Tag Archives: Gasoline

US

Almost 1,000 gallons of gasoline spill into wash in Pasadena

Leave a comment

PASADENA, Calif. (KABC) — Residents of Pasadena and San Marino who live near the Alhambra Wash were being advised to stay inside Sunday night after about 800 to 1,000 gallons of gasoline from a gas station spilled into a storm drain.

The spill was apparently caused by a car striking a pump at the gas station, and the emergency shutoff not working properly. The incident happened around 5 p.m. at a 76 station near Glen Arm and Arroyo.

The drain empties into the Alhambra Wash. Local residents reported a strong odor from the spill.

A county hazmat team responded to supervise cleanup operations. In the meantime, residents were advised to stay indoors and keep their windows closed.

The city of San Marino tweeted out a map of the affected area.

Residents were told the odor from the spill could last at least six hours.

Copyright © 2021 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.



Read original article here

Business

6 Automakers and 31 Countries Say They’ll Phase Out Gasoline Car Sales

Leave a comment

GLASGOW — At least six major automakers — including Ford, Mercedes-Benz, General Motors and Volvo — and 31 national governments pledged on Wednesday to work toward phasing out sales of new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles by 2040 worldwide, and by 2035 in “leading markets.”

But some of the world’s biggest car manufacturers, including Toyota, Volkswagen, and the Nissan-Renault alliance did not join the pledge, which is not legally binding. And the governments of the United States, China and Japan, three of the largest car markets, also abstained.

The announcement, made during international climate talks here, was hailed by climate advocates as yet another sign that the days of the internal combustion engine could soon be numbered. Electric vehicles continue to set new global sales records each year and major car companies have recently begun investing tens of billions of dollars to retool their factories and churn out new battery-powered cars and light trucks.

“Having these major players making these commitments, though we need to make sure that they follow through, is really significant,” said Margo Oge, a former senior U.S. air quality official who now advises both environmental groups and auto companies. “It really tells us that these companies, and their boards, accept that the future is electric.”

The automakers that signed the pledge accounted for roughly one-quarter of global sales in 2019.

Countries that joined the coalition included Britain, Canada, India, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Sweden. The addition of India was especially notable, since it is the world’s fourth-largest auto market and has not previously committed to eliminating emissions from its cars on a specific timeline.

Other countries vowing for the first time to sell only zero-emissions vehicles by a set date included Turkey, Croatia, Ghana and Rwanda.

California and Washington State also signed the pledge. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California signed an executive order saying that only new zero-emissions vehicles would be sold in the state by 2035, though regulators have not yet issued rules to make that happen. Washington had not previously made such a formal pledge.

The agreement states that automakers will “work toward reaching 100 percent zero-emission new car and van sales in leading markets by 2035 or earlier, supported by a business strategy that is in line with achieving this ambition, as we help build customer demand.”

Zero-emissions vehicles could include either plug-in electric vehicles or hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, although the latter have struggled to gain market share. Electric cars can still indirectly produce emissions if, for instance, they are recharged with power from plants that burn coal or natural gas. But they are generally considered cleaner overall than combustion engine vehicles and do not create pollution from their tailpipes.

Two dozen vehicle fleet operators, including Uber and LeasePlan, also joined the coalition, vowing to operate only zero-emissions vehicles by 2030, “or earlier where markets allow.”

Worldwide, transportation accounts for roughly one-fifth of humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions that are responsible for climate change, with a little less than half of that coming from passenger vehicles such as cars and vans.

In recent years, spurred by concerns about global warming and air pollution, governments around the world — including China, the United States and the European Union — have begun heavily subsidizing electric vehicles and imposing more stringent emissions standards on new gasoline- and diesel-fueled cars.

The cost of lithium-ion batteries has also declined roughly 80 percent since 2013, according to BloombergNEF, an energy research group, making electric vehicles increasingly competitive with traditional combustion engine vehicles, though many consumers remain wary of the new technology because of concerns like the availability of charging stations.

“We have the technology to make clean road transport a reality and today it’s clear we have the willpower to do it in the next decade,” said Nigel Topping, who was appointed by the British government to the United Nations to be a “high level climate action champion.”

Some of the automakers that signed the agreement had already pledged to clean up the cars they produce. G.M. said in January that it aimed to stop selling new gasoline-powered cars and light trucks by 2035 and will pivot to battery-powered vehicles. Volvo had said it expected its car lineup to be fully electric by 2030.

But the pledge appeared to commit some of the signatories to doing more than they had previously promised. Ford, which this year introduced an electric version of its best-selling F-150 pickup truck, had previously only said it expected 40 percent of its global vehicle mix to be electric by 2030.

“We are moving now to deliver breakthrough electric vehicles for the many rather than the few,” said Cynthia Williams, global director of sustainability at Ford.

