MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘EV’

EVs In Chicago Are No Match For Polar Vortex

Posted by M. C. on January 20, 2024

What happens when you let government do your homework.

Tyler Durden's Photo

by Tyler Durden

Average temperatures across the Chicago metro area plunged below zero this week. 

Resulting in a double whammy for electric vehicle owners: paralyzed charging networks and battery degradation because of the cold blast. 

“This is crazy. This is a disaster.”

Electric Vehicle owners find out the hard way what it means to go electric during Chicago’s harsh winter.

Can’t imagine why the EV market isn’t taking off.pic.twitter.com/1jRbsFX5L8 — Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) January 17, 2024

One woman complained she was stranded because one charging station “was all broken.”

POV: Owning an EV in Chicago… pic.twitter.com/420Q1X2tq1 — Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) January 19, 2024

“When it’s cold like this, cars aren’t functioning well, chargers aren’t functioning well, and people don’t function so well either,” Javed Spencer, an Uber driver, told The New York Times. He said he’s worried about being stranded again with his Chevy Bolt. 

For years, the Davos elites have pitched to the masses about a ‘green’ new world of EVs and how nothing could go wrong. But these elites are not fortune tellers and are sometimes very wrong in their predictions, as EVs are no match for a polar vortex. 

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

AOC Wants To Sell Her Tesla For Union-Made EV

Posted by M. C. on September 25, 2023

AOC’s move is about all optics as UAW strikes intensify and Democrats continue their crusade against billionaire Elon Musk.

According to Cars.com, the most American-made vehicles are the Model Y, Model 3, Model X, and Model S – all produced by Tesla. 

Occasional-Cortex strikes again. Someone should tell her this new EV will cost a lot more after the strike. Then again, it would provide a handy excuse to blame capitalism.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/aoc-wants-sell-her-tesla-union-made-ev

by Tyler Durden

To remain relevant this week as President Biden heads to the picket line to support United Auto Workers, ultra-liberal New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday that she intends to trade her non-union-made Tesla for a union-backed Ford, General Motors, or Stellantis electric vehicle. 

When asked about her non-union-made Model 3 purchase during the pandemic, AOC said she’s “looking into trading in our car now.” She added, “So we’re looking into it, and hopefully we will soon.” 

.@AOC says she drives a non-union-made Tesla because she purchased it during the pandemic, “prior to some of the new models” of electric vehicles that are now available.

“We’re actually looking into trading in our car now,” she says.

“Hopefully we will soon.” pic.twitter.com/69LrefYv01 — Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) September 24, 2023

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

3 Reasons There’s Something Sinister With the Big Push for Electric Vehicles

Posted by M. C. on September 9, 2023

The current and future grid in most places will not be able to support each home running 25 refrigerators—not even close. Just look at California, where the grid is already buckling under the existing load.

EVs are spying machines. They collect an unimaginable amount of data on you, which governments can access easily.

by Nick Giambruno

Electric Vehicles

25 refrigerators.

That’s how much the additional electricity consumption per household would be if the average US home adopted electric vehicles (EVs).

Congressman Thomas Massie—an electrical engineer—revealed this information while discussing with Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, President Biden’s plan to have 50% of cars sold in the US be electric by 2030.

The current and future grid in most places will not be able to support each home running 25 refrigerators—not even close. Just look at California, where the grid is already buckling under the existing load.

Massie claims, correctly, in my view, that the notion of widespread adoption of electric vehicles anytime soon is a dangerous fantasy based on political science, not sound engineering.

Nonetheless, governments, the media, academia, large corporations, and celebrities tout an imminent “transition” to EVs as if it’s preordained from above.

It’s not.

They’re trying to manufacture your consent for a scam of almost unimaginable proportions.

Below are three reasons why something sinister is going on with the big push for EVs.

But first, a necessary clarification.

You no doubt have heard of the term “fossil fuels” before.

When the average person hears “fossil fuels,” they think of a dirty technology that belongs in the 1800s. Many believe they are burning dead dinosaurs to power their cars.

