Tag Archives: electric cars

Choice Antipathy, by Eric Peters

Hostility against free choice continues to mount as our betters decide what’s best for us. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

A long, long, time ago – none apparently remember – people could decide to buy an electric car if that’s what they wanted and weren’t punished if they didn’t want one. They were free to choose.

What a concept!

Americans have, to a sad extent, forgotten what that was like and many are actively hostile to the concept for reasons that are psychologically interesting.

A psychologically healthy person does not care what kind of car his neighbor drives, provided his neighbor pays for it. A psychologically disturbed person cares very much what kind of car his neighbor drives and wishes to make him pay for it. He seeks to punish him for driving a car he does not like, as via exorbitant taxes sicced on his neighbor’s car or the fuel it uses or perhaps restrictions on where he is allowed to drive it.

Yes, of course – there is the putative nostrum about non-electric cars “changing” the “climate”  – a transparently non-specific, non-objective assertion that is of a piece with the one made about people who aren’t sick possibly spreading a sickness they might have. It is a wonderfully elastic, open-ended and difficult to “deny” thesis – which is precisely how it serves its intended purpose.

If it is accepted that vague assertions are synonymous with facts.

The “climate” is “changing”? How, exactly? How much, exactly? It is because people are not driving electric cars? How, precisely? Prove that people who are not driving electric cars are “changing” the “climate” and then prove that this “change” is something that is causing harm.

No vague if scary assertions, please. One can assert all kinds of things. As for instance 3 million dead from the ‘Rona. As for instance “asymptomatic” spread. If assertions, however scary, are to be the justification for impositions than any imposition can be justified by painting a scary picture – as Al Gore did, literally – in his now-ancient movie that asserted we’d be under water by now or at least treading it.

A fact, on the other hand, is objective. Something is  – or it is not. It did – or did not – happen. Like the coastlines going glub-glub-glub under water, for instance. There is no need to argue about it because it just is (or isn’t) and that is the elegance – and justice of it.

If it can be shown – if it is a fact – that not driving an electric car “changes” the “climate” in a way that is harmful then it is not unreasonable to favor it. But it is the definition of unreasonable to demand it when there is nothing more behind it than assertions based on projections; on scary pictures like Al Gore’s movie and Greta Thundberg’s twisted visage.

Continue reading→

It’s Time to Unplug the Hype Over Electric Vehicles, by Robert Bryce

When the government and all its acolyte hype something, be it electric cars or Covid-19 vaccinations, check under the hood extensively before you buy. From Robert Bryce at realclearenergy.org:

For more than a century, the promise of electric vehicles (EVs) has been parked just beyond the nearest traffic light. In 1901, the Los Angeles Times declared “The electric automobile will quickly and easily take precedence over all other” types of motor vehicles. “If the claims which Mr. Edison makes for his new battery be not overstated, there is not much doubt that it will make a fortune for somebody.”

In 1911, The New York Times declared that the EV “has long been recognized as the ideal solution” because it “is cleaner and quieter” and “much more economical.” And yet today, 110 years after EVs were dubbed the Next Big Thing, they account for just 2% of new car sales in the U.S.

Yes, EVs are cool. And yes, sales of Teslas and other all-electric cars are rising at a fast clip. But despite lots of government push, there still isn’t enough consumer pull. Indeed, the history of the electric car is a century of failure tailgating failure.

Consider California. In 1990, state regulators mandated 10% of the cars sold in the state be zero-emission vehicles by 2003. The state now offers up to $7,000 in rebates to EV buyers. In addition, EV drivers can use California’s HOV lanes even if they have only one person in their car. Despite these incentives, only about 6% of the cars in California today have an electric plug.

Continue reading→

Reality Check: Professor Pens Letter Explaining Natural Resource Drain Created By “Net Zero Emission” Targets, by Tyler Durden

Swapping electric cars for internal combustion motors only shifts natural resource and pollution problems, it doesn’t eliminate or even ameliorate them. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

While the idea of implementing net zero emissions by certain deadlines has sounded great for the companies, countries and states that have set targets, the reality of making it happen is slightly more difficult.

That’s what the U.K. is finding out after Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington penned a letter to the Committee on Climate Change on the vast amount of natural resources that will be necessary to make the conversion. The letter was delivered to Baroness Brown, who chairs the Adaption Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change.

In addition to noting that the U.K. would need a 20% increase in UK-generated electricity, the release also notes that “to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production.”

The letter reads:

The urgent need to cut CO2 emissions to secure the future of our planet is clear, but there are huge implications for our natural resources not only to produce green technologies like electric cars but keep them charged.

