Tag Archives: electric cars

Thinning the Cadillac Herd, by Eric Peters

For anyone who enjoys the mobility, autonomy, and freedom offered by automobiles, the future looks grim. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Since GM is having trouble selling EVs, it’s not surprising to learn it is buying out the dealerships that can’t sell them.

The trade publication Automotive News reports that GM is offering to pay any of its 880 Cadillac dealers as much as $500,000 to close their doors – in order to leave fewer Cadillac stores, so that when Cadillac “transitions” to selling nothing but EVs by 2030 (there’s that date again) it’ll look like Cadillac is selling more EVs.

Kruschev used the same trick to make Western observers think he had a huge fleet of intercontinental bombers  by flying the same six airplanes in a wide loop over Moscow for their viewing edification.

Meanwhile, the same GM that is paying dealers to close will be increasing what it spends on EV development by 35 percent to $27 billion over the next two years, probably because of the apparent selection of the new El Presidente, who has promised to “mandate” a market for EVs (assuming he doesn’t forget what he promised).

GM CEO Mary Barra is chomping at the bit – or rather, urging American drivers be “mandated” to chomp on the bit: “We are confident that  . . . we can collaboratively find the pathway that will deliver an all-electric future,” she warbled the other day.

This is as remarkable as it is political – as well as contra everything economical.

Continue reading→

Electric Newspeak, by Eric Peters

In the Great Reset, we’ll all be driving electric vehicles we won’t even own, but which will allow the government to track our every move. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

It’s curious that an outfit styled the Zero Emissions Transportation Association – more about them here – is advocating for “national policies to enable 100 percent electric sales in the U.S. by 2030.”

Which just happens to be the same date for implementation of the Agenda of the same appellation.

2030 seems to be the convergence point of our corralling; the date when the gate closes for good and we are all wandering around the company feed lot, awaiting our allotted corn and maybe something else, too.

Own nothing, rent everything!

In other words, they will own us.

“For the first time in a generation, transportation is the leading emitter of U.S. carbon emissions,” claims Joe Britton – who is the spokesmouth for the ZETA. “By embracing EVs, federal policymakers can help drive innovation, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and improve air quality and public health.”

Italics added.

When says embrace he means impose. Hence the need for “national policies” – like those not-asking us to “wear a mask” and to “practice” other forms of Sickness Kabuki, which is all part of Compliance Theater and all part of turning humans into compliant cattle, ready for the feed lot. 

“ZETA’s formation recognizes a pivotal moment for national leadership and reflects the will of the growing clean transportation sector,” he adds.

He means the growing impossibility of not doing otherwise by dint of having to comply with “national policies” that will wax under the regime of “national leadership” – i.e., under the Face Masked Man, who has promised  to cause them to wax should his selection stand.

Continue reading→

Hybrids Waning, by Eric Peters

The hybrid automobile market is dying, done in by massively subsidized competition, although by every virtually every metric, hybrids are better than the competition. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

You may have noticed an interesting thing – which is that hybrids are, like MacArthur, slowly fading away. You don’t see them advertised as much – and they’’re not being built as much. Only a few new hybrids have come out over the past couple of years and it looks like fewer are coming. The 2021 Honda Accord and Toyota Camry are not available in hybrid configuration.

They were in 2020.

Toyota stopped selling the Prius C – the most affordable hybrid on the market – in 2019. The same year Chevy stopped selling the best hybrid ever offered for sale, which was the Volt.

This is odd – if one assumes the point is to reduce “emissions” and increase MPGs. Hybrids excel at both.

They solve the supposed problem.

Their partially running gas-burning engines automatically “emit” half or less the putatively harmful stuff at issue because they aren’t running half the time. And they weren’t “emitting” much to start with – because a hybrid’s engine is a smaller engine than would otherwise be needed to propel the car, the battery and electric motor doing much of the heavy lifting.

The typical hybrid’s mileage, meanwhile, is nearly double that of the current non-hybrid average – in the 50s vs. the 30s. 

Lots of gas is being saved. And a lot less gas is being “emitted.” Problem solved!

Continue reading→

California’s Looming ‘Green New Car Wreck’, by Anthony Watts

The state that doesn’t have enough electricity is mandating electric cars. From Anthony Watts at wattsupwiththat.com:

The numbers don’t pencil out for the future where just 25% of cars in California would be electric.

Governor Newsom announces major climate initiative, September 23, 2020. (Screenshot via California Gavin Newsom)

On September 23, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that will ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars in the Golden State by 2035. Ignoring the hard lessons of this past summer, when California’s solar- and wind-reliant electric grid underwent rolling blackouts, Newsom now adds a huge new burden to the grid in the form electric vehicle charging. If California officials follow through and enforce Newsom’s order, the result will be a green new car version of a train wreck.

Let’s run some numbers. According to Statista, there are more than 15 million vehicles registered in California. Per the U.S. Department of Energy, there are only 256,000 electric vehicles registered in the state—just 1.7 percent of all vehicles.

