MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Tesla’

California’s Looming ‘Green New Car Wreck’ | Watts Up With That?

Posted by M. C. on October 3, 2020

And it isn’t just me saying this. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees. In a letter sent by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to Gavin Newsom on September 28, Wheeler wrote:

“[It] begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today.

“The truth is that if the state were driving 100 percent electric vehicles today, the state would be dealing with even worse power shortages than the ones that have already caused a series of otherwise preventable environmental and public health consequences.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/02/californias-looming-green-new-car-wreck/

Anthony Watts

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.

Utility-scale California solar electric generation according to the energy.ca.gov puts utility-scale solar generation at about 30,000 GWh per year currently. Divide that by 365 days and we get 80 GWh/day, predicted to double, to 160 GWh /day. Even if we add homeowner rooftop solar, about half the utility-scale, at 40 GWh/day we come up to 200 GW/h per day, still 32 GWh short of the charging demand for a 25% electric car fleet in California. Even if rooftop solar doubles by 2040, we are at break-even, with 240GWh of production during the day.

Bottom-line, under the most optimistic best-case scenario, where solar operates at 100% of rated capacity (it seldom does), it would take every single bit of the 2040 utility-scale solar and rooftop capacity just to charge the cars during the day. That leaves nothing left for air conditioning, appliances, lighting, etc. It would all go to charging the cars, and that’s during the day when solar production peaks.

But there’s a much bigger problem. Even a grade-schooler can figure out that solar energy doesn’t work at night, when most electric vehicles will be charging at homes. So, where does Newsom think all this extra electric power is going to come from?

The wind? Wind power lags even further behind solar power. According to energy.gov, as of 2019, California had installed just 5.9 gigawatts of wind power generating capacity. This is because you need large amounts of land for wind farms, and not every place is suitable for high-return wind power.

In 2040, to keep the lights on with 25 percent of all vehicles in California being electric, while maintaining the state mandate requiring all the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045, California would have to blanket the entire state with solar and wind farms. It’s an impossible scenario. And the problem of intermittent power and rolling blackouts would become much worse.

And it isn’t just me saying this. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees. In a letter sent by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to Gavin Newsom on September 28, Wheeler wrote:

“[It] begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today.

“The truth is that if the state were driving 100 percent electric vehicles today, the state would be dealing with even worse power shortages than the ones that have already caused a series of otherwise preventable environmental and public health consequences.”


California’s green new car wreck looms large on the horizon. Worse, can you imagine electric car owners’ nightmares when California power companies shut off the power for safety reasons during fire season? Try evacuating in your electric car when it has a dead battery.

Gavin Newsom’s “no more gasoline cars sold by 2035” edict isn’t practical, sustainable, or sensible. But isn’t that what we’ve come to expect with any and all of these Green New Deal-lite schemes?

I acknowledge the help of Willis Eschenbach in checking the numbers for this article.


Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. He is also an owner of an electric vehicle in California.

Be seeing you

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

The Dirty Secrets Of ‘Clean’ Electric Vehicles

Posted by M. C. on August 5, 2020

A recent United Nations report warns that the raw materials used in electric car batteries are highly concentrated in a small number of countries where environmental and labour regulations are weak or non-existent.

To begin with, about half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially in the mining and processing of raw materials needed for the battery. This compares unfavorably with the manufacture of a gasoline-powered car which accounts for 17% of the car’s lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When a new EV appears in the show-room, it has already caused 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2020/08/02/the-dirty-secrets-of-clean-electric-vehicles/#c01590c650bd

Tilak Doshi

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.

Recommended For You
  • Renewable Energy Growth Continues At A Blistering Pace

  • Court Ruling Clears Way For Energy Storage On The Grid. Who Benefits?

  • Guyana Election Controversy Casts Shadow Over Major New Oil Discovery By Exxon-Led Consortium

A recent United Nations report warns that the raw materials used in electric car batteries are highly concentrated in a small number of countries where environmental and labour regulations are weak or non-existent. Thus, battery production for EVs is driving a boom in small-scale or “artisanal” cobalt production in the Democratic Republic of Congo which supplies two thirds of global output of the mineral. These artisanal mines, which account for up to a quarter of the country’s production, have been found to be dangerous and employ child labour.

Mindful of what the image of children scrabbling for hand-dug minerals in Africa can do to high tech’s clean and green image, most tech and auto companies using cobalt and other toxic heavy metals avoid direct sourcing from mines. Tesla Inc. TSLA +0.1% struck a deal last month with Swiss-based Glencore Plc to buy as much as 6,000 tons of cobalt annually from the latter’s Congolese mines. While Tesla has said it aims to remove reputational risks associated with sourcing minerals from countries such as the DRC where corruption is rampant, Glencore  assures buyers that no hand-dug cobalt is treated at its mechanized mines.