They also think “fossil fuels” will destroy the planet within a decade and run out soon—despite the fact that, after water, oil is the second most abundant liquid on this planet.

None of these ridiculous notions are true, but many people believe them. Using propaganda terms like “fossil fuels” plays a large role.

Orwell was correct when he said that corrupting the language can corrupt people’s thoughts.

I suggest expunging “fossil fuels” from your vocabulary in favor of hydrocarbons—a much better and more precise word.

A hydrocarbon is a molecule made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms. These molecules are the building blocks of many different substances, including energy sources like coal, oil, and gas. These energy sources have been the backbone of the global economy for decades, providing power for industries, transportation, and homes.

Now, on to the three reasons EVs are a giant scam at best and possibly something much worse.

Reason #1: EVs Are Not Green

The central premise for EVs is they help to save the planet from carbon because they use electricity instead of gas.

It’s astounding so few think to ask, what generates the electricity that powers EVs?

Hydrocarbons generate over 60% of the electricity in the US. That means there’s an excellent chance that oil, coal, or gas is behind the electricity charging an EV.

It’s important to emphasize carbon is an essential element for life on this planet. It’s what humans exhale and what plants need to survive.

After decades of propaganda, Malthusian hysterics have created a twisted perception in many people’s minds that carbon is a dangerous substance that must be reduced to save the planet.

Let’s entertain this bogus premise momentarily and assume carbon is bad.

Even by this logic, EVs do not really reduce carbon emissions; they just rearrange them.

Further, extracting and processing the exotic materials needed to make EVs requires tremendous power in remote locations, which only hydrocarbons can provide.

Additionally, EVs require an enormous amount of rare elements and metals—like lithium and cobalt—that companies mine in conditions that couldn’t remotely be considered friendly to the environment.

Analysts estimate that each EV requires around one kilogram of rare earth elements. Extracting and processing these rare elements produces a massive amount of toxic waste. That’s why it mainly occurs in China, which doesn’t care much about environmental concerns.

In short, the notion that EVs are green is laughable.

It’s simply the thin patina of propaganda that governments need as a pretext to justify the astronomical taxpayer subsidies for EVs.

Reason #2: EVs Can’t Compete Without Government Support

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Bespoke’d New Car – EPautos – Libertarian Car Talk

Posted by M. C. on April 14, 2023

In the case of EVs, there is the addition force of . . . force.

The regulatory apparat has assured that only the Bespoke’d will be in a position to make – and to buy cars. This no doubt suits the Bespoke’d, who have long resented that the non-Bespoke’d could afford the same as the Bespoke’d crowd could. It is not as distinctive to own a car when anyone can.

Which is ultimately what it’s all about.

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2023/04/12/the-new-car-as-a-luxury-item/

By eric

New cars sales are way down – by millions of vehicles annually – but that hasn’t caused new car prices to go down accordingly. In fact, they have gone up – a lot. The average price paid for a new car last year was almost $50,000 – which is both a record high and about $15,000 more than it was just three years ago.

Two factors are driving this.

The first is “electrification,” which is expensive. And becoming more so.

There are more expensive EVs on the market now than there were three years ago, when Tesla was pretty much the only one making them in significant numbers. Now almost every car company is making them, because they have to make them. Well, it’s true that they could decide not to make them – but that would take courage, in short supply in corporate boardrooms these days. Instead, the impetus is compliance. Go along to get along – and pretend it will all keep going, somehow.

Which it did – for awhile – for as long as interest rates remained low and inflation did, too.

A six year loan on a $50,000 car was feasible when the cost of money – interest – was essentially nothing. It was almost an investment to take out a loan. But the cost of money is now three times-plus what it was just a couple of years ago, which has made what was feasible and not financially irresponsible increasingly impossible.

A monthly payment that was $600 is now $800 – and the money available to make the payments has diminished in buying power by at least 10-15 percent, courtesy of what is often inaccurately called “inflation” – effectively increasing the actual monthly cost of the loan to nearer $1,000.