Using the Tesla Model3 mid-range model as a baseline for an electric car, you’ll need to use about 62 kilowatt-hours (KWh) of power to charge a standard range Model 3 battery to full capacity. It will take about eight hours to fully charge it at home using the standard Tesla NEMA 14-50 charger.

Now, let’s assume that by 2040, five years after the mandate takes effect, also assuming no major increase in the number of total vehicles, California manages to increase the number of electric vehicles to 25 percent of the total vehicles in the state. If each vehicle needs an average of 62 kilowatt-hours for a full charge, then the total charging power required daily would be 3,750,000 x 62 KWh, which equals 232,500,000 KWh, or 232.5 gigawatt-hours (GWh) daily.

Continue reading→

Living Red Barchetta, by Eric Peters

To make electric cars more “competitive” in the marketplace, the government will just petroleum powered cars prohibitively expensive. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

California’s Gesundheitsguv Gavin Newsome just decreed what the rock band Rush foresaw coming back in 1981.

The Motor Law.

The song described a future time in which all cars were outlawed. Newsome just outlawed the sale of cars that aren’t electric by 2035, which is much closer to now than ’81 is the rearview.   

And which amounts to the same thing.

Newsome didn’t decree that people in California who do not buy electric cars will be forced to turn in their non-electric ones after 2035.

They probably won’t be forced to turn them in.

It’s much easier to tax them in.

As in China – the model for what the United States is becoming, courtesy of the China Virus, as the Orange Man styles it (while not doing enough to treat it – as by ending the Face Diaper Farce, by taking off the Face Diaper, especially around corpses secured inside coffins).

In China, you don’t have to buy an electric car. But you do have to buy a $14,000 license plate if you want to legally drive a non-electric car. This sum approximates the price difference between a low-end EV and low-end IC.

In the U.S., the analog would be the difference between the 2020 Nissan Leaf EV (appx. $30k) vs. the 2020 Nissan Versa IC (appx. $15k). A $14k license plate tax applied t the Versa would makes it equivalently expensive. And thus make the Leaf “competitive” – in the manner of breaking a marathon runner’s legs so that a paraplegic can be competitive with him in a foot race.

The license plate tax applied to not-new cars would cut deeper.

Imagine having to cough up $14k – or even $4k – to register your ten-year-old non-electric car that’s only worth $10k (or $4k). And worth even less, actually, because who will want to buy your used IC car knowing they’ll have to spend an additional 50 percent or even more to get a license plate for it?

Continue reading→

 

The Making of a Market, by Eric Peters

Where does a state governor get the power to wave a wand and decree that by 2035, there will be no gas powered cars on the roads? From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Well, the other shoes has dropped. We now know how a “market” for electric cars will be created.

It will be done by outlawing the market for cars that aren’t electric.

Having trouble selling Tab?

Forbid the sale of Coke and Pepsi!

California Governor (and Gesundheitsfuhrer) Gavin Newsome has simply decreed – via “executive order” – that anything that isn’t “zero emissions” (at the tailpipe) must be “phased out” by 2035. This means only electric cars since they are the only vehicles considered to be “zero “emissions” by the regs – no matter their elsewhere emissions – including the substantial carbon dioxide “emissions” produced by the utility plants that generate the electricity they run on.

Which there will be more of when the only cars permitted on California roads are electric. But never mind. It feels good – to the Gesundheitsguv – like the wearing of any old rag to “stop the spread” of a virus you haven’t got.

The effects will also be felt a lot sooner than fifteen years from now.

And not just in California, either.

The car companies are going to stop putting R&D money toward cars they can’t sell in California – the biggest market for cars in the country – and toward the ones they’ll be forced to sell.  

In other states, too. Because it’s likely at least some will follow California’s lead – having their own Gesundheitsguvs in charge.

Development of new non-electric cars nationally will stagnate.

The ones that remain in production will sell for more, to offset the costs of developing electric cars. The more states that force-electrify, the more expensive the non-electric car will become – until the goal is achieved of making the non-electric car at least as expensive as electric cars.

Continue reading→

 

Benz Gets Dieseled, by Eric Peters

The government wants to force diesel cars off the market and promote electric cars, as Mercedes Benz is finding out. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

It’s not just VW’s diesels that were targeted for termination. Mercedes has also found itself in the crosshairs – allegedly for the same reason, i.e., “cheating” on government emissions certification tests. In fact, for selling cars that posed an existential threat to the electric car.

There is no other reasonable explanation.

Car companies are routinely choke-chained for running afoul of various regulatory ukase; mostly, though, it’s not a garish public inquisition and ruinous fines are not applied. As an example, the treatment meted out to Ford over the Pinto’s tendency to burst into flames if hit just right in the tail (the actual number of fires was low relative to the huge number of Pintos built). In that case, there were actual victims – i.e., human beings actually killed.

Not many – but some, at least.

Which was enough to justify action by any reasonable standard.

