Reference

• Carbon Atomic Mass (u) = 12.011u (periodic table of the elements) = 12.011g/mole
• Oxygen Atomic Mass (u) = 15.999u (periodic table of the elements) = 15.999g/mole
• CO₂ = 1 Carbon Atom + 2 Oxygen Atoms
• CO₂ Molar Mass (g/mol) = 44.009g/mol = Cu+Ou+Ou
• Carbon Percentage in CO₂ = 27.29214478857% = (12.011 ÷ 44.009) x 100
• Oxygen Percentage in CO₂ = 72.70785521143% = ((2 x 15.999) ÷ 44.009) x 100

• Avogadro’s Number = 6.0221408×10²³ the approximate number of nucleons (protons and neutrons) in one gram of ordinary matter. To calculate the mass of a single atom of carbon, we just need to divide the molar mass of 12.0 g (0.012 kg) by the number of particles per mole (Avogadro’s number). Doing so yields 1.99×10^–26 kg as the mass of a carbon atom.

• Carbon Atom Mass (kg/mol) = 0.012011kg/mol = (12.011g/mol ÷ 1,000)
• Carbon Atom Mass (kg) = 1.9944735×10^-26kg = (0.012011kg ÷ Avogadro’s Number)
• Carbon Atom Mass (g) = 1.9944735×10^-23g = (Carbon Atom Mass (kg) x 1,000)

I’m sure most people don’t have their own personal copy of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics sitting on their bookshelf like I do, my newest one is the 70th Edition (yes it’s a real book with paper – imagine using that in the 21st century), so here is a decent online converter to use for a lot of things. Generally, you can just ask Google how many ___ are there in ___ and it will give you an answer or a place to find the answer.

• Grams Per Pound = 453.59237 g (rounded to 5 decimal places)
• 1 Metric Ton = 2,204.62 pounds
• 1 Gigaton = 1,000,000,000 Metric Tons (billion)
• Grams Per Metric Ton = 1,000,000 g (million)
• Grams Per Gigaton = 1,000,000,000,000,000 g (quadrillion)
• GtC = Gigatons of Carbon
• GtCO₂ = Gigatons of Carbon Dioxide
• Pound = lb and Pounds = lbs

Here Are Some Relative Knowns & Related Calculations

• One Gallon Of Gasoline Produces 8,887g CO₂/gallon
• One Gallon Of Gasoline Produces 2425 grams C (27.292% of 8,887g)

Some USA Power Plant Information
• Average power plant produces 0.855 lbs of Atmospheric CO₂ per kWh of electricity
• Average Power Plant Produces 0.233 lbs of of Atmospheric C per kWh of electricity (27.292% of 0.855 CO₂)
• Average Power Plant Produces 387.8214764 g C/kWh of electricity (0.855 lbs x 453.59237 g/lb)
• Power Plants Produce An Average of 4.243 trillion kWh per year (trillions)
• Power Plants Produce An Average of 3.628 trillion pounds of CO₂ per year (4.243 trillion kWh x 0.855 lbs CO₂ per kWh)
• Power Plants Produce An Average of 1.646 quadrillion grams of CO₂ per year (3.628 trillion lbs x 453.59237 g/lb)
• Power Plants Produce An Average of 449 trillion grams of C per year (27.292% of 1.646 quadrillion g CO₂ per year)

Some Domestic Vehicle Information
• Domestic Vehicles in the USA = 278,063,737 (millions)
• Average Mileage Driven = 3,200,000,000,000 miles (Trillion)
• Average MPG of vehicles, spreadsheet from Energy.com = 25.3mpg
• Average Miles Driven Per Domestic Vehicle = 11,508miles (3.2 trillion miles ÷ 278,063,737 vehicles)
• Average CO₂ per mile = (8,887g CO₂/gallon ÷ 25.3mpg) = 351.26g CO₂/mile
• Average C per mile = (2425g/gallon ÷ 25.36 mpg) = 95.85g C/Mile
• Average Carbon Emissions From All Domestic Vehicles = 306,720,000,000,000 g C (95.85g C/Mile x 3.2 trillion miles)

Some Tesla Electric Car Information
• Tesla Electric Car Fully Charge (Model S) = 100 kWh (kilowatt hours)
• Tesla Distance With Full Charge (348-402) = 375 miles ((348+402)÷2)
• CO₂ to fully charge = 85.50 lbs CO₂
• Carbon to fully charge = 23.33 lbs C (85.50 lbs CO₂ x 0.27292 (27.292%))
• Pounds of carbon per mile = 0.0622 lbs C/mile (23.33 lbs C ÷ 375 miles)
• Grams of carbon per mile = 28.21 g C/mile (0.23lbs C/mile x 453.59237g/lb)
(I’m curious how many people there are that think their electric vehicle carbon output is “zero emissions” per mile)