This will inevitably reduce new car sales even more as there are fewer and fewer people who can manage the payments on a $50,000 car.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Not ESG-Friendly: Insurers Junk Entire EVs For Minor Accidents | ZeroHedge

Posted by M. C. on March 21, 2023

“If you throw away the vehicle at an early stage, you’ve lost pretty much all advantage in terms of CO2 emissions,” he said.

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/not-esg-friendly-insurers-junk-entire-evs-minor-accidents

Tyler Durden's Photo

BY TYLER DURDEN

It’s a surprise that Reuters has published an article revealing that the electric vehicle revolution might not be as environmentally friendly as automakers claim. Furthermore, a scratched or slightly damaged battery pack could lead insurance companies to scrap the entire car.

“We’re buying electric cars for sustainability reasons,” Matthew Avery, research director at automotive risk intelligence company Thatcham Research, said. 

Avery pointed out, “an EV isn’t very sustainable if you’ve got to throw the battery away after a minor collision.” 

A Tesla battery pack costs tens of thousands of dollars and represents a large percentage of the vehicle’s price tag. Insurance companies have found that it’s uneconomical to replace battery packs if damaged. 

Many automotive manufacturers, including Tesla, have made battery packs a structural part of the car to reduce cost products but have shifted costs to consumers and insurers when batteries need to be replaced. 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

EV’s Now More Expensive Than Gas Vehicles To Operate

Posted by M. C. on January 30, 2023

‘Between mileage taxes, crashing power grids and ever increasing electricity rates, this is just the beginning.’

Maybe, maybe not but his other comments on free market and government are spot on.

https://rumble.com/v27oxel-evs-now-more-expensive-than-gas-vehicles-to-operate..html

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

TGIF: Double-Rigging of the Auto Market | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on December 17, 2021

Finally, we might welcome tax credits because they provide a chance to keep more of our money, but this principle is a snare and a delusion.  The power to tax (that is, steal) is bad enough without it also being a politician’s tool to manipulate market outcomes. That only adds injury to injury.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tgif-rigging-auto-market/

by Sheldon Richman

U.S. government interference with our lives often resembles a Russian matryoshka doll: regulation is nested in more regulation. Take the provision of Biden’s pending Build Back Better bill that would create a big tax credit for people who buy U.S.-built electric vehicles (EV).

Not only would the government distort the domestic auto market by rigging it in favor of electric vehicles over conventional ones, but it also would rig the EV market, Trump-style, in favor of U.S.-made products. This implies that “foreign” EVs are so attractive to American buyers that the domestic offerings need help from the state to compete. That’s an argument against the provision right there. If the vehicles that American companies and workers turn out aren’t what American buyers would want to buy without subsidies, the manufacturers shouldn’t be protected from that important information.

Why not? Because markets exist for consumers and not for producers. Makers of trade policy have no political incentive to operate on that principle because manufacturers of a given product can easily organize for government protection of their livelihoods and reward the politicians who do their bidding. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for consumers, who have too many other things to worry about. Any kind of trade restrictions hurt them because prices will be higher and product variety will be constrained, especially if a trade war breaks out through tit-for-tat retaliation.

Trade wars end up hurting producers as well, of course. Even without a trade war, when Americans buy less from foreigners, foreigners, having less money, will buy less from Americans and other foreigners. The bad effects ripple globally.

Understandably, electric-vehicle makers in Canada and Mexico are especially upset. Who could blame them? The San Diego Union-Tribune reports, “Canada and Mexico worry the provision would lead to dramatic reductions in EVs purchased in their respective countries and violates the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, the trade pact the three countries passed last year to replace NAFTA.”

So much for the alleged free-trade zone of North America.

But things are not quite so simple as the provision’s backers make out, demonstrating that Donald Trump had no monopoly on willful ignorance about the reality of trade. The inhabitants of the United States, Canada, and Mexico do more than trade finished consumer goods with each other. For many years North America has been a single highly integrated market for producers’ goods.

