Reality check on electric cars

[T. A. Gardner]

Because Terry, prior to Tesla and for most of the early years of Tesla the technology and infrastructure were not there for EV's.

It was the same for ICE for over a 100 years against Horse and Buggy. Farmers and other could make fuel and even carry it around and yet the ICE vehicle made almost zero advancements against the Horse and Buggy which dominated the market until advances and infrastructure made the ICE vehicle cheaper, more accessible and convenient due to gas stations and roads advancements.


Just as ICE numbers went in a straight line up and to the right paralleling those advancements we now see the same exact up and to the right adoption of EV's world wide as their advancements are now finally happening.

And that is undeniable.

How much of that is due to government subsidies and mandates?

 

[QP!]

How much of that is due to government subsidies and mandates?

For ICE, a crap ton of.

Through out history the Big 3 auto makers and oil and gas companies have been amongst the biggest subsidy and other government benefit and program recipients

 

[QP!]

But... but .,.. @T. A. Gardner will read the below and just hand wave away that Oil and Gas and ICE Auto manufacturers ever get subsidies or bail outs. He will say ONLY 'renewables' do.


-------------------

AI Summary:
Examining all forms of taxpayer money use for corporate bailouts + direct subsidies + tax breaks (indirect subsidies), the industries that dominate receiving U.S. taxpayer support are listed below.


Here’s the big picture, grounded in the best available data and historical events:

---

1) Finance / Banking (largest in bailout terms)​

Why it ranks #1: massive, one-time crisis interventions dwarf everything else.

• The 2008 Financial Crisis bailout (TARP) alone authorized $700 billion (with trillions in Fed liquidity support on top).
• During COVID, the Federal Reserve and Treasury again provided trillions in backstops, loans, and asset purchases.

Key point:

• Finance doesn’t always get the most annual subsidies, but it has received the largest cumulative emergency support in history.

---

2) Housing / Real Estate / Mortgages​

Why it’s huge: mostly indirect subsidies baked into the system.

• Mortgage interest tax deduction (tens to hundreds of billions annually in foregone revenue)
• Government-backed entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
• Bailouts during 2008 housing collapse

Economists often argue this is one of the largest long-term subsidy systems, even though it’s less visible.

---

3) Energy (fossil fuels + renewables)​

Why it’s high: steady, multi-decade support via tax policy.

• Fossil fuel subsidies: about $31–$35 billion/year
• Renewable subsidies (tax credits, grants) have also surged into the tens of billions annually

Key nuance:

• Fossil fuels = long-standing tax advantages
• Renewables = newer, rapidly growing subsidies
• Combined, energy is consistently one of the largest subsidized sectors yearly

---

4) Agriculture (one of the oldest subsidy systems)​

Why it’s significant: permanent, policy-driven support.

• ~$9–30+ billion per year depending on conditions
• About $279 billion in commodity subsidies (1995–2024)

Key point:

• Agriculture is smaller annually than housing or healthcare, but:
  • Extremely consistent
  • Politically durable
  • Highly concentrated in certain crops (corn, soy, wheat)

---

5) Healthcare (massive but often overlooked as “subsidy”)​

Why it’s huge: indirect subsidies dominate.

• Tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance (one of the largest tax expenditures in the U.S.)
• Programs like Medicaid/Medicare act as demand-side subsidies to the healthcare industry

In many analyses, healthcare-related tax breaks and spending rival or exceed housing.

---

6) Defense & Aerospace / Industrial Policy​

Why it matters: not always labeled “subsidies,” but economically similar.

• Defense contracts often function as guaranteed revenue streams
• Bailouts/support for firms like auto companies (e.g., 2009 Auto Industry Bailout)

Important distinction:

• Economists debate whether this is “procurement” or “subsidy,” but the effect can be similar.

---

7) Transportation (autos, airlines, infrastructure)​

• Airline bailouts after:
  • 9/11
  • COVID-19
• Various Auto makers bailed out or given subsidies. some multiple times, since the companies founding
• Highway system heavily subsidized beyond gas tax revenues

This is a hybrid category: infrastructure + periodic bailouts.

---

8) Technology / Manufacturing (growing fast)​

• Semiconductor subsidies (e.g., CHIPS Act)
• EV tax credits and industrial policy

Smaller historically, but rapidly expanding in the 2020s

---

The Big Insight (what really dominates)​

If you rank by different definitions, you get different winners:

By one-time bailouts​

1. Finance (by far #1)
2. Housing (via crisis support)
3. Auto/airlines

By annual ongoing subsidies​

1. Housing (tax breaks)
2. Healthcare (tax exclusions)
3. Energy
4. Agriculture

By total long-term embedded support​

1. Housing + healthcare (arguably #1 and #2 overall)
2. Finance (due to crisis rescues)
3. Energy
4. Agriculture

---

Bottom line​

• Finance gets the biggest crisis-era taxpayer support.
• Housing and healthcare likely receive the largest total ongoing subsidies when tax breaks are included.
• Energy and agriculture are the most visible, long-standing subsidized industries.
• A lot of the biggest subsidies are hidden in the tax code, not direct spending.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

 

[QP!]

and yet the EV technology is young and IMPROVING so that video you posted is useless.