There are 7.2 million battery EVs or about 1% of the total vehicle fleet today. To get an idea of the scale of mining for raw materials involved in replacing the world’s gasoline and diesel-fueled cars with EVs, we can take the example of the UK as provided by Michael Kelly, the Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge. According to Professor Kelly, if we replace all of the UK vehicle fleet with EVs,  assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries, we would need the following materials: about twice the annual global production of cobalt; three quarters of the world’s production lithium carbonate; nearly the entire world production of neodymium; and more than half the world’s production of copper in 2018.

And this is just for the UK. Professor Kelly estimates that if we want the whole world to be transported by electric vehicles, the vast increases in the supply of the raw materials listed above would go far beyond known reserves. The environmental and social impact of vastly-expanded mining for these materials — some of which are highly toxic when mined, transported and processed – in countries afflicted by corruption and poor human rights records can only be imagined. The clean and green image of EVs stands in stark contrast to the realities of manufacturing batteries.

Zero Emissions and All That

Proponents of EVs might counter by saying that despite these evident environmental and social problems associated with mining in many third world countries, the case remains that EVs help reduce carbon dioxide emissions associated with the internal combustion engines run on gasoline and diesel fuels. According to the reigning climate change narrative, it is after all carbon dioxide emissions that are threatening environmental catastrophe on a global scale. For the sake of saving the world, the climate crusaders of the richer nations might be willing to ignore the local pollution and human rights violations involved in mining for minerals and rare earths in Africa, China, Latin America and elsewhere.

While one might question the inherent inequity in imposing such a trade-off, the supposed advantages of EVs in emitting lower carbon emissions are overstated according to a peer-reviewed life-cycle study comparing conventional and electric vehicles. To begin with, about half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially in the mining and processing of raw materials needed for the battery. This compares unfavorably with the manufacture of a gasoline-powered car which accounts for 17% of the car’s lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When a new EV appears in the show-room, it has already caused 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The equivalent amount for manufacturing a conventional car is 14,000 pounds.

Once on the road, the carbon dioxide emissions of EVs depends on the power-generation fuel used to recharge its battery. If it comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will lead to about 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every mile it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gasoline-powered car. Even without reference to the source of electricity used for battery charging, if an EV is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the EV will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Even if the EV is driven for 90,000 miles and the battery is charged by cleaner natural-gas fueled power stations, it will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than a gasoline-powered car. As the skeptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg puts it, “This is a far cry from ‘zero emissions’”.

As most ordinary people mindful of keeping within modest budgets choose affordable gasoline or diesel-powered cars, experts and policy advisors the world over have felt compelled to tilt the playing field in favor of EVs. EV subsidies are regressive: given their high upfront cost, EVs are only  affordable for high-income households. It is egregious that EV subsides are funded by the average tax-payer so that the rich can buy their EVs at subsidized prices.

The determination not to know or to look away when the facts assail our beliefs is an enduring frailty of human nature. The tendency towards group think and confirmation bias, and the will to affirm the “scientific consensus” and marginalize sceptics, are rife in considerations by the so-called experts committed to advocating their favorite cause. In the case of EVs, the dirty secrets of “clean energy” should seem apparent to all but, alas, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Tilak Doshi

I have worked in the oil and gas sector as an economist in both private industry and in think tanks, in Asia, the Middle East and the US over the past 25 years. I focus on global energy developments from the perspective of Asian countries that remain large markets for oil, gas and coal. I have written extensively on the areas of economic development, environment and energy economics. My publications include “Singapore in a Post-Kyoto World: Energy, Environment and the Economy” published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (2015). I won the 1984 Robert S. McNamara Research Fellow award of the World Bank and received my Ph.D. in Economics in 1992.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

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

Bastiat Leads the Way on the Morality of Forced Lockdowns | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 13, 2020

To deny workers the right to make their own decisions is to “annihilate the equal rights of our brethren.” That is immoral, and morality should always trump the law. The idea that we should make exceptions to this rule is deeply troubling, as Bastiat warned us:

When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law—two evils of equal magnitude, between which it would be difficult to choose.

https://mises.org/wire/bastiat-leads-way-morality-forced-lockdowns?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=567a73146b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-567a73146b-228343965

On May 11, in defiance of a government lockdown order, Elon Musk reopened Tesla’s car plant in Fremont, California, which elicited a negative reaction from Noah Feldman, professor of law at Harvard Law School:

Arguably it’s possible to conceive some circumstances where a law is morally unjust and a corporation would be justified in acting like an individual, flouting the law as an act of civil disobedience in order to get it changed. But reopening a for-profit plant—and potentially endangering workers—for the sole purpose of making money isn’t a situation where morality should trump the law.