According to the Union-Tribune, Canada’s consul general for Southern California, Nevada, and Arizona, Zaib Shaikh, points out that, in the newspaper’s words, “Determining the country of origin of a given vehicle is complicated because the auto industry of the three North American countries has become so highly integrated.”

In other words, It’s not clear what an American, Canadian, or Mexican EV is exactly. “’When you think about vehicles assembled in Canada, they’re actually 50 percent U.S.-made,’ Shaikh said, ‘because the supply chain works so that things are crossed over six or seven times across the border’ before a vehicle is finally assembled.”

It’s hardly the first time that the authors and backers of legislation were ignorant about the thing they sought to regulate.

As already noted, tilting the market toward American manufacturers, even if that were possible today, is not the only objectionable feature of the provision. The provision also aims at tilting the market toward EVs and against vehicles with internal combustion engines. EV purchasers would gain $12,500 in tax credits by 2027. This is in pursuit of the Biden administration’s goal of cutting carbon-dioxide emissions 50-54 percent from the 2005 level by 2030 and reaching net-zero emissions across the economy by 2050.

Those targets are important for many people on the fallacious grounds that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that is ruinously warming the climate when in fact it is plant food that is greening the earth and bringing other palpable benefits to mankind. (Thanks to technology, the real pollutants in gasoline are already controlled in today’s clean cars.)

To the extent that human-generated CO2 emissions through the use of fossil fuels have contributed to mild global warming since the Industrial Revolution began, they have helped to improve the lives of human beings everywhere by making the natural world more hospitable. During this time, population, life expectancy, and per-capita wealth have grown, while extreme poverty, infant mortality, and deaths from weather extremes have plummeted. Cold kills more people than heat, and the longer growing seasons made possible by warming help feed the world’s nearly 8 billion people at a lower cost.

For the foreseeable future, nothing will be able to compete with fossil fuels in providing reliable, inexpensive, and abundant energy — something billions of people in the developing world desperately need if they are to achieve the living standards that we in the West take for granted.

So rigging the market in favor of electric vehicles is a dumb idea.

Finally, we might welcome tax credits because they provide a chance to keep more of our money, but this principle is a snare and a delusion.  The power to tax (that is, steal) is bad enough without it also being a politician’s tool to manipulate market outcomes. That only adds injury to injury.

About Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman is the executive editor of The Libertarian Institute, senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society, and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com. He is the former senior editor at the Cato Institute and Institute for Humane Studies, former editor of The Freeman, published by the Foundation for Economic Education, and former vice president at the Future of Freedom Foundation. His latest books are Coming to Palestine and What Social Animals Owe to Each Other.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

You Were Warned: Automakers Team Up With Biden To Force Electric Cars On Consumers – Issues & Insights

Posted by M. C. on August 7, 2021

A Manhattan Institute study found that “Optimists forecast that the number of EVs in the world will rise from today’s nearly 4 million to 400 million in two decades. A world with 400 million EVs by 2040 would decrease global oil demand by barely 6%.”

That’s to say nothing of the fact that battery manufacturing at the scale needed would have its own huge environmental impacts, and the phenomenal increase in demand for electricity would come at a time when Biden is also trying to force power companies to abandon fossil fuels.

For climate alarmists, this is a dream worth pursuing. For automakers, it signals their complete surrender to government autocrats. For everyone else, it will just be a nightmare.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/08/06/you-were-warned-automakers-team-up-with-biden-to-force-electric-cars-on-consumers/

I & I Editorial Board

n eight years, half of American car buyers will be forced to purchase overpriced, underperforming electric cars they don’t want, courtesy of the federal government and a compliant auto industry. That, at least, is what President Joe Biden announced at the White House on Thursday, and it’s just as we predicted in this space three months ago.

With a wave of his pen, Biden ordered that 50% of new cars and trucks sold by 2030 are to be electric. Since the auto companies already have their 2022 model year cars in production, that means they have less than eight years to figure out how to comply with the most massive, disruptive, and anti-consumer mandate ever to come out of Washington.