You might want to pay attention to this again.

Cliffs:
- 6 minutes for charges from 10% - 90%
- weight of batteries being dramatically reduced
- with reduced weight, range is greatly increasing and flying cars become a more real option
- batteries now are over coming issues with losing charge at deep cold temperatures (-50c)

Do i have to remind you that improvements in ICE technology due to mass production and constant research have seen it go form 15mpg in early 1900's to +35MPG now.

I always tell you Terry, despite you denying it, that technology advancement is not stagnant despite you always saying it is and nothing new comes from it. Your view of technology is not only wrong but stupid.

 

[Nordberg]

There is a cost in ICEs that includes pollution, air land and water. There is a huge cost in healthcare due to breathing the polluted air and living in it. People who live around oil refineries live in cancer and lung disease zones. 20 percent of world deaths are due to coal, oil, and gas burning. We all live sicker, shorter, and dirtier lives because we use fossil fuels.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

and yet the EV technology is young and IMPROVING so that video you posted is useless.

You might want to pay attention to this again.





Do i have to remind you that improvements in ICE technology due to mass production and constant research have seen it go form 15mpg in early 1900's to +35MPG now.

I always tell you Terry, despite you denying it, that technology advancement is not stagnant despite you always saying it is and nothing new comes from it. Your view of technology is not only wrong but stupid.

You cannot get around chemistry. Batteries operate on chemical properties and chemistry.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

There is a cost in ICEs that includes pollution, air land and water. There is a huge cost in healthcare due to breathing the polluted air and living in it. People who live around oil refineries live in cancer and lung disease zones. 20 percent of world deaths are due to coal, oil, and gas burning. We all live sicker, shorter, and dirtier lives because we use fossil fuels.

If you believe the envirotards on the Left, that is. While some of this is true, it isn't the disaster they make it out to be. AlGore, one of their top prophets has made all sorts of idiotic claims about this, for example.

As for the "20 percent" thing, I perused several of the studies on that. I think they're full of shit and can't prove any of what they claim with any level of accuracy.

 

[QP!]

You cannot get around chemistry. Batteries operate on chemical properties and chemistry.

and what about gasoline? Does it avoid chemistry and chemical properties?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

and what about gasoline? Does it avoid chemistry and chemical properties?

As the video points out, and you clearly missed or didn't understand, gasoline has a much greater energy density than any battery. That's the key problem here: Batteries are not energy dense. Things that are mobile like cars and airplanes need an energy dense fuel source to make it both compact and weight efficient. With an EV you are tacking on half-a-ton or more of battery to the vehicle in order to get something approximating the range of a vehicle with a 15 gallon more or less fuel tank using gasoline.

Since the energy available from a battery is based on the difference in potential between the atomic elements making it up, one cell of a battery will have between 2 and 3 volts at most. This, in turn means--using Ohm's law--that you need a lot of cells to get the necessary amperage at a reasonable voltage to make the vehicle move. Then, the size of the cells determines how long they'll last until needing a recharge. That leads to massive weight.

 

[QP!]

As the video points out, and you clearly missed or didn't understand, gasoline has a much greater energy density than any battery. That's the key problem here: Batteries are not energy dense. Things that are mobile like cars and airplanes need an energy dense fuel source to make it both compact and weight efficient. With an EV you are tacking on half-a-ton or more of battery to the vehicle in order to get something approximating the range of a vehicle with a 15 gallon more or less fuel tank using gasoline.

Since the energy available from a battery is based on the difference in potential between the atomic elements making it up, one cell of a battery will have between 2 and 3 volts at most. This, in turn means--using Ohm's law--that you need a lot of cells to get the necessary amperage at a reasonable voltage to make the vehicle move. Then, the size of the cells determines how long they'll last until needing a recharge. That leads to massive weight.

No i did not miss that.

What you missed is that batteries and battery tech is improving at rapid rates. Gasoline is basically at a set rate.

The longest EV, on a single charge range now is already comparable to the best single tank ICE vehicle range BUT EV batteries are still in their early days of improvement.

So with charge times still improving massively since the first Tesla's and range also improving massively, as those continue to improve a typical EV driver will be able to go much further on one charge and refuel (charge) even quicker.

Yes the gasoline may be more energy dense, but the current range and efficiency is near static now. Improvements are a rounding error. Not so for EV batteries. New breakthroughs every few months make them lighter and faster to charge and longer range.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

No i did not miss that.