Over the next few decades, global supply of raw materials must drastically change to accommodate not just the UK’s transformation to a low carbon economy, but the whole world’s. Our role as scientists is to provide the evidence for how best to move towards a zero-carbon economy – society needs to understand that there is a raw material cost of going green and that both new research and investment is urgently needed for us to evaluate new ways to source these. This may include potentially considering sources much closer to where the metals are to be used.”

Continue reading→

Electric Elite, by The Zman

The Electric Elite are going to lead us into their conception of Utopia, which will be hell on earth for the rest of us. From The Zman at theburningplatform.com:

Most everyone has looked down at the fuel gauge and suddenly realized the tank is very close to empty. Maybe it is the idiot light going on as you pass the sign that reads “last stop for food or fuel for X miles.” The worst one is when this happens in a rural area or at night. The prospect of being stranded on the side of the road for a very long time quickly crowds out other thoughts. It is a terrible feeling. Almost all of us are conditioned to make sure this never happens.

Running out of gas used to be a common thing in America. In the early days of the automobile, care did not have a gas gauge and gas stations did not always have gas, so it was a common scene. The first “gas gauge” was a marked stick the driver would stick into the tank. Until very recent, gas stations used this method to test how much water was in their tanks. Eventually, more sophisticated solutions were invented and then manufacturers install them at the factory.

Running out of gas is not very common these days. For starters, we have gas stations everywhere people live. They are about 120-thousand gas stations in America. If you live in an urban or suburban area, finding a gas station is not a challenge. The cars are also vastly more efficient today than the old days. Even sports cars get over 20 miles per gallon, so when the light comes on, you have about 40 miles to find gas. It is why it is very rare to see someone walking down the road with a gas can.

Continue reading→

The Alternatives We’re Denied, by Eric Peters

There’s a market out there for certain types of electric cars, just not the kind that the government has to subsidize people to buy. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

If electric cars are the ducks guts – the better alternative – then why is the government doing everything it can – shy of actual bayonets in the back – to deny us the freedom to choose?

Obviously, the worry is we might choose something else – if the government were to allow  us to do so.

Can’t have that.

Which ought to raise questions – not about electric cars – but about this business of denying people the freedom to choose the alternative that works best for them. As opposed to the one forced upon them by government.

Interestingly, the reasons electric cars are being forced onto the market is because people aren’t free to choose economically sensible and practical electric cars – because none such exist.

And the reason they don’t exist is  . . . because the government is forcing electric cars onto the market.

It requires a bit of explaining.

If a free market existed, there might well be a market for electric cars – just not the electric cars that are being pushed onto the market, like Teslas and their emulators from the other car companies.

Those cars are mandated cars; their electric propulsion systems are almost incidental. What defines them is their trying to “compete” – in air quotes to emphasize the absurdity of anything mandated into existence and maintained in existence by subsidies – with the non-electric cars they cannot directly compete with.

But which they’re – irony! – forced to try to do, precisely because they’ve been mandated and subsidized as the replacement for non-electric cars.

Continue reading→

Tesla – and GM – Finally Admit It, by Eric Peters

Electric cars, including Tesla’s, in the US have yet to meet the market test: can they be sold without subsidies at a price that will their makers to make a decent profit? From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

 
 
 

GM – and Tesla – just publicly admitted that they can’t sell electric cars. Or rather, they need your help – via Uncle.

To pay people $7,500 each to “buy” their electric cars.

To be paid by those who pay the taxes which will make up for the taxes not collected from the people who “buy” electric cars. This is the wealth transfer scheme styled “electric car tax credits.”

They have been around for years – and may be coming back – because electric cars have pull rather than range.

Great sums of money were expended to extract great sums of money – via the tax code, which was adjusted to give preferential treatment to the purchasers of electric cars by making electric cars seem more affordable than they are, in fact.

 

In order to create the fiction of a “market” for electric cars, where none – or very little – actually existed.

If that were not the case, then why the need to pay people to “buy” them? In every other case of such massive discounting – an industry term –  the need to apply such discounts is taken as evidence of the car being discounted being a flop.

Get rid of them by whatever means necessary – as by giving them away –  and then build no more.

The Aztek being a for-instance. Imagine being paid to buy one. Of course, the difference with EVs is that instead of GM paying you to buy an Aztek, the government is making someone else pay for your electric Aztek.

Or rather, your neighbor’s electric Aztek.

No one would abide such a thing, much less laud such a thing. How come almost no one is questioning this thing?

That question is hardly ever raised – much less answered. Probably because of the answer. Electric cars are the Azteks of our time, but worse. And unlike the Aztek, which was merely ugly – electric cars are evil. A kind of cancer that is not only metastasizing but being encouraged to metastasize.

Continue reading→

Buyer’s Remorse . . . by Eric Peters

People don’t realize how long it takes to recharge electric cars, and that leaves many who buy wishing they hadn’t. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

If electric cars are The Future how come one in five who own them are returning to the Past?