Feldman’s statement requires clarification, but I can think of only two ways to interpret it:

  1. Reopening the plant is a moral act, but morality should not trump the law in this particular situation.
  2. Reopening the plant is an immoral act because it defies the government’s moral law (or edict).

In either case, Feldman appears confused about the concept of morality and/or he is not committed to the idea that morality should always trump the law.

The principles of morality are intuitive, as Frederic Bastiat explained in his essay “The Law“:

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life…

Collective right [government], then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right; and the common force cannot rationally have any other end, or any other mission, than that of the isolated forces for which it is substituted. Thus, as the force of an individual cannot lawfully touch the person, the liberty, or the property of another individual—for the same reason, the common force cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes.

For this perversion of force would be, in one case as in the other, in contradiction to our premises. For who will dare to say that force has been given to us, not to defend our rights, but to annihilate the equal rights of our brethren? And if this be not true of every individual force, acting independently, how can it be true of the collective force, which is only the organized union of isolated forces?

Nothing, therefore, can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense.

In other words, since you and I do not have lawful authority to forcibly lock down Tesla’s car plant, neither does the government. But the government did it anyway, thereby annihilating the equal rights of our brethren. Therefore, the owners, managers, and employees of the plant were simply reclaiming their lawful rights when they illegally reopened the plant. Unfortunately, laws often lack a moral basis, as Bastiat observed:

It is so much in the nature of law to support justice that in the minds of the masses they are one and the same. There is in all of us a strong disposition to regard what is lawful as legitimate, so much so that many falsely derive all justice from law….

Unhappily, law is by no means confined to its own sphere….It has acted in direct opposition to its proper end…it has been employed in annihilating that justice which it ought to have established…it has placed the collective force in the service of those who wish to traffic, without risk and without scruple, in the persons, the liberty, and the property of others; it has converted plunder into a right, that it may protect it, and lawful defense into a crime, that it may punish it.

Let’s pick up on one of Bastiat’s points. What if the reopening of Tesla’s plant had been followed by a government attempt to forcibly shut it down, thereby annihilating the equal rights of our brethren once again? And what if Tesla’s owners, managers, and employees, or their security agents, had forcibly resisted the government? In this case, both sides are using force, but only the Tesla group would have a legitimate claim to the moral high ground, because they would have been doing nothing more than defending themselves, their liberty, and their property against government aggression—in other words, they would have been engaged in lawful defense.

However, according to Bastiat’s observation that “the law converts lawful defense into a crime, that it may punish it,” the government would then have claimed legal authority to use overwhelming force to punish those evil Tesla criminals. And Feldman would likely have supported the government’s aggression,1 because, according to him, Tesla is “potentially endangering workers” by reopening the plant.

However, Feldman is assigning responsibility to the wrong party. None of Tesla’s owners or managers are forcing anyone to return to work. Each worker has the right to consider the safeguards that Tesla has or has not implemented and to make a decision about returning to work based on their subjective assessment of potential risk.

Feldman’s sophistry notwithstanding, those who decide to return to work are acknowledging and accepting the risk of potentially exposing themselves to the virus, or any number of other potential mishaps that we all face every day. For example, when we walk, cycle, or drive to work, or anywhere else, for that matter, we acknowledge and accept the potential risk of encountering careless, inexperienced drivers, as well as poor road conditions and bad weather, which we know results in millions of deaths and serious injuries every year.

To deny workers the right to make their own decisions is to “annihilate the equal rights of our brethren.” That is immoral, and morality should always trump the law. The idea that we should make exceptions to this rule is deeply troubling, as Bastiat warned us:

When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law—two evils of equal magnitude, between which it would be difficult to choose.

Professor Feldman may be a legal expert, but he seems unable to consistently identify injustice through an application of moral principles—and principles, by definition, are not open to compromise. A moral injustice is a legal injustice, period.

 

 

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

Range Reduction – EPautos – Libertarian Car Talk

Posted by M. C. on August 12, 2019

Which is never really your Tesla because Elon and his minions always have access to it – and can control it – at their whim – via “updates” sent over the air which you’re forced to accept else be disconnected from the collective, which means your Tesla will no longer be “supported” by Tesla.

If Tesla can control your car you can be sure “others” can also.

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2019/08/09/range-reduction/

By

eric

All electric cars come standard with range anxiety – having to think about how far you can go before the car comes to a stop  . . . and what you’ll do while you wait for it to recharge.