What you missed is that batteries and battery tech is improving at rapid rates. Gasoline is basically at a set rate.

You CANNOT get around the chemistry! Look at a goddamned periodic table. 2 to 3 volts per cell is it. That's all you'll ever get from a battery. Nature won't allow more. You can improve the efficiency some, but the weight issue isn't being gotten around simply because of the chemistry. The recharge time can be improved, but the weight necessary can't.

The longest EV, on a single charge range now is already comparable to the best single tank ICE vehicle range BUT EV batteries are still in their early days of improvement.

EV's today are just a bit more efficient than they were 100 years ago.

So with charge times still improving massively since the first Tesla's and range also improving massively, as those continue to improve a typical EV driver will be able to go much further on one charge and refuel (charge) even quicker.

Yes the gasoline may be more energy dense, but the current range and efficiency is near static now. Improvements are a rounding error. Not so for EV batteries. New breakthroughs every few months make them lighter and faster to charge and longer range.

Unless you go to a fuel cell and switch to some other chemical reaction, EV's will never work sufficiently well to convince most of the market to buy one.

 

[QP!]

You CANNOT get around the chemistry! Look at a goddamned periodic table....

I am not trying to get around the chemistry Terry.

It is fact, FACT that CURRENTLY EV's and ICE are getting similar range on one fill up or one charge.

It is fact, FACT, that CURRENTLY that fill up time for a gas tank and an EV charge are converging to near equal.

It is fact, FACT, that EV's are improving in these two areas by leaps and bounds and ICE engines are not.

So while the chemistry is accurate THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACTS that as these EV range keep increasing, and these EV batteries keep getting lighter, and as charge times keep getting faster, that from a pragmatic stand point EV's will beat ICE in all those areas which people care about DESPITE THE FACT gasoline is more energy dense.

Gasoline being more energy dense only matters if both were improving in those areas and you could argue then that gasoline will win the race but gasoline engines, in terms of improvements in these areas is NEAR STATIC while EV's improvements are near exponential and ONGOING.

 

[QP!]

...
EV's today are just a bit more efficient than they were 100 years ago.
...

and here you are with this retardation again.

The same claim you made prior that the technology around EV's is the same for the driver as it was in the start of the 1900's.

Nothing could be more of a lie or more stupid to say, from the drivers stand point, where EV's today, for the vast majority of the population are a better option than an ICE vehicle for their main commutes of 'home/office/errands around town with weekend getaways of a 4-5 hours driving or less'.

For the vast, VAST majority of people who would charge their EV at home while they sleep, once a day only to claim that technology is the same now as it was in 1900 just proves how deeply dishonest and stupid you are when it comes to this topic.

 

[LurchAddams]

REALITY CHECK: At a neighborhood BBQ I was talking to a neighbor, a BC Hydro Executive. I asked him how that renewable thing was doing. He laughed, then got serious "If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, you have to face certain realities."

"For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded. This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load."

So, as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system! This later "investment" will not be revealed until we're so far down this deadend road that it will be presented with an 'OOPS...!' and a shrug.

Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and he writes, "For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine." Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.

It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip, your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 Mpg = $0.10 per mile.

The gasoline powered car costs about $25,000 while the Volt costs $46,000 plus. So, the Government wants us to pay twice as much for a car, that costs more than seven times as much to run and takes three times longer to drive across the country.

WAKE UP NORTH AMERICA!!!!!!!

I just purchased an ICE vehicle. Then trump fucked us with another mid-east boondoggle. Sure wish I'd gone electric.

 

[LurchAddams]

j

and here you are with this retardation again.

The same claim you made prior that the technology around EV's is the same for the driver as it was in the start of the 1900's.

Nothing could be more of a lie or more stupid to say, from the drivers stand point, where EV's today, for the vast majority of the population are a better option than an ICE vehicle for their main commutes of 'home/office/errands around town with weekend getaways of a 4-5 hours driving or less'.

For the vast, VAST majority of people who would charge their EV at home while they sleep, once a day only to claim that technology is the same now as it was in 1900 just proves how deeply dishonest and stupid you are when it comes to this topic.

I saw a YouTube yesterday - there are solar fast-charging stations you can install at your home - totally off the grid!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnaTCbV1khg

 

[QP!]

j

I saw a YouTube yesterday - there are solar fast-charging stations you can install at your home - totally off the grid!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnaTCbV1khg

ya i have a good buddy in Vancouver Canada, who has a set up like that. He has the Tesla battery wall in his garage and there roof top solar providing the power to it and each day that is how he charges his car. He is typically selling his surplus power back into the city grid, reducing his over all electricity bill. He can also draw the power back out of the car, in a big emergency and use that along with what is in the batteries to power his home, if the grid is down.