They are replacing their first electric car with a non-electric car, according to a study by University of California Davis researchers, quoted from at length in a recent news article published by Business Insider.

According to the study, “roughly one in five plug-in electric vehicle (owners) switched back to owning gas-powered cars” – after experiencing real life with an electric car.  As contrasted with the hype about electric cars.

The omissions about electric cars.

Most people have no idea what they’re in for – because they haven’t been told what they’re in for.

This is not by accident.

They hear and read about things like “ludicrous speed” – which is true, electric cars are extremely quick because electric motors are very powerful and their power is immediate and (usually) the drive is direct, i.e., there is no transmission between the motor and the drive wheels, which connect directly to the electric motor(s).

They hear that range has increased, which it has.  Ten years ago, most EVs could only travel about 100 miles – or less – before they ran out of juice. Today, most can go 150 and some can go farther.

Continue reading→

Why this Frenchman regrets buying an electric car, by Robert

A Frenchman finds that electric cars aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. From Robert at iceagenow.com:

I bought an electric car and wish I hadn’t. It seemed a good idea at the time, albeit a costly way of proclaiming my environmental virtuousness. The car cost 44,000 Euros, less a 6,000 Euro subsidy courtesy of French taxpayers, the overwhelming majority poorer than me. Fellow villagers are driving those 20-year-old diesel vans that look like garden sheds on wheels.

I order the car in May 2018. It’s promised in April 2019. No later, promises the salesman at the local Hyundai dealer. April comes and goes. No car. I phone the dealership. No explanation. The car finally arrives two months late, with no effort by Hyundai to apologise. But I Iove it. It’s quiet, quick and with the back seats down, practical with plenty of room for the dogs. It does insist on sharply reminding me to keep my hands on the steering wheel, even when they’re on it. And once alarmingly slamming on the brakes for no discernible reason.

I’ve installed a charger in my driveway so I plug the car in. It works first time! Then the boss turns on the kettle and every fuse in the house trips. The car is chargeable, but only if you don’t cook, wash clothes or turn on the dishwasher at the same time.

Continue reading→

History Repeats Itself . . . Again, by Eric Peters

Electric cars have a long and not particularly glorious history. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Electric cars aren’t new – and neither are their problems.

Back in the mid-1990s, I experienced them firsthand – which gives me some standing to comment on them today. To specifically make the comment that very little has changed in the roughly quarter-century (tempus fugit) that’s flown by since I was a young car journalist.

I am now a middle-aged car journalist – and while my belly has gotten bigger and my need for naps, greater – electric cars are still practically and economically uncompetitive with cars that use batteries for starting engines – and motors for spinning fans – as was the case back in 1996, when the “Gen I” EV1 came out.

I can say this because I actually drove the thing when it was the latest thing – unlike probably nine out of ten of the journalists writing hagiographically about the thing today, some 25 years after the fact. Because most of the ones writing stuff today weren’t old enough to drive anything back in ’96.

Back then, I was also driving a ’74 Beetle – which was then 22 years old. Its gas tank held about 10 gallons and that meant it could go about 280 miles on a fill-up, averaging around 26 MPG. The fill-up cost about $12 (ten gallons at about $1.20 per) and the fill-up took less than five minutes.

As it does now.

Today, 25 years down the road, most electric cars still can’t go as far as my ’74 Beetle on a single charge – and the few that can take a lot longer than less than five minutes to recharge.

It is the wait rather than the range that remains the single biggest practical problem with electric cars – today.

Continue reading→

Narratives, by Lipoh

There are narratives, and then there are facts and reality. From Lipoh at theburningplatform.com:

narratives everywhere - Tony Stark Eye Roll | Make a Meme

Everywhere I look, I see narratives. Truth and logical reasoning has given way to narrative. People are buying into the MSM and politically driven narrative system, and become so entrenched in their positions that no amount of truth or facts can alter their views. This gives the narrators enormous control over the entire population. The lemming mentality is taking us down a dark path, which in the end leads to a cliff.

The left is entirely consumed by narrative, but the right is catching up rapidly. They are two sides to the same coin, and I encourage everyone to break free of the narrative system, and focus rather on facts and truth.

Following are but a few of the narratives that I see, day after day:

Narrative: Bernie Sanders complains because Bezos and Buffet have more wealth than bottom 40% combined. Reality: What he does not mention is that he himself has more wealth than the bottom 34% combined. The bottom 34% of Americans have a combined net worth of zero.

Narrative: Media laments that police target blacks and kill them disproportionately. Reality: What they do not say is that 3% of population – male blacks between the ages of 16 and 35 commit approximately 1/2 the murders and violent crimes in the country, which brings them disproportionately into contact with police.

Continue reading→