Reality check on electric cars

[Nordberg]

They've been tried and rejected repeatedly ever since. There's a reason for that...

The only thing that has gotten them any traction this time is government bribes (aka subsidies) and diktat where they are giving people no alternatives to them.

a
Nope. the hardest thing to do is stop an idea whose time has come. Fossil fuels and all forms of energy have had trillions of tax dollars thrown their way and the powerful lobbying and donations have given them endless subsidies and erosion of regulations. Electric auto subsidies can never approach what energy companies have received.
We give leases to oil companies that give them huge amounts of government land very cheaply. They are still getting our tax money and land. For that, they pollute the land, air, and water. https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fa...-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

 

[T. A. Gardner]

a
Nope. the hardest thing to do is stop an idea whose time has come. Fossil fuels and all forms of energy have had trillions of tax dollars thrown their way and the powerful lobbying and donations have given them endless subsidies and erosion of regulations. Electric auto subsidies can never approach what energy companies have received.
We give leases to oil companies that give them huge amounts of government land very cheaply. They are still getting our tax money and land. For that, they pollute the land, air, and water. https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fa...-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

It isn't an "idea who's time has come." Instead, it is just another radical Leftist wish being fulfilled by use of government force. The second the government stops forcing EV's on the public and market is the second they die a quick and painful death.

The reality is most, a significant majority of Americans don't want an EV.

Survey: 36% of Americans May Buy an EV
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/survey... EV,introduce one within the next two years.

Poll: Most Americans Aren’t Sold on EV for Next Vehicle
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/electric-vehicles-poll

As you move Left in the media, the stories change might into would. That is they inflate this bad news by twisting the facts in their favor. Most Americans don't want an EV. The only way they're going to buy one is if the government forces it on them.

All that has to happen to make that even more likely is the next President comes in in 2024, and it isn't a Democrat, and ends all the Biden Greentard stuff day 1. EV sales will plummet as will gas prices.

Question: How much land will be needed for some "green" power system to supply the electricity for these EV's? How much will that cost? Remember, history shows us that everywhere solar and wind have been pushed heavily has resulted in far higher electricity costs on the order of 3 times conventional generation alone.

 

[Nordberg]

It isn't an "idea who's time has come." Instead, it is just another radical Leftist wish being fulfilled by use of government force. The second the government stops forcing EV's on the public and market is the second they die a quick and painful death.

The reality is most, a significant majority of Americans don't want an EV.

Survey: 36% of Americans May Buy an EV
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/survey... EV,introduce one within the next two years.

Poll: Most Americans Aren’t Sold on EV for Next Vehicle
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/electric-vehicles-poll

As you move Left in the media, the stories change might into would. That is they inflate this bad news by twisting the facts in their favor. Most Americans don't want an EV. The only way they're going to buy one is if the government forces it on them.

All that has to happen to make that even more likely is the next President comes in in 2024, and it isn't a Democrat, and ends all the Biden Greentard stuff day 1. EV sales will plummet as will gas prices.

Question: How much land will be needed for some "green" power system to supply the electricity for these EV's? How much will that cost? Remember, history shows us that everywhere solar and wind have been pushed heavily has resulted in far higher electricity costs on the order of 3 times conventional generation alone.

So ending EVs will lower gas prices? What does an increase in demand with a fixed supply do to prices?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So ending EVs will lower gas prices? What does an increase in demand with a fixed supply do to prices?

I'm not saying ending EV's. Let them compete fairly. No bans on ICE cars like many Leftist Democrat states are now doing (California for example). No massive subsidies to buy one. No government paid for public charging stations.

As for gas prices... Biden is doing everything he can to Greentard the economy. If drilling responsibly on federal land and offshore were allowed rather than all but banned, and the permitting process for getting a well drilled on private land wasn't as onerous, and if the SPR were being sold off because it's seen as unnecessary, then we'd have lower gas prices as we'd go back to being a net exporter and offset OPEC's control of the market.

Demand wouldn't necessarily increase either. I might not decrease, but that doesn't entail an increase either.

Same goes with solar and wind. If you want to get rid of pollution in mass energy generation, then it's nuclear and natural gas. Those are the only way to go short term. Fusion is the way to go in the future. Solar and wind are nothing but very expensive niche sources.

 

[Nordberg]

I'm not saying ending EV's. Let them compete fairly. No bans on ICE cars like many Leftist Democrat states are now doing (California for example). No massive subsidies to buy one. No government paid for public charging stations.

As for gas prices... Biden is doing everything he can to Greentard the economy. If drilling responsibly on federal land and offshore were allowed rather than all but banned, and the permitting process for getting a well drilled on private land wasn't as onerous, and if the SPR were being sold off because it's seen as unnecessary, then we'd have lower gas prices as we'd go back to being a net exporter and offset OPEC's control of the market.

Demand wouldn't necessarily increase either. I might not decrease, but that doesn't entail an increase either.

Same goes with solar and wind. If you want to get rid of pollution in mass energy generation, then it's nuclear and natural gas. Those are the only way to go short term. Fusion is the way to go in the future. Solar and wind are nothing but very expensive niche sources.