The automakers have only themselves to blame for that. As we noted in early May, they’d already caved to the green police and announced ambitious plans to electrify their fleets, even though consumers have little interest in buying battery-powered cars.

Despite massive taxpayer rebates handed out to electric car buyers, a multitude of subsidized recharging stations, and the constant talk about how electric automobiles will save the planet, sales of plug-ins accounted for a tiny 2% of all cars sold in the U.S. last year.

GM sold twice as many of its gas-guzzling Silverado pickups in 2020 as the combined sales of every company’s electric cars. Electric vehicles, in other words, are still very much a niche product. And for good reason. Owning one means hunting for recharging stations, waiting interminably for the battery to recharge, and confining yourself to short trips – shorter still if you have to turn on the A/C or the heater.

It’s the impracticality of these cars that explains why a fifth of electric vehicle owners in California reported trading them in for automobiles with good-old internal combustion engines.

Given this strong consumer disinterest, the only way automakers could justify dumping massive amounts of money into electric car R&D was on the promise that the government would require Americans to buy them. We said that:

If consumers continue to flock to the remaining gas-powered cars available to them, the only way to stop such ‘misbehavior’ would be to have the government outlaw the sale of such cars.

Sure enough, that’s just what happened on Thursday, when in coordination with the White House, General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis (the company that now owns what’s left of Chrysler) announced “their shared aspiration to achieve sales of 40-50% of annual U.S. volumes of electric vehicle by 2030 in order to move the nation closer to a zero-emissions future.”

Honda, BMW, Volkswagen, and Volvo issued a separate statement singing the praises of Biden’s draconian mandate, as did the beleaguered dictator in training also known as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said that “the climate emergency demands no less.”

These auto giants admit full well that a “dramatic shift” the electric car sales from 2% today to 50% in a relative blink of an eye won’t be driven by consumer demand.

In fact, the Big Three U.S. automakers state that this massive transition “can be achieved only by the timely deployment of the full suite of electrification policies committed to by the (Biden) administration in the Build Back Better Plan, including purchase incentives, a comprehensive charging network of sufficient density to support the millions of vehicles these targets represent, investments in R&D, and incentives to expand the electric vehicle manufacturing and supply chains in the United States.”

In other words, massive taxpayer subsidies. Biden wants to dump $174 billion – with a B – to pay for subsidies, grants, and tax incentives to car buyers, to build electric charging stations, and to replace the entire federal fleet of cars and trucks, including all those used by the already financially desperate U.S. Postal Service.

So, what Biden and the industry are teaming up to accomplish will not only harm consumers, who will be denied the full range of choices they have now, but also taxpayers, who will have to pay for an unprecedented experiment in industrial policy.

And for what? What will all this disruption, inconvenience, cost, and taxpayer money gain us?

Absolutely nothing.

Even if Biden were to achieve this dream, working arm-in-arm in fascistic fashion with automakers, it would barely make a dent in global oil demand and have no measurable impact on global temperatures.

A Manhattan Institute study found that “Optimists forecast that the number of EVs in the world will rise from today’s nearly 4 million to 400 million in two decades. A world with 400 million EVs by 2040 would decrease global oil demand by barely 6%.”

That’s to say nothing of the fact that battery manufacturing at the scale needed would have its own huge environmental impacts, and the phenomenal increase in demand for electricity would come at a time when Biden is also trying to force power companies to abandon fossil fuels.

For climate alarmists, this is a dream worth pursuing. For automakers, it signals their complete surrender to government autocrats. For everyone else, it will just be a nightmare.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Nobody Hipped Me to That . . . – EPautos – Libertarian Car Talk

Posted by M. C. on December 22, 2020

These batteries – EV batteries – are also enormous, mainly because people expect an EV to duplicate (at least) the performance capabilities of a non-electric car. To do that requires about 1,000 pounds of batteries on average, which orders-of-magnitude increases the raw materials demand that goes into batteries, as well as the energy required to make the batteries, which are among the least renewable (in terms of what goes into making them) things on the market.