The other two automakers that signed the pledge were BYD, a Chinese automaker that has made major inroads selling electric cars in Europe, as well as Jaguar Land Rover.

Some of the major automakers that did not sign the agreement are nonetheless investing heavily in electric vehicle technology. Volkswagen, which six years ago confessed to rigging its diesel cars to conceal illegally high emissions, has since outlined plans to spend tens of billions of dollars to build six battery factories, install a global network of charging stations and roll out more than 80 new electric models by 2025.

Nicolai Laude, a Volkswagen spokesman, said while the German automaker was committed to a rapid shift toward electric vehicles, it did not join the new pledge because the global nature of its business meant it had to be mindful that “regions developing at different speed combined with different local prerequisites need different pathways” to zero emissions.

Toyota, the world’s best-selling automaker in 2020, was also notably missing from the list of signatories, though it announced plans this year to sell 15 electric vehicle models around the world by 2025. The Japanese automaker has been more cautious on electric vehicle technology, continuing to bet on alternatives like hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles.

Toyota did not immediately comment.

Read original article here

Business

Gasoline, auto retailing boost U.S. producer prices

Leave a comment

A gas pump is seen in a car at a Shell gas station in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 15, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File Photo

  • Producer prices increase 0.6% in October
  • PPI rises 8.6% year-on-year
  • Core PPI shoots up 0.4%; gains 6.2% year-on-year

WASHINGTON, Nov 9 (Reuters) – U.S. producer prices increased solidly in October, driven by surging costs for gasoline and motor vehicle retailing, suggesting that high inflation could persist for a while amid tight global supply chains related to the pandemic.

The Federal Reserve last week restated its belief that current high inflation is “expected to be transitory.” A tightening labor market as millions remain at home is adding to price pressures, which together with shortages of goods sharply restrained economic growth in the third quarter.

The Fed this month started reducing the amount of money it is injecting into the economy through monthly bond purchases.

“The acceleration in inflation may not fade as quickly as previously thought, particularly for businesses because of the global supply-chain issues,” said Ryan Sweet, a senior economist at Moody’s Analytics in West Chester, Pennsylvania. “Elevated inflation is turning up the heat on the Fed but they haven’t shown signs of buckling as they will stomach higher inflation to get the labor market back to full employment quickly.”

The producer price index for final demand rose 0.6% last month after climbing 0.5% in September, the Labor Department said on Tuesday. That reversed the slowing trend in the monthly PPI since spring. In the 12 months through October, the PPI increased 8.6% after a similar gain in September.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the PPI advancing 0.6% on a monthly basis and rising 8.7% year-on-year.

More than 60% of the increase in the PPI last month was due to a 1.2% rise in the prices of goods, which followed a 1.3% jump in September. A 6.7% surge in gasoline prices accounted for a third of the rise in goods prices. There were increases in the prices of diesel, gas and jet fuel as well as plastic resins.

Wholesale food prices dipped 0.1% as the cost of beef and veal tumbled 10.3%. Prices for light motor trucks fell as the government introduced new-model-year passenger cars and light motor trucks into the PPI.

Exorbitant motor vehicle prices have accounted for much of the surge in inflation as a global semiconductor shortage linked to the nearly two-year long COVID-19 pandemic has forced manufactures to cut production, leaving virtually no inventory.

Services gained 0.2% last month after a similar rise in September. An 8.9% jump in margins for automobiles and parts retailing accounted for more than 80% of the increase in services. The cost of transportation and warehousing services jumped 1.7%, also reflecting snarled supply chains.

Surveys from the Institute for Supply Management this month showed measures of prices paid by manufacturers and services industries accelerating in October. Manufacturers complained about “record-long raw materials lead times, continued shortages of critical materials, rising commodities prices and difficulties in transporting products.”

Data on Wednesday is expected to showed strong gains in consumer prices in October, according to a Reuters survey of economists. Stocks on Wall Street retreated from record highs. The dollar was steady against a basket of currencies. U.S. Treasury prices rose.

Inflation

PORT CONGESTION

There is congestion at ports and widespread shortages of workers at docks and warehouses. There were 10.4 million job openings as of the end of August. The workforce is down 3 million from its pre-pandemic level.

Worker shortages were underscored by a report from the NFIB on Tuesday showing almost 50% of small businesses reported job openings they could not fill in October.

Also on Tuesday, Fed Chair Jerome Powell emphasized the U.S. central bank’s commitment to maximum employment, telling a virtual conference on diversity and inclusion in economics, finance and central banking that “an economy is healthier and stronger when as many people as possible are able to work.” read more

Wholesale prices of apparel, footwear and truck transportation of freight also rose last month as did the costs of food and alcohol retailing, hospital outpatient care as well as machinery, equipment parts and supplies.

Excluding the volatile food, energy and trade services components, producer prices shot up 0.4%. The so-called core PPI gained 0.1% in September. In the 12 months through October, the core PPI rose 6.2%. That followed a 5.9% advance in September.

Construction prices surged 6.6%, the largest gain since the series was incorporated into the PPI data in 2009.

“As companies feel the squeeze from higher energy and labor costs, as well as persistent logistics issues, producer price increases should be robust in the coming months,” said Will Compernolle, a senior economist at FHN Financial in New York.

Details of the PPI components, which feed into the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, excluding the volatile food and energy component, were mixed. The core PCE price index is the Fed’s preferred measure for its flexible 2% target. Healthcare costs increased 0.4%. Airline tickets rebounded 0.3%, but portfolio management fees dropped 2.2%.

Though the October CPI data is still pending, economists believed that the core PCE price index moved higher last month after increasing 3.6% year-on-year in September.

“For now, we think the core PCE price index will be up 3.8% year-on-year in October,” said Daniel Silver, an economist at JPMorgan in New York.

Reporting by Lucia Mutikani;
Editing by Andrea Ricci

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

World

Leaded gasoline, a huge public health danger, has finally been eradicated 

Leave a comment

On Monday, the United Nations announced an environmental and public health milestone: the end of the use of leaded gasoline in automobiles and road vehicles worldwide.

The last holdout was Algeria, which had large stockpiles of leaded gasoline; in July, those stockpiles ran out, and Algeria has now made the transition to unleaded gasoline.

Lead poisoning causes immense societal harm: brain damage, chronic illness, lowered IQ, elevated mortality. Lead exposure in childhood has been linked with violent crime rates decades later. Extremely high lead levels can lead to seizures, coma, and death. Lower levels tend to cause less detectable harm, but there’s no safe level of lead exposure: Scientists’ current best guess is that any lead exposure at all causes harm.

Many of lead’s dangers have been known for decades. Leaded gasoline was invented by a General Motors research lab in the 1920s, and already at that time, there were people noticing that children exposed to high levels of lead suffered devastating health consequences. But Thomas Midgley Jr., leaded gasoline’s inventor, campaigned to convince the world that it was safe. (Midgley also invented ozone-depleting refrigerants called CFCs, which would end up being banned by the 1987 Montreal Protocol; he’s been called a “one-man environmental disaster.”)

For more than 50 years after the invention of leaded gas, virtually all cars around the world pumped aerosolized lead into the air.

In the 1970s, though, following more research firmly establishing lead’s harms, rich countries started addressing the problem. In the US, the Clean Air Act imposed restrictions on lead pollution, and a few years later, the Environmental Protection Agency mandated that gas pumps offer unleaded gas, as the first step toward a transition away from leaded fuels.

The EPA estimates that the amount of lead used in automotive gasoline in the US fell by 99 percent between 1976 and 1989. Measured blood lead levels followed. Crime rates dropped, too. Those benefits were realized even though the lead used in gasoline (and in paint and other consumer products) before bans on its use is still widespread in our soil and dust and still posing a major public health challenge.

In 1996, the EPA completely banned leaded gasoline for on-road vehicles. Japan and Europe issued their own bans over the same time period. In 2000, China and India followed.

How the United Nations phased out leaded gasoline worldwide

In 117 countries around the world, though — largely low-income ones — leaded gasoline was still in use.

In 2002, the UN’s Environment Program (UNEP) launched a sustained effort to phase out leaded gasoline, called the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles.

UNEP Director Inger Andersen describes it as a “UN-backed alliance of governments, businesses and civil society,” and its tactics were quite flexible: convincing governments of policy bans, teaching businesses how to make cleaner vehicles, finding investment for better refineries, and in one case navigating a massive bribery scandal, when it turned out that a leaded gasoline producer, the chemical company Innospec Ltd., was fighting to keep its product legal in Indonesia by bribing government officials.

The UN’s initiative saw fast adoption in sub-Saharan Africa, where 25 countries signed on to a plan to de-lead their gasoline in 2005. It made slower progress elsewhere, especially in the Middle East, where many countries had enormous stockpiles of leaded gasoline.

In 2011, a study by Peter L. Tsai and Thomas H. Hatfield estimated the phaseout of leaded gas was increasing global GDP by 4 percent, or $2.4 trillion (counting health savings as well as social benefits from higher IQ and lower crime).

They also estimated the direct benefits in lives saved at 1.2 million a year. The phaseout of leaded gasoline has been the “single most important strategy” for combating lead poisoning, they conclude, “with the economic benefits exceeding costs by more than 10 times.”

And while there’s a lot of academic debate about the exact magnitude of lead’s effect on crime, there’s no debate that transitioning away from lead fuels passes almost any cost-benefit analysis: Poisoning your entire population is just really bad, and transitioning away from leaded fuels is one of the cheapest ways to dramatically reduce lead poisoning.

By 2014, automotive leaded gasoline was legal only in parts of Algeria, Iraq, Yemen, Myanmar, North Korea, and Afghanistan.

By 2016, it was just Algeria, Yemen, and Iraq. And now, two decades after the campaign kicked off, cars everywhere in the world will use unleaded gas.

The road ahead

The end of leaded gasoline in automobiles is a big step forward, and one worth celebrating. But the fight to end lead poisoning’s effects on our world and on the next generation has a lot further to go.

In the US, leaded gasoline in cars has been illegal for more than 25 years. But the lead from that gasoline has settled in the soil and dust, and still contributes to poisoning children today.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracks lead exposure across the country. In 2018, the most recent year for which data is available, it found that in most states, between 1 and 5 percent of children had more than 5 micrograms per deciliter of lead in their blood — enough to potentially cause them serious health problems and lifelong harm. (Children exposed to lead in the US today are mostly exposed through soil and dust ingestion. Often, dust has lead in it because paint in old houses contains lead.)

Worldwide, UNICEF estimates that around one in three children have lead levels in excess of the 5 µg/dL line. While leaded gasoline for automotives has historically been the single biggest contributor to lead levels in population centers, there are others: heavy industry, inadequate battery recycling and disposal, decaying pipes, and lead-based pottery glazes, for example.

In the US, lead-based fuels, though illegal on the road, are still allowed in aviation and a few other specialized contexts — and there’s no real progress toward phasing them out. While they cause a lot less lead exposure than automotive leaded gasoline did, the fact that there’s no known safe level of lead exposure should still give us pause — even the smaller exposures from these rarer sources can cause problems.

The end of leaded gasoline throughout the world will do a lot to fight lead poisoning by itself, but ideally it would be accompanied by measures to attack the other ways lead enters children’s bodies. The bipartisan infrastructure bill making its way through the US Congress includes money for lead remediation measures and lead pipe replacement — but it’s probably not enough to replace all aging lead pipes in the US.

UNICEF calls for “completely removing the potential for exposure to lead in areas where children live, play and learn,” and while it would be a tremendous expense, it would have a tremendous return. Poisoning the next generation is about as shortsighted as it gets, and investment in lead protection is an investment in our future.

Celebrating — and learning from — humanity’s achievements

The UN is frequently criticized as “bloated, undemocratic”, not focused on the world’s biggest problems, and not capable of moving us toward meaningful solutions.

But the worldwide elimination of leaded gasoline in cars is a genuine achievement worth celebrating — and worth examining, to see how the world can use the tactics that triumphed against leaded gasoline to combat the other huge problems requiring international coordination that face us in the 21st century.

The team at work on it has already expanded their focus to the next crucial transition for road vehicles: a move from gasoline-based ones to lower-emissions and zero-emissions alternatives. The leaded-gas initiative “is testament to the power of multilateralism to move the world towards sustainability and a cleaner, greener future,” Andersen, the director of UNEP, argued in a press release accompanying the announcement. “We are invigorated to change humanity’s trajectory for the better through an accelerated transition to clean vehicles and electric mobility.”

They’re also at work phasing out lead paint, another major source of household lead exposure.

The road map that the UN used for the fight against leaded gasoline — a combination of technological solutions that made it easier to switch away from lead in engines, political coalition-building, partnerships with businesses, and a few prosecutions of bad actors who used bribery to keep lead in business — is a road map that can be applied to challenges like climate change as well.

And separate from all of that, it’s worth taking a moment to rejoice in humanity’s achievements over death, disease, and our own self-inflicted horrors. Leaded gasoline and its mass use was one of the biggest mistakes of the 20th century. Ending it is one of the first big global triumphs of the 21st.

Read original article here

Business

Lifetime emissions of EVs are lower than gasoline cars, experts say

Leave a comment

An electric vehicle charging point in Stoke-on-Trent, England.

Nathan Stirk | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The number of electric vehicles on the world’s roads is surging, hitting a record number last year.

That would seem to be good news, as the world tries to wean itself off fossil fuels that are wrecking the global climate. But as electric cars become more popular, some question just how environmentally friendly they are.

The batteries in electric vehicles, for example, charge on power that is coming straight off the electric grid — which is itself often powered by fossil fuels. And there are questions about how energy-intensive it is to build an EV or an EV battery, versus building a comparable traditional vehicle.

Are electric vehicles greener?

The short answer is yes — but their full green potential is still many years away.

Experts broadly agree that electric vehicles create a lower carbon footprint over the course of their lifetime than do cars and trucks that use traditional, internal combustion engines.

Last year, researchers from the universities of Cambridge, Exeter and Nijmegen in The Netherlands found that in 95% of the world, driving an electric car is better for the environment than driving a gasoline-powered car.

