Tag Archives: electric cars

The Unmentionable Alternative, by Eric Peters

Cars can run on compressed natural gas. Who knew? From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

The first reason originally given for the necessity of force-feeding electric cars to people was the supposedly imminent scarcity (and associated rising cost) of gasoline. This was en vogue back in the ‘90s – when the first electric cars came out – and quickly went away, because back in the ‘90s there were no subsidies to float them and no mandates to force them.

But the whole point of the exercise, we were constantly told, was that we had to find an alternative to fossil fuels right away – because we were on the cusp of running out of them.

Except it turns out we’re not.

There is so much gas, in fact, that a new excuse had to be found – “climate change,” the wonderfully elastic hypothesis that whatever the weather is doing that isn’t 70 degrees, calm and quiet is unnatural, alarming and the fault of man in general and the internal combustion engine specifically.

Actually, not – but something had to be found to make it “necessary” to replace the IC engine.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Teslian eFleas, by Eric Peters

Tesla makes itself part of China’s surveillance state. From Eric Peters at theburningplatform.com:

When corporations get into bed with government, it’s uswho get the fleas. Obamacare, for instance.

Big Med plus Big Government.

Sometimes, you can’t actually see the fleas. But they’re there, just the same.

An example of this unwholesome symbiosis has just emerged – in China. But it involves an American company, Tesla – which sells the same cars here.

Turns out Tesla – which builds electric cars but makes money by leveraging government mandates  – has set up its EVs to live-feed information about where each of their cars is at any given moment directly to the Chinese government.

Their car italicized to make the point that it’s not really your car when someone else has open access to it  – and so, to your life. The car tracks your movements, records where you’ve been, how long you stayed.

The government takes note.

According to the Associated Press, which broke the story, the Chinese government merely wishes to obtain “data points” for the purpose of “infrastructure planning” and – of course – to “improve public safety.”

How isn’t specified.

Continue reading

GM Kills the Electric Car . . . by Eric Peters

There is an affordable electric car that has overcome most of the problems of electric cars. There are two problem—it’s got a tiny internal combustion engine, and GM is killing it. From Eric Peters at theburningplatform.com:

If electric cars are such a grand idea, why is GM killing off the Chevy Volt? It’s the one electric car that actually did make some practical sense, at least.

400-plus miles without stopping and regardless of the weather (other EVs are badly gimped by extremes of heat and cold). Same time to get back on the road as any other car, too.

Other than all the other electric cars, that is.

The Volt is an electric car you don’t need to plan your life around; that you can just get in and drive – on the spur of the moment – and regardless of the state of the battery pack’s charge. If you forgot to plug it in before you went to bed – or just didn’t have time to wait for it to recharge – no worries.

At all.

So what’s the problem?

Continue reading

This Election Mattered, by Eric Peters

The government is going to force us into its vehicles of choice whether we like or not, and with the Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives, there’s not much we can do about it. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

If you don’t think elections matter, wait about five years.

Then go shopping for a new car.

You will have your choice of a small hybrid car – or an electric car. Because by 2025, all new cars will be required by federal fatwa to average almost 50 miles-per-gallon – nearly twice the current fatwa-mandated average.

And the only cars capable of doing so are small hybrids like the Toyota Prius, Hyundai Ioniq and Kio Niro.

And, of course, electric cars – which burn no gas at all. Well, not directly.

There may still be a few other, non-hybrid cars (and possibly even trucks) but these will have become very artificially expensive – so you probably will not be able to afford one.

Because the Democrats won control of the House.

Continue reading

Obamacare on Wheels, by Eric Peters

If the government has to force us into electric cars, it will do so. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Ferrari just reported a third quarter sales sales uptick of nearly 11 percent, which it attributes to demand for its V8 powered Portofino. Sales of the V12 Superfast rose 7.9 percent. The best-selling three cars in the U.S. are big trucks – the Chevy Silverado, Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram 1500. These are not being produced at bayonet-point, via mandates – and the people buying them don’t need their palms greased as inducements to buy them.

