Six pounds of gas or 1000 pounds of battery will take a small car 40 miles down the road. We’re being told the latter is more efficient and therefore better for the environment. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautso.com:
The saying goes that size matters – but weight matters more. If you want to go far. This is why EVs don’t. Even the really little ones – like Chevy’s Bolt, which is even smaller than a subcompact car like the Hyundai Accent – only go about half as far as their size-equivalents. Viz, 259 miles for the 3,589 lb. Bolt vs. 487 (on the highway) for the 2,679 lb. Accent.
That’s because a gallon of gas weighs about six pounds, which means a full tank of gas (12 gallons) in the Accent weighs 72 pounds. A great deal of energy is stored in those 72 gallons of gasoline – or even just six pounds. One gallon will power a car like the Accent some 40 miles down the highway and part of the reason for that is that as you burn it, there is less of it – and so, less weight to keep moving. After a car like the Accent has used up half a tank – about six gallons – it is carrying around half the fuel weight it began the trip with.
It takes a great deal more weight – that is never shed – to power an EV the same distance. A small EV like the Bolt is weighed down by the gas tank equivalent of about 1,000 pounds of battery pack – and in fact, it’s not equivalent, because the Bolt would probably need another several hundred pounds of battery pack to be capable of powering its electric motor for nearly 500 highway miles.
But for the sake of this discussion, let’s assume an equivalence.
Both companies now specialize in turning out woke, green products and ideologies. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:
Try to imagine the famous chase scenes in Bullitt or the French Connection running silent. Burt Reynolds quietly backing up the black and gold “Bandit” Trans-Am out of the semi, without the sound of the 6.6 liter Pontiac V8 accompanying. Not hearing the tire-chirping first-to-second gear change after he picks up Sally Field, either.
Well, if you can’t, don’t worry. You’ll soon be seeing it.
If you’re watching it.
GM – which is no longer an American car company but rather a “global company focused on advancing an all-electric future that is inclusive and accessible to all” – has partnered with another purveyor of Wokeness, Netflix, to “give electric vehicles (EVs) the stage they deserve, reflecting society’s increasing excitement about an all-electric future.”
Daniel Șturbuleac sums it up pretty well: EVs are a scam. Especially in less affluent countries that can’t afford this nonsense. From Șturbuleac at lewrockwell.com:
On the perfection of the free-market
While I was doing my biweekly commute I couldn’t help myself notice, from time to time, a stranded car leaning on the side of the road. It usually was an older (about twenty-year-old) German car, but sometimes newer cars also.
Although I carry with myself in the trunk of my coupe a set of basic tools for quick repairs (just in case), all that is needed for a tire change (never used them on road) and some fluids, I needn’t stop to help those folks. Because, as I drove some additional miles, I almost always noticed a vividly-colored ramp truck going to the site of the intervention, to either carry the stranded ones and their car to the nearest service (where proper tools and specialists may diagnose and fix the problems) or, for simpler problems, solving them on-site for a small charge (small, as in comparison to having to call a friend from far away or stop incoming traffic and ask for help).
In my country, there are a large number of second-hand cars imported from various European countries, mostly for their affordable prices and reliability. In a developing country, having access to cheap means of transportation is a primary factor for development. People do not care of pollution, and why would they, when their car allows them going to the market or a distant supermarket or hardware store to purchase or unload bread, vegetables, construction materials and other commodities, in order to make a profit. Or to safely embark on a driving trip, or to just drive the kids to school. For a lack of regulations allow the progress of a society.
There’s no end to the alternative automotive technologies that could be invented and marketed if the entire industry wasn’t being pushed down the electric cattle chute. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:
It’s interesting that one rarely hears about “alternative” fuels now that we are being herded into having no alternative . . . to “electrification.” This tells us that the point of the thing was always the elimination of alternatives.
Every rent-seeking business desires exactly that.
Recall the words of John D. Rockefeller, who infamously said that “competition is a sin.” The government agrees. It is why the government does not allow it – as regards itself. There is no alternative to it. One size-force-fits all. Corporations – which are creatures of the government that have come to own the government – like that very much as well. It is why they are “all in” on “electrification” – and the elimination of alternatives to it. For they control and profit from it.
What do you suppose it will cost to buy an EV when there is no alternative to buying (and using) EVs? How much do you suppose electricity – to feed the EV and to heat your dinner and your home – will cost when there is no alternative “fuel” available to apply cost/convenience pressure?