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: The values for both domestic fossil fuel and Tesla vehicles above completely ignore all of the atmospheric carbon produced in the manufacturing of the vehicle components all the way down to the mining of raw materials. I can’t vouch for this comparison and I note why after; but, it can be shown that if you include the carbon produced in the mining and manufacturing of just the Lithium batteries that are used in electric vehicles (which is significant), in a lifetime analysis, an electric vehicle that’s linked to a coal electrical power plant can emit total CO₂ emissions over the vehicle life span that’s relatively the same as a good mileage gasoline car. The reason I can’t vouch for this comparison is that I don’t know if that comparison includes all the CO₂ emissions produced to make a fossil fuel vehicle or the fuel the vehicle uses. That said, estimates show us that the carbon emissions of manufacturing the Lithium batteries significantly increases the carbon footprint of the battery and the overall significance of that can depend on where the raw materials are mined and where the batteries are manufactured. Here are some articles that discuss the manufacturing of the batteries and how it effects their carbon footprint: “How much CO2 is emitted by manufacturing batteries?” and “How much CO2 is emitted by manufacturing batteries?” and “Lithium Batteries’ Dirty Secret: Manufacturing Them Leaves Massive Carbon Footprint” and “Effects of battery manufacturing on electric vehicle life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions”. Many thanks to an interested reader for raising this point in a private conversation and providing some of the information shared in this important note. Again; knowledge is power.

Are your eyes glazed over yet?
No, well here’s some more…

😉 😉 😉

Some General Information Charts About What Makes Up Our Atmosphere
Source: Atmosphere of Earth (2 Slides)

Some General Information About The Atmospheric Carbon Cycle
Source: Global Carbon Cycle (8 Slides)

The numbers in the eight slides above represent GtC (gigatons of carbon) and we can use that data to make a few calculations to get an average idea of what’s happening.

Some General Information About The Fossil Fuel Emitting Countries
Source: Each Country’s Share of CO2 Emissions

Okay, now that the really, really boring technical data part is done and your eyes are completely glazed over, we can come to some reasonable conclusions (at least reasonable from my point of view) of what the data means in relation to the global atmospheric carbon issues. To do so we must perform a few calculations along the way.

My Opinion
First, I can’t say this enough; cleaning up the environment would be a great thing for the planet and the entire human race. The best I can tell, everyone and everything would benefit from having a clean planet where resources aren’t squandered, pollution of all kinds are kept to a bare minimum and reducing carbon emissions is part of cleaning up the environment. All these goals to clean up the environment are admirable and in a relative controlled environment these goals might even be achievable, unfortunately we don’t have a controlled environment. What I can’t get on board with is blindly accepting the so-called “settled science” that’s being rammed down our throats or the apocalyptic climate predictions. What’s completely clear to me is that at some point in time, as the global population continues to grow, the population will exceed what mother Earth’s resources can reasonably provide.

Now let’s try to come to some kind of reasonable conclusions based on the information I provided. Let’s start with a wide angle lens and zoom in a little bit each step along the way.

Based on the general information provided above about the carbon cycle, we can see that the atmosphere has roughly 766 GtC (gigatons of carbon) globally and 6.3375 GtC is the portion that is the result of burning fossil fuels which is roughly 0.83% of the total atmospheric carbon. Briefly switching to CO₂ now. Then based on the percentages of CO₂ contributions from fossil fuels to the atmosphere per country, the United States is contributing 14% of the global CO₂ from fossil fuels. It’s logical to say that if the USA is contributing 14% of the global CO₂ from burning fossil fuels then the USA is contributing 14% of global Carbon from burning fossil fuels; therefore, the same percentages apply to Carbon (C). So now we can calculate roughly how much carbon (GtC) the USA is putting in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels…

Fossil Fuel Burning Portion Of Atmospheric Carbon x USA Percentage Portion Equals Gigatons of Carbon From USA Fossil Fuel Burning = 6.3375 GtC x 0.14 (14%) = 0.88725 GtC

Now we can calculate what the percentage of Carbon that the United States contributes to global carbon by burning fossil fuels…

(Gigatons of Carbon From USA Fossil Fuel Burning ÷ Total Atmospheric Carbon) x 100 equals Percentage = (0.88725 GtC ÷ 766 GtC) x 100 = 0.11582%

Now we can convert those Gigatons of Carbon (GtC) to grams of carbon that the United States contributes to atmospheric carbon by burning fossil fuels…

Gigatons of Carbon From USA Fossil Fuel Burning x Grams per Gigaton equals grams of Carbon = 0.88725 GtC x 1,000,000,000,000,000 g/Gigaton = 887,250,000,000,000 g C (trillions)

Now we can calculate how power plants contribute to the USA’s carbon emissions from fossil fuels…

(Power Plants Average Carbon Emissions Per Year ÷ Total USA Carbon Emissions from Fossil Fuels) x 100 equals Percentage = (449,000,000,000,000 g C ÷ 887,250,000,000,000 g C) x 100 = 50.61%

Note: The “relative” trend of this carbon emission sector since it’s 27 year relative high in 2005 is declining. In direct comparison to 1990, it’s slightly lower. See the chart on this webpage, I am skeptical of the accuracy of the chart because it’s rooted in EPA data and the EPA clearly has an agenda, reread my quote at the top of this essay about propaganda narratives.