If you can find a place to recharge.

But Elon Musk’s electric cars offer a unique “feature” their owners didn’t know they paid for:

Range reduction.

Not because the batteries are running low – but because Elon decided to reduce how far they can go.

Well, now they know!

To keep more Teslas from burning up while recharging -an embarrassing as well as fatal problem with Teslas – the company recently transmitted a “software update” to its Model S and X vehicles that limits how much charge the battery will accept.

The reduced charge capacity translates as reduced range – as 40 miles less than advertised (and paid for, by the people who bought the cars).

This is no small thing given that 40 miles can be the difference between making it home – and making a long pit stop.

Still, better than being burned to death in a mobile crematorium.

Thousands of cars have been gimped by the update, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court by unhappy Model S owner by David Rasmussen.

“Under the guise of ‘safety’ and increasing the ‘longevity’ of the batteries . . . Tesla fraudulently manipulated its software with the intent to avoid its duties and legal obligations to customers to fix, repair, or replace the batteries . . . Tesla knew were defective,” the lawsuit claims.

In plain language: Rather than admit there is a problem with the batteries that makes charging them to full capacity a fire hazard – and replace potentially millions of dollars’ worth of batteries – Tesla decided on the free (to Tesla) “update.”

Which costs its owners not just range and time – but also resale value. A car that can’t go as far as advertised being worth less.

The industry trade publication Automotive News interviewed another Tesla S owner, Nick Smith of Orlando, FL who says his car will no longer charge beyond 90 percent of its former capacity after being “updated” by Tesla.

In real-world terms, this amounts to a 30 percent reduction in the car’s range when charging at a “fast” charger, where the “fast” charging is already limited to 80 percent of the battery pack’s capacity . . . to avoid damaging the battery…

Tesla can “update” the range to zero if it wishes to brick their car. Any time they want to…

Be seeing you

Breaking: Raw Surveillance Footage Of Michael Hastings Car ...

 

 

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

The Electric Obamaphone – EPautos – Libertarian Car Talk

Posted by M. C. on July 22, 2019

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2019/07/20/the-electric-obamaphone/

Elon just admitted something which is getting very little coverage – and no explanation.

He announced that Tesla will no longer be selling the “affordable” $35,000 Model 3 he promised would be Tesla’s first mass-market electric car. Like so many of Elon’s promises, that one’s out the window, too.

The price of the least expensive Tesla just rose to $39,000. Well, technically $38,990 – to make it go down easier.

That’s still a $4k decrease in “affordability” – and a reality check.

Elon is admitting that electric cars aren’t mass-market cars. That after all the glitzy assurances, after all these years, in the end, they are what they have always been: Specialty cars for people with the disposable income to indulge other-than-economic considerations such as “technology” and – as Elon loves to tout – the driving characteristics of electric cars.

There’s nothing per se objectionable about specialty cars – whether electric or powered by a high-performance boxer six, like a Porsche.

But there is a problem.

There is a hard deck limit to the number of specialty cars that can be manufactured. It is a small number – because most people can’t afford to buy such cars. How many Porsches do you see vs. Corollas?

EVs are Porsches – economically speaking.

Both are cars for people with the ability to spend more than twice the cost of a well-equipped economy car.

Now imagine the government decreed everyone must drive a Porsche. This might not be such a bad thing – provided someone else pays for yours.

Who will pay for your electric car?

For everyone’s electric car?

Enter The Rub…

Be seeing you

NON-Taxpayer Government

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

A Peck on the Neck – EPautos – Libertarian Car Talk

Posted by M. C. on May 15, 2019

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2019/05/14/a-peck-on-the-neck/

By

eric

A vampire’s continued existence depends on the continuous flow of the blood of the living. The same principle animates Tesla and other purveyors of electric cars – who are about to receive another $2 billion-plus from FiatChrysler (FCA) over the course of the next three years.

This ought to stave off bankruptcy long enough to bankrupt legitimate car companies like FCA (which choose not to purvey electric cars, because people aren’t buying them).

After which, the vampire will feast on the blood of us – directly, this time.

The cash infusion is performed via what is styled the “purchase” of carbon credits. These are purchases in the manner of our “contributions” to Social Security – i.e., they are extorted payments made under duress for something the victim would never freely pay for if he had the option to say no.

The “credits” being “purchased” are for electric cars not built by FCA. Instead, FCA pays Elon, et al, to build them and gets the “credit” for the supposed reduction in C02 “emissions” (it takes many italics and  air quotes to parse government-speak) achieved thereby.