It did cost a lot to set up but he says it is not in 'pay back' phase and if and when he sells his home he can get most of the sunk cost back then as the continued pay down of utility costs over time are factored in, in the same a good roof or windows gets pay back.

 

[LurchAddams]

ya i have a good buddy in Vancouver Canada, who has a set up like that. He has the Tesla battery wall in his garage and there roof top solar providing the power to it and each day that is how he charges his car. He is typically selling his surplus power back into the city grid, reducing his over all electricity bill. He can also draw the power back out of the car, in a big emergency and use that along with what is in the batteries to power his home, if the grid is down.

It did cost a lot to set up but he says it is not in 'pay back' phase and if and when he sells his home he can get most of the sunk cost back then as the continued pay down of utility costs over time are factored in, in the same a good roof or windows gets pay back.

When I sold Fords in TX I remember the F-150 Lightning we claimed could power a home.

ChatGPT: the Ford F-150 Lightning can power a home, but there are some important limits and setup requirements.


The truck can supply up to 9.6 kW (9,600 watts) of power with the available Pro Power Onboard/Home Backup Power system.


For context:

• A typical U.S. home often uses:
  • 500–2,000 watts during light usage
  • 5,000–8,000 watts with major appliances running
• So the Lightning can usually handle:
  • Refrigerator
  • Lights
  • Internet/Wi-Fi
  • TVs/computers
  • Microwave
  • Furnace blower
  • Some well pumps or small AC units

 

[Into the Night]

Despite @T. A. Gardner saying everything with regards to Ev's was proven in the early 1900's and him claiming there are no meaningful advancements that have happened since nor that can happen in the future to make EV's even more convenient to users, the fact is all areas of EV technology continue to improve and scale in significant ways.

Nope. Just an electric golf cart that looks like a car.

Clfiffs:
- 6 minutes for charges from 10% - 90%

Not possible. Go learn Ohm's Law.

- weight of batteries being dramatically reduced

Not possible. Go learn quantum mechanics.

- with reduced weight, range is greatly increasing and flying cars become a more real option

Too heavy.

- batteries now are over coming issues with losing charge at deep cold temperatures (-50c)

Batteries lose charge at all temperatures, Kewpie. Go learn electrochemistry and Ohm's Law.

Of course Terry will hand wave all this away as changing nothing despite the FACT these advancements, that everyone but Terry was predicting while he was claiming they would never happen, are massively significant, and if this type of progression in the technologies continues it is clear ICE will not be able to compete at all with EV's once range, charging times and other issues become so superior to ICE.

Go learn what 'fact' means, Kewpie. It does NOT mean 'Universal Truth' or 'proof'.
Go learn what 'joule' means, Kewpie.

We are not there yet but if you just look at the technology progression curve since Tesla launch which is what spurred renewed and sustained investment in this sector and you understand how technology progression curves work in ALL INDUSTRIES, you will easily see the challenge ICE is facing now. ICE may well become the old horse and buggy and just a foot note in the history of an era that got passed by.

Go learn what 'joule' means, Kewpie.

Gasoline has 132Mj/gal. A typical 12 gallon tank holds 1584Mj.
A fully charged Tesla Model 3 with extended battery is capable of 130Mj, not even the same as a single gallon of gasoline.

It takes hours to charge the Tesla.
It takes approx 3-5 minutes to refuel a gasoline car.


Lithium phosphate batteries are heaver than lithium ion batteries used in cars. They also have a higher internal resistance, meaning they take longer to charge and don't have as good a range. Their advantage is that they don't burn like a friggin' firework when a battery is damaged or a defective develops in the charger. Lithium phosphate batteries just smoke instead, making them safer.

 

[Into the Night]

Charging times and availability of stations remain the issue. Electric cars work fine if you can take them home every night. They're still useless for lengthy car trips, however.

Also, America probably has the least useful passenger rail service of any developed nation. As horrid as domestic air travel has become, one still has to fly to one's destination and, if needed, rent a car--electric or otherwise--there.

Hybrids are getting better and more common. Many models are now available only as hybrids. But all electric has a way to go.

A hybrid is just a gasoline car.

It can use the gasoline engine to charge a ballast, which is then used to run the traction motors, similar to the way a diesel electric locomotive runs.
The ballast used in cars is typically lithium-ion again. These battery packs are much smaller than an EV has, and as a consequence, are not capable of anywhere near the range of an EV, and are typically mounted behind or just under the rear seat. This puts the bulk of the weight of the vehicle in the center of the car, making something like normal handling possible.

Some hybrids have a docking port that you can used to precharge the ballast while parked.

The advantage of an hybrid is that you get electric torque and smoothness, improving poor weather handling when combined with the extra weight.
The disadvantage is the extra weight, and the usual fire hazard lithium ion batteries have.