Now we can calculate how domestic vehicles contribute to the USA’s carbon emissions from fossil fuels…

(Average Carbon Emissions From All Domestic Vehicles ÷ grams of carbon that the United States contributes to atmospheric carbon by burning fossil fuels) x 100 equals Percentage =(306,784,000,000,000 g C ÷ 887,250,000,000,000 g C) x 100 = 34.58%

Note: Since some charts, graphs and information can lag by a few years, there are estimates that the 34.58% percentage I presented here could have gone up (likely did) and surpassed the declining emissions from power plants, see the chart on this webpage. I am skeptical of the accuracy of the chart because it’s rooted in EPA data and again they clearly have an agenda, reread my quote at the top of this essay about propaganda narratives. The chart linked to above shows that there is a “relative” trend of many fossil fuel burning sectors of the USA to be relatively stable or overall declining, the transportation sector has seen a relative increase since 1990. What’s clear to me is that what’s accurate today will certainly change tomorrow with new information and all you have to do is plug in one different value into the calculations to make a difference in the end result; it’s the old control the data input so you can force the predetermined outcome. Since I’m going for an overall relative understanding, the daily/weekly/monthly/yearly changing specifics may not be as important to me.

Now we can calculate what the net carbon change to the environment is if you choose to replace your fossil fuel vehicle with an electric vehicle, specifically a Tesla Model S…

• Average g C per mile for a fossil fuel vehicle = 95.87g C/Mile
• Average g C per mile for a Tesla Model S vehicle = 28.21 g C/Mile
• Difference = 95.87g C/Mile – 28.21 g C/Mile = 67.66 g C/mile
• Average carbon savings at 11,508miles per year = 11,508miles/year x 28.21 g C/Mile = 324,641 g C/year
• Annual percentage Carbon emission change in USA per electric vehicle = 324,641 g C/year ÷ 887,250,000,000,000 g C (trillions) X 100 = 0.00000004%

So if you completely and permanently DESTROY your existing fossil fuel vehicle…
• Net Carbon Savings to the Environment = 67.66 g C/mile
• Net Savings Saving to the Environment per year = 67.66 g C/mile x 11,508miles/year = 778,631g C/year

If you sell, trade in or give away your existing fossil fuel vehicle to someone else there is no net carbon savings to the environment, instead there is a net carbon increase because you are physically adding another vehicle with a verifiable carbon footprint to the road; therefore, there is a net Carbon increase of 28.21g/mile (Yes that is an increase of 28.21g/mile because you are simply shifting the carbon footprint of your previous vehicle to someone else and adding a new carbon footprint into the global atmospheric carbon mix.)

Using the values presented above, how many current fossil fuel vehicles would have to be completely destroyed and replaced with electric vehicles in the USA to make a 1% annual change in the USA’s carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels?

• 1% of USA’s Fossil Fuel Emissions per year = 8,872,500,000,000g C/year (trillions) = 887,250,000,000,000 g C/year (trillions) x 0.01
• 8,872,500,000,000g C/year (trillions) ÷ 778,631 g C/year = 11,395,000 vehicles

That 11,395,000 number of vehicles is roughly 4% of the 278,063,737 domestic vehicles in use in the USA. Let me repeat that; it will take 11,395,000 (million) domestic vehicles to be completely destroyed and replaced with electric vehicles for the USA too decrease its net annual carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels by 1%.

What kind of net change will that have on the global atmospheric carbon emissions?

• 8,872,500,000,000g C/year (trillions) ÷ 1,000,000,000,000,000 g/Gt = 0.0088725 GtC/year
• Global Carbon Change Per Year = (0.0088725 GtC/year ÷ 766 GtC/year) x .01 = 0.001158% Change/year

Now, using the values presented above, how much of a net increase in the USA’s carbon emissions if that same 11,395,000 (million) people in the USA choose to sell or trade in their fossil fuel burning vehicle and buy an electric vehicle, thus shifting the carbon footprint of their fossil fuel vehicle to someone else?

• 324,641 g C/year x 11,395,000 (million) = 3,699,284,195,000g C/year
• 3,699,284,195,000g C/year (trillions) ÷ 1,000,000,000,000,000 g/Gt = 0.003699 GtC/year
• Global Carbon Change Per Year = (0.003699 GtC/year ÷ 766 GtC/year) x .01 = 0.0004829% Change/year, that percentage is very, very, VERY small.