How much have we spent building roads and support for autos? We neglected public transportation and put Americans in cars. We have subsidized gasoline and oil companies with trillions. We have passed the health costs that their products cause to the people. Oil still rakes it in from the people.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

How much have we spent building roads and support for autos? We neglected public transportation and put Americans in cars. We have subsidized gasoline and oil companies with trillions. We have passed the health costs that their products cause to the people. Oil still rakes it in from the people.

Public transit doesn't work in low population density settings and cities. It works even worse when there are few or no distinct nodes for it to move between. Oil companies weren't "subsidized with trillions." If anything, solar and wind for the amount of return have been far, far more heavily subsidized. We have also passed on the benefits of oil to the people, and those benefits massively outweigh any drawbacks.

Even if we end oil use for energy, we'll still need lots of it for all the other stuff it gets used for. Or, do you want to not have paved roads, medicines, plastics, waterproof roofs, tires, lubricants, solvents, paint, etc.?

 

[Nordberg]

Public transit doesn't work in low population density settings and cities. It works even worse when there are few or no distinct nodes for it to move between. Oil companies weren't "subsidized with trillions." If anything, solar and wind for the amount of return have been far, far more heavily subsidized. We have also passed on the benefits of oil to the people, and those benefits massively outweigh any drawbacks.

Even if we end oil use for energy, we'll still need lots of it for all the other stuff it gets used for. Or, do you want to not have paved roads, medicines, plastics, waterproof roofs, tires, lubricants, solvents, paint, etc.?

Trains are an option which have let die. Other industrial nations have super fast trains that offer a serious and real option.
You can drive your pollutionmobile as long as you want.
Weird claim. Going electric will ban plastics, paints and tires? I did not know that. Did you think you were making sense?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Trains are an option which have let die. Other industrial nations have super fast trains that offer a serious and real option.

Trains only work with relatively short distances compared to aircraft. That's why passenger train service died out competing with commercial aircraft. You can fly coast-to-coast in the US in 4 to 6 hours. It takes 4 to 6 days at a minimum using even a relatively high speed rail service.

You can drive your pollutionmobile as long as you want.

EV's pollute, potentially more than ICE vehicles, only in different ways.

Weird claim. Going electric will ban plastics, paints and tires? I did not know that. Did you think you were making sense?

The fractional distillation of petroleum gives us the chemicals that allow those things to be manufactured. If we produce far less oil due to no need for it as an energy source, we produce far less of the other chemicals and solvents that come out of oil. Thus, the price of everything made with some oil derived product will rise dramatically. Right now, those things are a side product of distillation and are essentially "freebies." If they become the only reason to distill oil, then they become VERY expensive.

 

[RB 60]

Gas just went from $3.42 at the beginning of the week to $3.75 today.

Oops! Wrong meme. but he did do that too.


FJB

 

[Lionfish]

Granholm supports requiring U.S. military to adopt all-electric vehicle fleet by 2030


Energy Sec. Jennifer Granholm says she supports efforts to require the U.S. military to implement an all-electric vehicle fleet by the year 2030, telling lawmakers that she believes “we can get there.”

 

[Nordberg]

Trains only work with relatively short distances compared to aircraft. That's why passenger train service died out competing with commercial aircraft. You can fly coast-to-coast in the US in 4 to 6 hours. It takes 4 to 6 days at a minimum using even a relatively high speed rail service.




EV's pollute, potentially more than ICE vehicles, only in different ways.



The fractional distillation of petroleum gives us the chemicals that allow those things to be manufactured. If we produce far less oil due to no need for it as an energy source, we produce far less of the other chemicals and solvents that come out of oil. Thus, the price of everything made with some oil derived product will rise dramatically. Right now, those things are a side product of distillation and are essentially "freebies." If they become the only reason to distill oil, then they become VERY expensive.

EVs pollute a lot less both in construction and use. They do not have a poisonous exhaust blowing carbon waste into the air for all of us to enjoy.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

EVs pollute a lot less both in construction and use. They do not have a poisonous exhaust blowing carbon waste into the air for all of us to enjoy.

Carbon isn't pollution. It's a common element making up most things organic. EV's require far more mined materials than ICE vehicles, and in greater variety. Mining tends to be a very messy and polluting industry. Also, EV's largely just change where the "pollution" is coming from since most electricity is made using coal or natural gas and will continue to be because solar and wind don't work and nuclear is deemed evil.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Nordberg]

Carbon isn't pollution. It's a common element making up most things organic. EV's require far more mined materials than ICE vehicles, and in greater variety. Mining tends to be a very messy and polluting industry. Also, EV's largely just change where the "pollution" is coming from since most electricity is made using coal or natural gas and will continue to be because solar and wind don't work and nuclear is deemed evil.

Is that what you think? WOW. https://www.epa.gov/transportation-... carbon dioxide,already starting to see today.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Is that what you think? WOW. https://www.epa.gov/transportation-... carbon dioxide,already starting to see today.

After nearly half-a-century of bad modelling, wrong predictions, outright lies, and other mistakes by the Gorebal Warming so-called experts, I'm not buying what the EPA says on this. The EPA has repeatedly refused even congress to show how they've made predictions and cost estimates on this and many other subjects.