You have probably heard of “Peak Oil.” We have been hearing about it for the past 60 years. You probably have not heard about Peak Cobalt. Expect to hear about it – but probably not until after non-electric cars have been regulated off the market. The cost of electric cars is a function of the cost of cobalt – including the human cost of this unpleasant but necessary-to-EV-batteries substance.

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2020/12/21/nobody-hipped-me-to-that/

By eric

Would you wait 15 minutes to get a fast-food hamburger?

Electric cars will make you wait longer. This includes even those which are touted as being capable of receiving a “fast” charge in 15 minutes or so. Because you’ll have to wait for the car plugged-in ahead of you to “fast” charge.

This assumes you’re second in line. If you’re third . . .

Well, they’ll just install more places to plug in. It is not as easy as it sounds because of the problem in physics of two objects not being able to occupy the same space at the same time. To achieve the same capacity to charge as many electric cars as a gas station is capable of refueling in an hour, it would be necessary to at least quintuple the physical size of the charging station, to compensate for the quintupling of the time it takes to recharge each EV vs. the time it takes to refuel a non-electric car.

At a gas station, a car occupies its spot at the pump for about five minutes; thus, in 15 minutes it is possible for a single pump to refuel three cars. But if it takes 15 minutes to recharge a single EV, it would take two more places to plug in – and the space for those additional two cars – to equal the throughput capability of the gas station’s single pump.

Well, they’ll figure out a way to reduce recharging time such that it’s about the same as the time it takes to gas up a non-electric car. The problem there is that the faster you recharge a battery, the more you reduce its life – and increase the odds of a fire.

There is a reason why you trickle charge batteries – if possible.https://www.youtube.com/embed/zN1UqK76Pe4

It is usually not a problem – with lawn mower batteries and such – because you have the time to wait. But it’s a problem with electric car batteries, if you don’t like to wait. Unless you don’t mind risking a fire. Or reducing the useful life of the battery – which costs a great deal more to replace than a lawn mower battery.

These batteries – EV batteries – are also enormous, mainly because people expect an EV to duplicate (at least) the performance capabilities of a non-electric car. To do that requires about 1,000 pounds of batteries on average, which orders-of-magnitude increases the raw materials demand that goes into batteries, as well as the energy required to make the batteries, which are among the least renewable (in terms of what goes into making them) things on the market.

You have probably heard of “Peak Oil.” We have been hearing about it for the past 60 years. You probably have not heard about Peak Cobalt. Expect to hear about it – but probably not until after non-electric cars have been regulated off the market. The cost of electric cars is a function of the cost of cobalt – including the human cost of this unpleasant but necessary-to-EV-batteries substance.

There’s another problem, unique to things powered by electricity.

You cannot just pour it in, as you do with gasoline. Electricity doesn’t sit ready-to-go in storage tanks, underneath the pumps. It has to be transmitted as demanded – via cables from the generating source – and this requires cables of much greater capacity than your household extension cord.

This is why it is not possible to “fast” charge an EV at most private homes. You can reduce the waiting time from eight or more hours but not to 15 minutes. Not without upgrading your house to commercial-grade electric capacity.

And then there’s that increased risk of burning your house down.

Finally, a word about “fast” charging – which even where feasible is only partial charging. You cannot fully “refill” a battery “fastly” – as you can fully refuel a non-electric car’s tank, quickly.

Which means more frequent charging.

Which, in turn, compounds the throughput problem as well as the charge-capacity and fire-potential problems, all those electric cars recharging in a hurry, more frequently.

And losing their capacity to be recharged more quickly – the more often they are “fast” charged.

These are EV facts but most people aren’t aware of them for the same reason they’re unaware of the 99.8-plus percent chance you won’t die if you get the WuFlu, if you’re not very elderly and very sick already. It is also why most people have no idea that the big pharmaceutical companies who stand to reap billions in profits from mandated or coerced vaccinations are immune from being sued for any sicknesses caused by their vaccines.

The reason for this lack of awareness is the same.    