It’s fair to mention that approximately 12-15 million vehicles reach the end of their use each year in the United States alone and those vehicles are generally recycled, which also contributes to carbon emissions (which I’m ignoring). There is no way to predict how much the trickle down of vehicles into recycling will change due to people replacing their fossil fuel vehicle with an electric vehicle. It’s reasonably fair to say that it’s not going to be a one-to-one relationship because population of the USA is increasing every year and vehicles are lasting a lot longer than they did 50 years ago.

A reasonable conclusion is that it appears that to actually achieve an actual net zero carbon footprint for an electric vehicle purchase, the purchaser must permanently destroy their fossil fuel vehicle they are replacing and the purchaser must use a source of electricity that has a net zero carbon footprint. Just because a power plant is not emitting carbon into the atmosphere while generating electricity (nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, etc) does not mean they have a net zero carbon footprint. In reality, achieving net zero emissions for an electric vehicle at this point in the 21st century is not even close to achievable. Electric vehicle owners are blindly using tunnel vision as they shift their carbon footprint away from themself and boldly claim that their electric car has zero carbon emissions. These people can go ahead and break their arms trying to pat themselves on the back but they sound quite ignorant to me.

If you’re curious like me, using the values presented above, how much would the global Carbon emissions be reduced if all 278,063,737 domestic fossil fuel burning vehicles in the USA were completely destroyed and replaced with electric vehicles over night?

• 306,720,000,000,000 g C/year ÷ 1,000,000,000,000,000 g/Gt = 0.3067GtC
• (0.3067 GtC/year ÷ 766 GtC/year) x .01 = Carbon Emissions Would Be Reduced by 0.04%

This small percentage doesn’t seem like much in the overall scheme of things in fact it seems tiny to some people, but my understanding is that based on the atmospheric carbon cycle and how much Carbon the environment seems to be able to reabsorb, anything over that amount that can be reabsorbed just remains “permanently” in the atmosphere until it is absorbed at some later point in time and since we can’t predict the future we cannot know if/when this will happen. This is the root of the “settled science” apocalyptical predictions, they clearly have tunnel vision that tells them there is only one possible outcome of Carbon very slowly building up in our atmosphere and that is a climate apocalypse, they literally cannot see outside of their predictions and they present their predictions as if they’re fact but we all know that predictions rarely are 100% accurate. I heard it presented in a video a while back that the climate predictions are based on extrapolating known data into unknown paths that the climate might trend towards, they then average all these maybe true maybe false predictions into a single path and dictate that this average is fact. Yes, that’s right, they average that which they do not know to be true and then present the average as fact and make their apocalyptic predictions based on that average – this is not real science. These predictions based on averaged extrapolations is absurd and pure propaganda and if you don’t believe every word of their predictions you’re falsely smeared as a science denier.

This very limited reduction of our carbon change calculate above (0.04%) doesn’t even address the environmental problems unleashed from mining of the Lithium that’s used to create the electric car batteries and the carbon emitted in the production of the vehicles. It’s toxic to mine Lithium, it doesn’t last forever, it’s toxic to dispose of Lithium and there’s a limited supply of known Lithium deposits in the world from various sources. What are people going to do with all their electric cars when (not if) the world hits an immovable Lithium wall. Once it’s gone, it’s gone and the cars will eventually not hold an electrical charge?

There are better options for “zero emission” vehicles out there, how about Hydrogen cars. Here is a Google search for Hydrogen Cars. This could be the fuel of the future.

Lastly; atmospheric carbon is a global issue and I think it has been shown that it cannot be solved locally by replacing your individual fossil fuel burning car with an electric vehicle, that’s like trying to stop an actively exploding Mount St. Helens volcano by dropping a D-Cell battery in it from 50,000 feet. As the old saying goes, your effectively “pissing in the wind” by shifting your carbon emissions from an existing fossil fuel vehicle tailpipe to the electrical power plants and beyond, but heck, you’re welcome to spend your dollars on whatever makes you “feel good” and helps you sleep at night, just don’t expect others, including me, to jump on your “feel good” bandwagon.

I’m making a critically thought out rational choice to NOT swallow the propaganda and buy an electric vehicle. Maybe in fifteen years, or so, technology and engineering will have solved some or all of the issues related to battery powered electric vehicles, but at that point in time I will hopefully be a baby boomer turning eighty years old and may not have a lot of driving years left. As for me, I’ll be driving a fossil fuel vehicle until I cannot do so for one reason or another.

[UPDATE: June 15, 2023 – Fixed a couple of grammar errors.]

June 26, 2023 Addendum : Here is a brief listing of other absurdities that are driving our society toward a chaotic abyss.

[UPDATED: 3/23/2024 Added the following relevant video]