Contrast this with the sales of electric cars so far this year  – of which there were none.

A number of them did change hands, it’s true. But to describe the exchange as a “sale” is to abuse the language, akin to referring to Bruce as “her.”

Continue reading

Making “Investments” in EVs, by Eric Peters

The car industry is all gung ho on electric vehicles…if they can get the government to subsidize them, because their customers aren’t quite as gung ho. From Eric Peters at theburningplatform.com:

The verbiage is interesting. As the country relies ever more on force to coerce, it resorts to soft language to hide what is going on.

For example, this news story about what the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers – which is the lobby for the car industry – is up to. The Alliance published an open letter to nine governors of states it wants to emulate California’s policy of coercively – legislatively – force-feeding electric cars down the throats of a largely uninterested and unwilling buying public.

It’s not put that way in the letter, of course. Nor the news articles about it – the journalists who write them having learned to parrot the oleaginous verbiage of coercion, whether consciously or not.

The open letter – and the news stories – talk about “encouraging the governors to follow California’s lead” and the need to “commit resources” and make “investments” in electric cars – because of course the free market isn’t interested in committing its resources or making such investments. So what is actually meant by the verbiage is that the car industry – speaking as one through its lobbying arm – wants to see laws and regulations like those in force in California imposed by force (how else are laws ad regulations imposed?)  in other states.

The reasoning is perfectly understandable.

California is the only electric car “market” – and it is only a “market” because California has artificially created one, via the force and coercion of the California General Assembly and regulatory apparat, including the infamous California Air Resources Board. They have issued various fatwas mandating that electric cars be manufactured and “sold” – even if at a loss. The car companies have thus been forced to commit lots of their resources toward the making of electric cars (or the buying of offsetting “credits” from that electric car carny, Elon Musk) even if they can’t make any money making them.

To continue reading: Making “Investments” in EVs

How to “Sell” an Electric Car . . . by Eric Peters

That most people have to be bribed (“incentivized” in government-speak) to buy an electric car shouldn’t stop the government from continuing to promote them. And if enough people still won’t buy, force them. From Eric Peters at theburningplatform.com:

Electric cars are a great deal  . . . when you get someone else to pay for them. This appears to be the only way to convince anyone to buy one.

BMW recently offered a $54-per-month lease deal on the i3, its $44,450 (to start) electric car. BMW is literally paying people to take one off their hands – and for those who do, it’s one hell of a bargain.

BMW is not the only company selling electric cars this way. They are allbeing sold this way.

Every single one of them is a money-loser . . .  for those making them.

The problem, of course, is that you can’t stay in business for very long paying people to “buy” your stuff. Cue the infamously frank comment by Fiat’s head, Sergio Marchionne – who publicly urged people not to “buy” the electric version of the Fiat 500, which he admitted cost his company $14,000 per sale.

And yet, Fiat continues to make the 500e – just as BMW continues to make the i3. The market (and economics) be damned.

The absurdity of this would be the subject of national laughter (and outrage, in the “environmental community”) if the car companies were paying people to take home $45,000 SUVs for $54 a month. Someone might raise their hand and ask why the car companies, in such a case, don’t just stop building SUVs they can’t get rid of without resorting to paying people to take them off their hands?

Shareholders would gather pitchforks. Heads would roll.     

The usual rule has been: If a car doesn’t sell, you stop making it. The infamous Edsel comes to mind. More recently, the Pontiac Aztek. Imagine the belly laughs if GM refused to throw in the towel, despite obvious lack of interest in the dumpster-on-wheels and just kept on stamping them out – resorting to ever-more-pathetic “deals” in order to unload them.

There would be calls for men in white outfits to visit the Renaissance Center in downtown Detroit – which is GM’s HQ. Take the people on the top floor away for a rest. Come along now. It’ll be all right . . .

To continue reading: How to “Sell” an Electric Car . . .