The intention – the final goal – ought by now to be as obvious as the intention (and final goal) as regards “masks” and those drugs they’ve been pushing as the sole alternative, too.
If you need more clarity consider the way alternatives such as hybrids and high-efficiency diesels have gone from being cheered and promoted to pariahs (in the case of diesels) and dismissed (in the case of hybrids). How much have you heard, for instance, about the just-redesigned Toyota Prius? As opposed to how much you have been hearing the latest six-figure EV like the GM Hummer or Tesla’s Cybertruck?
The new Prius averages close to 60 MPG and can probably reach that if driven gently. It can go 600-plus miles in between fill-ups and it can be filled up in about three minutes since its tank holds just 11 gallons of gas.
Its base price is also just $27,450 – or about $20k less than a base model Tesla3.
EV manufacturers can make all sorts of exaggerated claims about their cars, but the regulatory apparatus comes down hard on any mistakes made by the internal combustion carmakers. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:
The FDA says nothing – truthful – about the drugs it pushes on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry that controls the FDA through revolving door appointments to its high offices (among other methods) so why should it be surprising that the EPA says nothing about the dishonest way electric vehicle range/mileage is advertised?
Leave that to the South Koreans – who still apparently have a regulatory apparat that isn’t a wholly owned subsidiary of the industry it regulates.
The country’s Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) just laid a $2.2 million fine on Tesla for “exaggerating the driving range of its cars on a single charge, their fuel-cost effectiveness compared to gasoline vehicles as well as the performance of its Superchargers,” the latter a reference to the so-called “fast” chargers that always take much longer to partially charge an EV than a gas pump takes to fill up a non-EV.
These are, of course, facts.
What’s interesting – and corollary – is the willful avoidance of addressing them, in the U.S. By the U.S. regulatory apparat. The same apparat that went medieval on VW for claiming its diesel-powered cars were “clean” when they were only 99.7 percent “clean” rather than 99.8 percent “clean” and also went after Hyundai nearly as mercilessly when the company claimed some of its cars delivered 40 miles-per-gallon when in fact they returned closer to 37.
The U.S. auto industry is entering one of its biggest factory-building booms in years, a surge of spending largely driven by the shift to electric vehicles and new federal subsidies aimed at boosting U.S. battery manufacturing.
The 11-month total adds to the $37 billion in new auto-factory spending committed in 2021, when a number of new projects were revealed in states such as Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan. The annual figure is up from $9 billion in 2017 and a more than eightfold increase from two decades ago, the center found.
The race by auto makers to populate their lineups with electric vehicles is the biggest factor behind the factory-spending spree. The federal climate package passed in 2022 is likely to further accelerate U.S. investment, earmarking tens of billions of dollars to subsidize EV and battery factory projects, as well as facilities for processing battery materials such as lithium and graphite.
Some foreign-owned car companies are targeting the U.S. for expansions, an offset to weakness in other global markets. Meanwhile, freshly capitalized EV startups, including Rivian Automotive Inc., are building out their manufacturing capabilities.
Rivian, which began building vehicles in Illinois in 2021, has committed to a second factory in Georgia to open in 2026. Hyundai Motor Co. has revealed plans for a $5.5 billion factory complex in the state, as well.
The Inflation Reduction Act further hastened efforts to increase domestic output. It offers billions of dollars in manufacturer incentives for domestic battery production, and limits a federal tax credit for EV buyers to vehicles with batteries and their mineral components sourced in North America or from trade-friendly countries.
In the past year, General Motors Co. opened a new battery factory with LG Energy Solution in Ohio and is developing two more, in Tennessee and Michigan.
Panasonic Holdings Corp. said over the summer that it would build a $4 billion battery factory in De Soto, Kan. Ford, Toyota Motor Corp. and Jeep-owner Stellantis N.V. also have multibillion-dollar battery-factory projects in progress.
SLL HAS MANY OF THE SMARTEST AND BEST INFORMED READERS ON THE INTERNET. IT REQUIRES TIME AND EFFORT TO MAINTAIN THE SITE AND FEATURE THE ARTICLES YOU WANT TO READ. PLEASE CONSIDER MAKING A PAYMENT AS COMPENSATION FOR THE VALUE YOU RECEIVE FROM SLL. THANKS.