Neither VW nor Mercedes diesels have actually harmed anyone – let alone killed anyone. The unreasonable basis for VW’s persecution, which far exceeded the fury felt by Ford over the Pinto’s tendency to cremate its occupants.

Harm has, of course, been asserted.

But one can also assert that the WuFlu Bogeyman will get you – and that wearing a dirty old bandana “face covering” will keep him at bay.

It says nothing about the truth of the assertion.

Nonetheless, VW was practically totaled – by fines amounting to tens of billions of dollars – and forced to fund its own public excoriation and signal the virtue of its government-mandated “competition” – the EV – via cringeworthy TeeVee spots.

Continue reading→

 

Higher Gas Mileage – No Matter What it Costs You, by Eric Peters

The government proposes and you pay. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

A court just ordered that you will pay more to use less gas.

The court did not put it quite that way, of course – courts specializing in not putting things directly, much less honestly.

Like the government – which the courts serve.

The issue at hand was whether car companies should be triple fined by the government for not “complying” with regulatory decrees pertaining to how many miles the cars they make can travel on a gallon of gas. And how much higher those minimums are to be – as well as how soon.

The mandatory minimum number of miles new cars must travel per gallon – or else –  has been increasing each decade since the ’70s, when the government first got into the business of telling car companies how far their cars must go – and how much you’ll pay to get there.

These MPG mandates – and attendant fines for not meeting them – cost you in other ways, too. They killed off large family sedans and station wagons, which were replaced by large SUVs and pick-ups which cost much more than the extincted-by-the-regs large family sedans and wagons. For a time, trucks and SUVs were subject to lower mandatory MPG minimums by an accident of regulatory categorization – they were “light trucks” rather than “passenger cars” – and so the car industry built more of the former to satisfy the market demand for the latter, thwarted by the regs.

But the government caught up – and that’s why trucks and SUVs got so expensive. They are going to become largely unaffordable – and so, very scarce.

Continue reading→

Electric Gaslighting, by Eric Peters

We’re going to have electric cars, whether we want them or not, because the government wants us to have them. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

General Motors is pressuring its dealers to “commit” to spending hugs sums of their money on equipment and facilities to make GM’s electric cars more palatable to buyers. Which begs the question almost no one covering electric cars ever brings up.

Probably because of the answer.

If there were buyers for the electric cars GM is making, dealers wouldn’t need to be pressured to invest in such things as fast chargers and other EV-specific equipment, since these things would result in making money.

As opposed to wasting it.

Dealers willingly add additional bays, hire more staff, buy diagnostic equipment, spruce up their showrooms – and so on – when it is in their financial interests to do so. Dealerships being in business  . . . as opposed to the political business.

Which is what EVs are all about.

GM – and everyone else, including Tesla – makes electric cars because of politics. Because of political mandates to make them. And to “sell” them – in air quotes to emphasize the fact that all electric cars are given away in that any money made off the transaction is purely the result of various wealth transfer schemes, such as subsidies and “credits” – in quotes to emphasize the fact that they are extortions. Tesla – the greatest practitioner of this art form – uses the political mandates to make EVs to extort money from other car companies that do not make them; they pay Tesla money to get “credit” for making them, which is easier than actually making EVs themselves and then having to figure out how to get rid of them.

Continue reading→

The Dirty Secrets Of ‘Clean’ Electric Vehicles, by Tilak Doshi

Clean and green is nowhere near as clean and green as they’re cracked up to be. From Tilak Doshi at forbes.com:

The widespread view that fossil fuels are “dirty” and renewables such as wind and solar energy and electric vehicles are “clean” has become a fixture of mainstream media and policy assumptions across the political spectrum in developed countries, perhaps with the exception of the Trump-led US administration. Indeed the ultimate question we are led to believe is how quickly can enlightened Western governments, led by an alleged scientific consensus, “decarbonize” with clean energy in a race to save the world from impending climate catastrophe. The ‘net zero by 2050’ mantra, calling for carbon emissions to be completely mitigated within three decades, is now the clarion call by governments and intergovernmental agencies around the developed world, ranging from several EU member states and the UK, to the International Energy Agency and the International Monetary Fund.

Mining out of sight, out of mind

Let’s start with Elon Musk’s Tesla. In an astonishing achievement for a company that has now posted four consecutive quarters of profits, Tesla is now the world’s most valuable automotive company. Demand for EVs is set to soar, as government policies subsidize the purchase of EVs to replace the internal combustion engine of gasoline and diesel-driven cars and as owning a “clean” and “green” car becomes a moral testament to many a virtue-signaling customer.

Yet, if one looks under the hood of “clean energy” battery-driven EVs, the dirt found would surprise most. The most important component in the EV is the lithium-ion rechargeable battery which relies on critical mineral commodities such as cobalt, graphite, lithium, and manganese. Tracing the source of these minerals, in what is called “full-cycle economics”, it becomes apparent that EVs create a trail of dirt from the mining and processing of minerals upstream.

Continue reading→