Supposed “emissions” because the determination is based entirely on what comes out of a car’s exhaust pipe – and of course, electric cars haven’t got one at all and this is why they are regarded as “zero emissions” vehicles (ZEVs) from a regulatory standpoint. But from a factual standpoint – assuming the object of this exercise is a reduction in these C02 “emissions” – the logic is flawed because electric cars produce lots of C02 in the course of their manufacture. Read the rest of this entry »

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

The Elon Mordita – EPautos – Libertarian Car Talk

Posted by M. C. on April 9, 2019

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2019/04/08/the-elon-mordita/

Extortion is illegal provided you call it that. If you call it something else – “emissions credits,” for instance – then it’s ok.

Tesla just extorted several hundred million dollars from FiatChrysler (FCA) via this legal means of extortion. FCA is forced to pay Elon for not building enough electric cars which people don’t want to buy – but which don’t produce that deadly inert gas, carbon dioxide. While the cars FCA sells – without subsidies – do.

These CO2 “emissions” – which every living soul on this Earth also “emits” with every respiration – have been hystericized into a Planetary Threat for political reasons. An inert gas – but one essential to life on this Earth – has been rebranded into an “emission,” a term which once meant harmful byproducts – things which had to be cleaned up for the sake of public health.

But carbon dioxide isn’t “dirty.”…

Enter Elon.

He extorts “credits” from FCA – and others – who use these “credits” to tamp down the total volume of carbon dioxide “emissions” produced  by the vehicles they sell and thus achieve what is styled “regulatory compliance” with the C02 fatwas.

The money thus mulcted goes not just from FCA’s account into Elon’s, but also from the pockets of people buying FCA vehicles – which become progressively more expensive to buy in order to offset the cost of the Elon Mordita.

Tesla also gets subsidized once again – and can pretend to be a going concern as opposed to the parasitical entity it actually is.

Think of a tick growing fat on just that spot on your dog’s back he can’t quiet reach – and which has become a fatwa’d Safe Space the vet isn’t allowed to touch.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

The Electric Suicide of Harley-Davidson – EPautos – Libertarian Car Talk

Posted by M. C. on November 14, 2018

Even if you don’t ride an electric bike, you’ll still be forced to buy one  . . . for someone else.

Just like Teslas.

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2018/11/13/the-electric-suicide-of-harley-davidson/

By eric

Imagine a Harley that doesn’t vibrate. No bark through the straight pipes when you push the starter button. No nothing through the pipes – which aren’t there anymore.

There is no starter button.

Just an On/Off switch.

No shifter, either. Because no gears.

All that remains is the “Harley” name on the tank – which isn’t one because it will never be used to store any gas. Might as well paint it on the side of your toaster.

Welcome to the 2019 LiveWire – Harley’s first electric motorcycle. The first of a whole line of them – intended to be ready by 2025.

They’re betting the future of the company on it.

If you have any Harley stock, better unload it.

Quickly.

Because an electric Harley is as silly as juice-bar speakeasy. It runs counter to the point.

People buy motorcycles – and especially Harley motorcycles – because they make that sound.

And also because of the smells – of gas and oil – which attend those sounds. Without which you’ve got what amounts to  alcohol-free beer.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Elon Musk: ‘I Am a Socialist’

Posted by M. C. on June 18, 2018

Definition of socialism

You decide.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2018/06/17/elon-musk-i-am-a-socialist/

by Joel B. Pollak

Tesla CEO and PayPal billionaire Elon Musk surprised many Friday when he declared on Twitter that he is a socialist. Conservative critics, however, may well have agreed, given his companies’ reliance on the state… Read the rest of this entry »

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

Elon Needs More Money (Again) – EPautos – Libertarian Car Talk

Posted by M. C. on June 17, 2018

This is the same Elon Musk that has the rocket company doing what NASA can’t. I don’t know where he gets his rocket company money. Probably a lot comes from you and me. I think we need a (sort of) private rocket company that actually makes something we need.

Musk should knock the electric car on the head go full tilt into the rocket bizz. Maybe then we have a chance on catching up with the Ruskies.

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2018/06/14/elon-needs-more-money/

by Eric

Last month, I wrote about Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s contemptuous and breezy dismissal of questions asked by financial analysts about the cashflow situation at Tesla. Would the company need yet another infusion of money to remain afloat? Lame! Next question.

That was Musk’s response.

As it turns out, it’s Tesla that’s lame.  The company – Musk – just laid off several thousand employees, about 9 percent of its workforce – which is one way to raise cash (by not spending it on worker salaries) when you don’t want to admit you need another infusion from investors – or realize you might not be able to get one because those investors are becoming gun-shy about giving money to Elon. Read the rest of this entry »

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