You are being sold on something you probably wouldn’t buy, if you knew what you were buying. They want you to think you are buying something else. Something that makes sense. But if that were the case, why don’t they give you all the facts?

That they don’t ought to give you a moment’s pause.

. . . .

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Schumer’s Electric Escort Service – EPautos – Libertarian Car Talk

Posted by M. C. on October 30, 2019

And then the government dried up the supply of affordable uses cars by paying people to hand them over to be crushed.

Fast-forward. People increasingly can’t afford homes. And soon, cars.

Because of Schumer’s “plan”  . . . only it is the plan.

First, bribe people into electric cars; then make it impossible for them to get out of them by leaving no alternative to them – the supply of affordable ICE cars having been eliminated. 

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2019/10/28/schumers-electric-escort-service/

By eric

If you have to pay a girl to go out with you, there’s probably something wrong with you. Especially if you let yourself believe she is going out with you because she likes you.

The same applies to electric cars – which most people, if they’re honest with themselves, only “date” because they’re handed wads of bills as compensation for the EV’s many functional deficits – as well as its much higher expenses.

The compensation is tendered in the form of  tax kickbacks (paid for by other taxpayers) and various special privileges, such as “free” (and tax-free) electricity  . . . also paid for by others.

That this is absolutely essential – in terms of perpetrating the fiction of EV viability – tells us all we need to know about the viability of EVs.

They aren’t.

We know this because when the bribes are withheld, the EVs stop selling  . . . for the same reason the escort isn’t going to show up at your hotel room just because you ask her to.

Something else is required.

If EVs could be sold on the merits, the bribes wouldn’t be essential. And yet, they are.

QED, as the saying goes.

We’re not supposed to notice this. We are supposed to pretend the attraction is real rather than bribed. That there is a “market” for cars that cost 30-50 percent more than their non-electric equivalents, but which only go half as far (maybe, if you take it easy and don’t use the AC or heat too much) and take 5-6 times as long (minimally, if you can umbilical up to a “fast” charger) to get going again.

And which only last half as long – due to the lifespan of their batteries, which is about half that of an engine or transmission.

The “market” for EVs is like the “market” for air travel via DC-3s (15 hours in an unpressurized cabin from NY to LA, with multiple stops for fuel) vs. five hours no-stop via 757.

We live in delusional times…

 

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer wants to pay people even more of other people’s money (about $400 billion) to “date” electric cars.

His “bold new plan” – announced last week in The New York Times – would increase the existing federal bribe of up to $7,500 used to cajole people into buying  EVs to potentially more than $10,000  – the amount of the bribe depending on the range of the EV.

The farther it goes, the more of other people’s money you’d get.

But only if the bribed also give up their ICE car to be destroyed, a la Cash For Clunkers – the infamous Obama-era ‘plan” used to “stimulate” demand for new cars by destroying the supply of used cars.

It’s also similar to another government “plan”- the one that preceded Cash for Clunkers and which triggered the financial meltdown that led to it.

This was the Chimp-era “plan” to “incentivize” homeownership by qualifying everyone not actually homeless for a home loan. Lots of people “bought” homes. Voila – the Ownership Society.

It worked so long as no one had to pay.

When the bills began to come due – and then past due – the whole thing came down like WTC 7 (another government-engineered crash). People lost “their” homes – and of course, could no longer afford to buy new cars by tapping into the equity credit lines they longer had.

And then the government dried up the supply of affordable uses cars by paying people to hand them over to be crushed.

Fast-forward. People increasingly can’t afford homes. And soon, cars.

Because of Schumer’s “plan”  . . . only it is the plan.

First, bribe people into electric cars; then make it impossible for them to get out of them by leaving no alternative to them – the supply of affordable ICE cars having been eliminated.  Schumer wants to “rapidly phase out gas-powered vehicles” within the next ten years; to destroy 63 million of them over the next ten years. 

Once that has been achieved, the bribes used to get people into the EVs will go the way of the nothing-down/no-interest home loan.

With similar and entirely predictable results.

Be seeing you

Cash for Clunkers

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »