There’s one way to enhance demand for electric cars: ban all the alternatives. From Eric Peters at theburningplatform.com:
What do you suppose will happen when they build them – but no one comes?
Within the next couple of years, almost every car company will be building – and trying to sell – electric cars.
It won’t be just Tesla’s cars – which cars Tesla is alreadyhaving trouble trying to sell. Chiefly, because there is a built-in limit to the number of $35,000 and up cars you can sell – regardless of the number you build.
Imagine a real estate developer who only built $350,000 houses – heedless of the ability of people in the area to buy them. The homes are “nice” – they have triple-paned casement windows and granite countertops and three bathrooms.
But no one comes.
Imagine a quadrupling of EV production – and that’s a lowball figure – for a “market” that constitutes at the present moment about 1 percent of the total and which is driven almost entirely by government mandates and propped up by taxpayer-mulcted subsidies and which no one has yet figured out how to earn an honest dollar from.
The UAW is pushing against its own members’ interests, pushing the car companies to adhere to costly Obama administration mandates. From Eric Peters at ericpeftersautos.com:
The United Auto Workers (UAW) almost killed the American car industry once – back in the ‘70s and ‘80s – when it succeeded in making American cars too expensive (and too poorly built) relative to the Japanese competition – by demanding high wages and benefits for low-quality work.
Now comes its second opportunity.
Today, the union – which represents workers from GM, Ford and FiatChrysler – will tell Congress it opposes President Trump’s efforts to reduce the regulatory burden on the companies which employ the union’s workers and the car buyers which support them. It will tell Congress it wants the Obama-era fatwas defining carbon dioxide as an “emission” – and thus a “pollutant” – to remain in force and be enforced.
And for the public to be forced to spend more money on cars that are more “efficient” – regardless of the cost.
The UAW does not put it quite that way, of course.
Some inconvenient physics, from Raúl Ilargi Meijer at theautomaticearth.com:
If I’ve said once that those among us who tout renewable energy should pay more attention to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, I must have said it a hundred times. But I hardly ever get the impression that people understand why. And it seems so obvious. A quote I often use from Herman Daly and Ken Townsend, when I talk about energy, really says it all:
“Erwin Schrodinger (1945) has described life as a system in steady-state thermodynamic disequilibrium that maintains its constant distance from equilibrium (death) by feeding on low entropy from its environment – that is, by exchanging high-entropy outputs for low-entropy inputs. The same statement would hold verbatium as a physical description of our economic process. A corollary of this statement is that an organism cannot live in a medium of its own waste products.”
Using energy produces waste. Using more energy produces more waste. It doesn’t matter -much- what kind of energy is used, or what kind of waste is produced. The energy WE use produces waste, in a medium of which WE cannot survive. The only way to escape this is to use less energy. And because we have used such an enormous amount of energy the past 100 years, we must use a whole lot less in the next 100.
We use about 100 times more energy per person, and a whole lot more in the west, than our own labor can produce. We use the equivalent of what 500 billion people can produce without the aid of fossil fuel-powered machines. We won’t solve this problem with wind turbines or solar panels. There really is one way only: cut down on energy use.
Because it’s exceedingly rare to see this discussed, even among physicists, who should know better since they know thermodynamics, it’s good to hear it from someone else. An article in Forbes today discusses a May 3 article in German magazine Der Spiegel on the problems with the Energiewende, the country’s drastic turn towards renewables.
The con is that electric cars can stand on their own without government support. They can’t. from E
Anyone who hasn’t grokked the con by now is probably a hopeless case. Tesla has been in “business” for going on 15 years and still loses money despite taking billions.
Ask yourself what kind of “business” gets propped up by the government for that long – and what it implies about the reasons for propping it up.
Tesla’s purpose isn’t crony capitalism/rent-seeking, except incidentally.
Its purpose was to habituate the public to the EV as a “normal” car. As the inevitable replacement for our current (IC) cars.
To get the public used to hearing about and seeing electric cars. And most of all, to sex them up.
This was also done in order to nudge the car industry into the Electric Car Era – to nudge it into committing billions to EV development, which has happened. So as to mainstream EVs.
To make them seem The Future – and IC-powered cars so yesterday.
There are no perfect energy alternatives, but nuclear power has some compelling advantages. So why is it being discarded? From Doug Casey at lewrockwell.com:
Justin’s note: Doug Casey says the left is wrong about one of the most politically incorrect energy sources: nuclear power.
If you read yesterday’s Dispatch, you know why the left wants to eliminate nuclear power entirely… and why we think that’s a huge mistake.
Today, Doug Casey takes a closer look at this subject. And in typical Doug fashion, he doesn’t hold anything back. As you’ll see, Doug says this is a problem that goes beyond environmental issues…
Justin: Doug, the new crop of Democrats has made it their mission to save the planet. And yet, leftists have shown nuclear power almost no love. In fact, the Green New Deal doesn’t include any new money for nuclear power. Why do you think that is?
Doug: First, the government shouldn’t be spending money on nuclear, or any other form of power generation. Why? The capital they spend must first be taken from those who created it. It’s vastly wiser to leave it in the hands of wealth creators, who will likely use it to create more wealth, than give it to politicians, bureaucrats, and other government employees.
The Green New Deal spins fervishly in the minds of people who know next to nothing about energy. From John Stossel at theburningplatform.com:
The Green New Deal’s goal is to move America to zero carbon emissions in 10 years.
“That’s a goal you could only imagine possible if you have no idea how energy is produced,” James Meigs, former editor of Popular Mechanics magazine, says in my latest video.
“Renewable is so inconsistent,” he adds. “You can’t just put in wind turbines and solar panels. You have to build all this infrastructure to connect them with energy consumers.”
Because wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine, “renewable” energy requires many more transmission lines, and bigger batteries.
Unfortunately, says Meigs: “You have to mine materials for batteries. Those mines are environmentally hazardous. Disposing of batteries is hazardous.”
“Batteries are a lousy way to store energy,” adds physicist Mark Mills, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Also, the ingredients of green energy, like battery packs, are far from green.
“You have to consume 100 barrels of oil in China to make that battery pack,” he explains. “Dig up 1,000 pounds of stuff to process it. Digging is done with oil, by big machines, so we’re consuming energy to ‘save’ energy — not a good path to go.”
Global warming apocalyptics swear by science that has already yielded many wrong predictions. From Peter Baggins at unz.com:
Earth Day, 2019
Two of the most important problems that the so-called Green New Deal will attempt to solve at the cost of incalculable trillions are global warming and its consequences, including drought, famine, floods and massive starvation. You may recall that Obama in his 2015 State of the Union speech declared that the greatest threat facing us was neither terrorism nor ISIS. It wasn’t nuclear weapons in rogue states either. “No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” said Obama.
His entire administration including Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State John Kerry, frequently repeated the claim that climate change was the greatest threat facing the world. It was a sentiment Obama stressed again during an Earth Day trip to the Florida Everglades where he said, “This is not a problem for another generation. It has serious implications for the way we live right now”.
More recently, presidential hopefuls like Beto O’Rourke, along with most Democrat candidates, declared their zealous support for the Green New Deal in forecasting that the world will end in 12 years if nothing is done. “This is the final chance, the scientists are absolutely unanimous on this — that we have no more than 12 years to take incredibly bold action on this crisis. Not to be melodramatic, but the future of the world depends on us right now here where we are.”