Electricity grids in most of the world are still powered by fossil fuels such as coal or oil, and EVs depend on that energy to get charged. Separately, EV battery production remains an energy-intensive process.

Producing electric vehicles leads to significantly more emissions than producing petrol cars … which is mostly from the battery production.

Florian Knobloch

Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance

A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative found that the battery and fuel production for an EV generates higher emissions than the manufacturing of an automobile. But those higher environmental costs are offset by EVs’ superior energy efficiency over time.

In short, the total emissions per mile for battery-powered cars are lower than comparable cars with internal combustion engines.

“If we are going to take a look at the current situation, in some countries, electric vehicles are better even with the current grid,” Sergey Paltsev, a senior research scientist at the MIT Energy Initiative and one of the study’s authors, told CNBC.

Paltsev explained that the full benefits of EVs will be realized only after the electricity sources become renewable, and it might take several decades for that to happen.

Read more about electric vehicles from CNBC Pro

“Currently, the electric vehicle in the U.S., on average, would emit about 200 grams of CO2 per mile,” he said. “We are projecting that with cleaning up the grid, we can reduce emissions from electric vehicles by 75%, from about 200 (grams) today to about 50 grams of CO2 per mile in 2050.”

Similarly, Paltsev said MIT research showed non-plug-in hybrid cars with internal combustion engines currently emit about 275 grams of CO2 per mile. In 2050, their projected emissions are expected to be between 160 to 205 grams of CO2 per mile — the range is wider than EVs, because fuel standards vary from place to place.

Decarbonization is the process of reducing greenhouse gas emission produced by the burning fossil fuels. Efforts to cut down pollution across various industries are expected to further reduce the environmental impact of EV production and charging over time.

“When you look forward to the rest of the decade, where we will see massive amounts of decarbonization in power generation and massive amount of decarbonization in the industrial sector, EVs will benefit from all of that decarbonization,” Eric Hannon, a Frankfurt-based partner at McKinsey & Company, told CNBC.

Batteries are the biggest emitter

EVs rely on rechargeable lithium-ion batteries to run. The process of making those batteries — from using mining raw materials like cobalt and lithium, to production in gigafactories and transportation — is energy-intensive, and one of the biggest sources of carbon emissions from EVs today, experts said.

Gigafactories are facilities that produce EV batteries on a large scale.

“Producing electric vehicles leads to significantly more emissions than producing petrol cars. Depending on the country of production, that’s between 30% to 40% extra in production emissions, which is mostly from the battery production,” said Florian Knobloch, a fellow at the Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance.

Those higher production emission numbers are seen as “an initial investment, which pays off rather quickly due to the reduced lifetime emissions.”

China currently dominates battery production, with 93 gigafactories producing lithium-ion battery cells versus only four in the U.S., the Washington Post reported this year.

“I think the battery is the most complicated component in the EV, and has the most complex supply chain,” George Crabtree, director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Joint Center for Energy Storage Research, told CNBC, adding that the energy source used in battery production makes a huge difference on the carbon footprint for EVs.

Batteries made in older gigafactories in China are usually powered by fossil fuels, because that was the trend five to 10 years ago, he explained. So, EVs that are built with batteries from existing factories

But that’s changing, he said, as “people have realized that’s a huge carbon footprint.”

Experts pointed to other considerations around battery production.

They include unethical and environmentally unsustainable mining practices, as well as a complex geopolitical nature of the supply chain, where countries do not want to rely on other nations for raw materials like cobalt and lithium, or the finished batteries.

Mining raw materials needed for battery production will likely be the last to get decarbonized, according to Crabtree.

Recycling and decarbonizing the grid

Today, very few of the spent battery cells are recycled.

Experts said that can change over time as raw materials needed for battery production are in limited supply, leaving firms with no choice but to recycle.

McKinsey’s Hannon outlined other reasons for companies to step by their recycling efforts. They include a regulatory environment where producers, by law, would have to deal with spent batteries — and disposing them could be more expensive.

“People who point to a lack of a recycling infrastructure as a problem aren’t recognizing that we don’t need extensive recycling infrastructure yet because the cars are so new, we’re not needing many back,” he said.

Most auto companies are already working to ensure they have significant recycling capacity in place before EVs start reaching the end of life over the next decade, he added.

It’s not silver bullet for climate change mitigation. Ideally, you also try to reduce the number of cars massively, and try to push things such as public transport

Florian Knobloch

Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance

Knobloch from Cambridge University said a lot of research is going into improving battery technology, to make them more environmentally sustainable and less reliant on scarce raw materials. More efforts are also needed in decarbonizing the electricity grid, he added.

“It’s very important that more renewable electricity generation capacity is added to the grid each year, than coal generation capacity,” Knobloch said.

“Nowadays, it’s much easier to build large scale solar or offshore wind compared to building new fossil fuel power plant. What we see is more renewable electricity coming into the grid all over the world.”

Still, he pointed out that generating electricity by using renewable sources will still emit greenhouse gases as there are emissions from producing the solar panels and wind turbines. “What we look at is how long will it take until the electricity grid is sufficiently decarbonized so that you see large benefit from electric vehicles,” Knobloch added.

Policies needed for societal change

Experts agree that a transition from gasoline-powered cars to EVs is not a panacea for the global fight against climate change.

It needs to go hand-in-hand with societal change that promotes greater use of public transportation and alternative modes of travel, including bicycles and walking.

Reducing the use of private vehicles requires plenty of funding and policy planning.

MIT’s Paltsev, who is also deputy director at the university’s joint program on the science and policy of global change, explained that there are currently about 1.2 billion fuel-powered cars on the road globally –that number is expected to increase to between 1.8 billion to 2 billion.

In comparison, there are only about 10 million electric vehicles currently.

People underestimate how many new cars have to be produced and how much materials will be needed to produce those electric vehicles, Paltsev said.

The International Energy Agency predicts that the number of electric cars, buses, vans and heavy trucks on roads is expected to hit 145 million by 2030.

Even if everyone drove EVs instead of gasoline-powered cars, there would still be plenty of emissions from the plug-in vehicles due to their sheer volume, according to Knobloch.

“So, it’s not silver bullet for climate change mitigation. Ideally, you also try to reduce the number of cars massively, and try to push things such as public transport,” he said. “Getting people away from individual car transport is as important.”

Read original article here

Business

Stocks week ahead: $3 gasoline could be around the corner — unless OPEC and Russia start pumping more oil

Leave a comment

US crude has raced back above $60 a barrel. That’s a far cry from the depths it reached last April when oil crashed below zero (negative $40.32 a barrel, to be exact) for the first time in history. Prices at the pump are starting to creep higher, too. The national average hit $2.70 a gallon Friday, according to AAA. That’s well above the April low of $1.76 per gallon.

Investors are betting the pandemic will soon be under control — and that in turn will unleash pent-up demand for road trips, cruises, flights and other oil-consuming activities.

Against this backdrop, OPEC and its allies, known as OPEC+, are scheduled to meet Thursday to deliberate whether to add more barrels into to the hungry market. They’ve certainly got the firepower, and the price incentive, to do just that.
Last year, OPEC+ slashed output by a record-shattering 9.7 million barrels per day. The emergency steps, along with production cuts by US and other producers, drove a strong rebound in prices. That recovery has accelerated in recent months as millions of people around the world have gotten vaccinated against Covid.

OPEC+ could soon announce the market is now healthy enough to step up production this spring.

“Given the allure of higher prices, there should be more supply coming onto the market,” said Ryan Fitzmaurice, energy strategist at Rabobank.

Indeed, sources within OPEC+ told Reuters last week that an output increase of half a million barrels per day beginning in April is possible without building up inventories, although a final decision had not been made.

“Given where prices are, how will anyone tell Russia that they need to curtail production?” said Jim Mitchell, head of Americas oil analysts at Refinitiv.

There are several good reasons for OPEC+ to release more barrels.

First, higher prices mean countries like Saudi Arabia that rely on oil to balance their budgets can bring in badly-needed revenue.

Second, if OPEC+ doesn’t start producing more, other countries will. That includes frackers in Texas who were sidelined by the oil crash.

Bank of America strategists told clients in a recent note that OPEC+ will “preserve market share” by pumping more soon. During the second quarter alone, Bank of America expects OPEC+ to add more than 1.3 million barrels per day of supply.

There’s another reason OPEC+ will want to act before it’s too late: self-preservation.

If gasoline prices keep rising and hit $3 a gallon — and beyond — it will only accelerate clean energy investments and persuade more drivers to dump their gas-guzzling SUVs for electric vehicles.

“If oil shoots up to extreme levels,” said Rabobank’s Fitzmaurice, “that only helps the renewables story and eats away at oil demand.”

The switch to electric means more costly recalls

Hyundai is recalling 82,000 electric cars globally to replace their batteries after 15 reports of fires involving the vehicles. Despite the relatively small number of cars involved, the recall is one of the most expensive in history.

The numbers: The recall will cost Hyundai 1 trillion Korean won, or $900 million. On a per-vehicle basis, the average cost is $11,000 — an astronomically high number for a recall.

The episode signals how electric car defects could create hefty costs for automakers — at least in the near future, report my colleagues Chris Isidore and Peter Valdes-Dapena.

The recall is another indication of just how expensive EV batteries are relative to the cost of the entire car. Until the cost of batteries comes down, through greater production worldwide and economies of scale, the cost of making electric vehicles will remain higher than comparable gasoline cars.

Once batteries do become less expensive, as is expected in the coming years, electric cars could become much cheaper to build because they have fewer moving parts and require as much as 30% fewer hours of labor for assembly compared to traditional vehicles.

Fewer parts on electric vehicles could also mean that auto recalls become less common in the future. But for now, there could be significant costs if battery fire problems require battery replacements.

Up next

Monday: US ISM Manufacturing Index

Tuesday: Target, Kohl’s, AutoZone, AMC Entertainment and HP Enterprise earnings

Wednesday: US ISM Non-Manufacturing Index; EIA crude oil inventories; Dollar Tree, Stellantis and American Eagle earnings

Thursday: OPEC+ meeting; US jobless claims; Kroger, Gap and Costco earnings

Friday: US jobs report for February; Big Lots earnings

Read original article here

Entertainment

Taylor Swift Joins Haim for Remix of ‘WIMPIII’ Song ‘Gasoline’

Leave a comment

Haim have released an expanded edition of their Grammy-nominated album Women in Music Pt. III, originally released last spring. The new edition includes a remix of the WIMPIII track “Gasoline” featuring Taylor Swift, and a remix of “3AM” featuring Thundercat.

Swift previously collaborated with Danielle and Este Haim on the song “No Body, No Crime,” from Swift’s December 2020 album Evermore. That same month, Haim dropped a Toro Y Moi remix of “3 AM.” In February 2020, the band made a cameo appearance in Thundercat’s music video for “Dragonball Durag.”

Haim are currently nominated in two categories for the 2021 Grammy Awards, including Album of the Year for Women in Music Pt. III (making them the first all-female rock band to be nominated in that category) and Rock Performance  for “The Steps.”

Last week, Swift released “Love Story (Taylor’s Version),” the first single from her planned re-recordings of her first six albums. The new version of “Love Story” will be included on Fearless (Taylor’s Version), a re-recording of her 2008 sophomore album that will feature six new songs that Swift had written around the time of the Fearless sessions. Although Swift has not officially given a release date for the album, she posted a written statement on Twitter that included a hidden message with capital letters, spelling out “April Ninth.” A representative for Swift later confirmed the release date to Rolling Stone.



Read original article here

Technology

The Stick-Shift 668-HP CT5-V Blackwing And 472-HP Cadillac CT4-V Blackwing Are Cadillac’s Last Hurrah For Loud Gasoline Fury

Leave a comment

Photo: David Tracy

This is the end. Cadillac, a brand with a rich history of stuffing gigantic gasoline motors under the hoods of luxury sedans, is about to call it quits on internal combustion, but not before going out with a bang. Well, two bangs, with one of them called the CT5-V Blackwing, a 668-horsepower 6.2-liter supercharged V8 sedan with a standard…standard transmission. The other is the CT4-V Blackwing, a smaller 472-HP twin-turbo 3.6-liter V6 sedan that also comes with a stick shift, in keeping with the car gods’ orders. Let’s take a first look at these last hurrahs for high-performance gasoline Cadillacs.

The auto industry is quickly entering the electric era, so it feels a bit strange for Cadillac to be debuting two entirely-conventional flagship sedans. But this is the last stand for performance gasoline Cadillacs, and my god is GM’s premium brand going out swinging.

So Much Power, So Many Pedals

Photo: David Tracy

The CT5-V is a 668-HP, 659 lb-ft supercharged V8 sedan with a six-speed manual transmission sending torque to the rear wheels. On paper, it is epic, fulfilling the entirety of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Automotive Needs (other than perhaps “low curb weight” — the CT5-V Blackwing weighs roughly two tons). I can’t wait to drive this machine.

Photo: David Tracy

G/O Media may get a commission

The other car Cadillac showed was the CT4-V, which also comes standard with a manual transmission, and also has a boosted engine that sends torque to the rear wheels, though that engine is a V6, and the high intake manifold air pressure comes from a pair of turbochargers instead of a supercharger.

Photo: David Tracy

Here’s a little walk-around of these two cars with marketing manager Ken Kornas:

When Cadillac released horsepower figures for the regular CT4-V and CT5-V, the automotive media pretty much spit out its drink and laughed. “We Regret To Inform You That The Cadillac CT4-V Has Just 24 More HP Than A Toyota Camry,” my colleague wrote after Jalopnik’s initial article titled “The 2020 Cadillac CT4-V and CT5-V Arrive Without The Big Power We’re Used To.”

After having been spoiled by the 464 HP ATS-V and 640 HP CTS-V, we just weren’t excited about the paltry 325 HP turbocharged inline-four in the CT4-V or the 360-HP twin-turbo V6 in the CT5-V. “Hey, this isn’t the real V, is it?” my Editor-in-Chief Rory Carroll asked Cadillac at an event in 2019. The brand responded that a “big V” was under development. Now it’s here along with its little sibling.

Photo: David Tracy

The 668-HP CT5-V Blackwing can allegedly pull off a 0-60 mph time of 3.7 seconds, and reach a top speed of over 200 mph. The 472-HP, 445 lb-ft CT4-V Blackwing takes a tenth more to get to 60, and its top speed plateaus at around 189 mph, per Cadillac. Both cars are built on the Alpha II platform, the successor to the Alpha platform that underpinned the Chevy Camaro and Cadillac ATS. Like the ATS and Camaro, the CT4 and CT5 have MacPherson strut front suspensions and five-link setups in the back.

Speaking of the ATS, the CT4-V Blackwing is likely going to be quite similar to that car’s V-model, which was an excellent driver’s car thanks to incredible steering feel and sharp handling. The CT4 has essentially the same engine and transmission, with roughly the same power (it’s up 8 HP). Car And Driver gets into the differences, writing in its story 472-HP 2022 Cadillac CT4-V Blackwing Is like an ATS-V, but Better:

Chassis upgrades include larger front and rear brake rotors, a newer version of the standard magnetorheological dampers, and Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires instead of the old Pilot Super Sport rubber. These tires wrap around 18-inch wheels with a staggered-width setup; the magnesium wheels that Cadillac teased earlier won’t be available until later in the production run. The housing for the electronic limited-slip differential is now aluminum, which Cadillac says saves 22 pounds. Overall curb weight is up by a claimed 77 pounds.

Photo: David Tracy

I’m conflicted here, because as much as I love the idea of an improved ATS-V that handles well, the bigger, couple-of-hundred-pounds-heavier CT5-V Blackwing has the V8 with a 1.7-liter Eaton supercharger on it, and you know that’s going to sound much, much better. So the question is: Do you choose nimble(ish) handling or do you choose the glorious sound of a boosted V8?

Perhaps I’m a bit basic, but my initial primal instinct is to go with option B.

The Hardware

Photo: Cadillac

Cadillac didn’t have engineers at my preview session in a warehouse in Warren, Michigan, so the brand wasn’t able to get deep into the CT4-V Blackwing and CT5-V Blackwing’s tech. But right away, it was obvious how epic the cooling systems are — unsurprising, given the ATS-V was a masterpiece in this area.

The cars each have roughly a dozen heat exchangers, with tiny outboards ones tilted, and angled a bit inboard:

Photo: David Tracy

My favorite heat exchanger (everyone should have a favorite heat exchanger, right?) on the CT4-V is the flat one up front, which I’m fairly sure cools the transmission and rear differential.

A heat exchanger whose face is actually parallel to airflow?! It seems counterintuitive, but it makes sense if you consider that it’s located just ahead of the main cooling module, which — due to its restriction — creates an area of high pressure ahead of itself. That high pressure, along with the low pressure under the vehicle as air rushes at a high velocity, forces air through the heat exchanger mounted parallel to the car’s floor:

Photo: David Tracy

While we’re on the topic of aerodynamics, Cadillac says the new grille design is a key enabler for improving airflow over the ATS-V, and the brand mentions a new Carbon Fiber Aero Package, which allegedly reduces lift by 214 percent on the CT4-V Blackwing and 75 percent on the CT5-V Blackwing. It goes without saying that there’s a drag penalty.

Also exciting are the underbody “airflow-channeling strakes” that make up what Cadillac calls the “Underwing” — basically, an underbody airflow strategy that Cadillac says reduces drag and improves track performance:

Photo: David Tracy

Speaking of the underbody, here’s an “Easter Egg” V-Series logo at the bottom of the liquid-cooled electronic limited-slip differential:

Photo: David Tracy

The brakes are huge. The CT4-V Blackwing’s rotors are 15 inches up front and 13.4 out back, while the bigger sibling has 15.7-inch rotors ahead of the driver and 14.7s behind. Both cars have six-piston calipers at the nose and four-piston grabbers at the tail.

Photo: David Tracy

The standard manual transmission is a six-speed Tremec, with a dual-disk LuK clutch. In case you’re not familiar with how a twin-disc clutch works, it essentially involves bolting a housing to the flywheel, using axial space to create an additional surface for an additional clutch to grab onto. Here, watch this Aussie show you how it works:

Both cars get rev matching capability and “No-Lift Shift,” which is what it sounds like: You can stay hard on the accelerator pedal while shifting — something that, per Cadillac, helps keep the CT4-V Blacking’s turbos in boost.

There’s also a 10-speed automatic available if you’re into that sort of thing.

Pricing

Photo: David Tracy

Photo: David Tracy

The CT4-V Blackwing starts at $59,990, while the CT5-V Blackwing costs $84,990. These are higher base prices than those of the Audi RS3 and BMW M3 with which GM says the two cars compete, respectively. How the Caddies will hold up on the track against their German counterparts is something I can’t wait to find out. Will Cadillac’s final internal combustion engine V-Series cars go out on top?

Read original article here