EPA refuses to give Congress documents on its rejection of NASA flight after Hurricane Harvey
https://www.reddit.com/r/houston/comments/c5zt6d/epa_refuses_to_give_congress_documents_on_its/

Members Of Congress Push Back On EPA’s Threat To The Permian Basin
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidb...-threat-to-the-permian-basin/?sh=7727baa45845

An Out-Of-Control EPA Loses Yet Another Court Case
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/an-out-of-control-epa-loses-yet-another-court-case/

Supreme Court restricts the EPA's authority to mandate carbon emissions reductions
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1103595898/supreme-court-epa-climate-change

For all intents, the EPA is a rogue agency that makes up its so-called "science" and then won't let anyone peer review it.

 

[Lionfish]

Is your electric vehicle lying to you?

The estimated battery range for electric vehicles — especially in the cold — is more of a "guess-o-meter," according to one Twin Cities EV expert.

Our cold weather tests in two different Tesla models showed between 37% and 43% fewer miles driven than the estimated range showed.

We wanted to know why the most technologically advanced cars on the road can’t seem to give drivers more accurate range estimates.

 

[Nordberg]

After nearly half-a-century of bad modelling, wrong predictions, outright lies, and other mistakes by the Gorebal Warming so-called experts, I'm not buying what the EPA says on this. The EPA has repeatedly refused even congress to show how they've made predictions and cost estimates on this and many other subjects.

EPA refuses to give Congress documents on its rejection of NASA flight after Hurricane Harvey
https://www.reddit.com/r/houston/comments/c5zt6d/epa_refuses_to_give_congress_documents_on_its/

Members Of Congress Push Back On EPA’s Threat To The Permian Basin
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidb...-threat-to-the-permian-basin/?sh=7727baa45845

An Out-Of-Control EPA Loses Yet Another Court Case
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/an-out-of-control-epa-loses-yet-another-court-case/

Supreme Court restricts the EPA's authority to mandate carbon emissions reductions
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1103595898/supreme-court-epa-climate-change

For all intents, the EPA is a rogue agency that makes up its so-called "science" and then won't let anyone peer review it.

You not buying what experts say, because you do not want to.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You not buying what experts say, because you do not want to.

I'm not buying it because it makes on sense.

For example, one of the most expensive and onerous rules the EPA has tried to foist on America is lowering allowable ozone pollution levels nationwide. Right now, the limit is set at 75 ppb (parts per billion). They want to lower this to 65 ppb, a change of just 10 parts per billion. They claim that this will (miraculously) save about 35,000 lives a year and will offset the expected cost of this rule of 100 billion per year completely! Amazing how their unpublished and refused to release--even to Congress on demand of it--research and data came up with the cost equaling the savings.

Now, only an utter fool or oblivious idiot would think that somehow reducing ozone pollution by a miniscule 10 ppb would suddenly save 35,000 lives. It's like the EPA saying their new rule will eliminate all traffic deaths in the US overnight.

I guess you just take whatever some government agency says on face value trusting them to do the right thing. I don't trust them as far as I could throw them, and the EPA is one of the agencies I trust the least.

 

[Nordberg]

I'm not buying it because it makes on sense.

For example, one of the most expensive and onerous rules the EPA has tried to foist on America is lowering allowable ozone pollution levels nationwide. Right now, the limit is set at 75 ppb (parts per billion). They want to lower this to 65 ppb, a change of just 10 parts per billion. They claim that this will (miraculously) save about 35,000 lives a year and will offset the expected cost of this rule of 100 billion per year completely! Amazing how their unpublished and refused to release--even to Congress on demand of it--research and data came up with the cost equaling the savings.

Now, only an utter fool or oblivious idiot would think that somehow reducing ozone pollution by a miniscule 10 ppb would suddenly save 35,000 lives. It's like the EPA saying their new rule will eliminate all traffic deaths in the US overnight.

I guess you just take whatever some government agency says on face value trusting them to do the right thing. I don't trust them as far as I could throw them, and the EPA is one of the agencies I trust the least.

I sure as hell trust them over you. So a drop of 13 percent is meaningless because you say so?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Of the more than 900 automotive executives who took part in the annual global auto survey by KPMG, the international consulting and accounting firm reports 76% are concerned that inflation and high interest rates will adversely affect their business next year. In just the U.S., the figure was 84%.

Amid those concerns, KPMG reports automotive executives are less bullish about the prevalence of all-electric vehicles in the U.S. and globally by 2030. Estimates of new vehicles sold being EVs by then globally ranged from 10% to 40% in this year’s survey, down from 20% to 70% a year earlier.

For the U.S., the median expectation for EV sales was 35% of the new vehicle market — down from 65% a year earlier and significantly lower than the Biden administration’s 50% goal by 2030 that was announced late last year.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/20/aut...-in-ev-adoption-amid-economic-fears-kpmg.html

There are all sorts of indications that EV's currently have a demand problem, which I think comes from people hearing too many stories from people they know who have them that are at odds with suicide cult "EV's R Awesome!" propaganda.