3 Reasons There's Something Sinister With the Big Push for Electric Vehicles by Nick Giambruno
Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 10 months ago to Politics
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.
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
For many years, governments have heavily subsidized EVs through rebates, sales tax exemptions, loans, grants, tax credits, and other means.
According to the Wall Street Journal, US taxpayers will subsidize EVs by at least $393 billion in the coming years—more than the GDP of Hong Kong.
To put that in perspective, if you earned $1 a second 24/7/365—about $31 million per year—it would take you over 12,677 YEARS to make $393 billion.
And that's not even considering the immense subsidies and government support that have occurred in the past.
Furthermore, governments impose burdensome regulations and taxes on gasoline vehicles to make EVs seem relatively more attractive.
Even with this enormous government support, EVs can barely compete with gasoline vehicles.
According to J.D. Power, a consumer research firm, the average EV still costs at least 21% more than the average gasoline vehicle.
Without government support, it's not hard to see how the market for EVs would evaporate as they would become unaffordable for the vast majority of people.
In other words, the EV market is a giant mirage artificially propped up by extensive government intervention.
It begs the question, why are governments going all out to push an obviously uneconomic scam?
While they are undoubtedly corrupt thieves and simply stupid, something more nefarious could also be at play.
Reason #3: EVs Are About Controlling You
EVs are spying machines.
They collect an unimaginable amount of data on you, which governments can access easily.
Analysts estimate that cars generate about 25 gigabytes of data every hour.
Seeing how governments could integrate EVs into a larger high-tech control grid doesn't take much imagination. The potential for busybodies—or worse—to abuse such a system is obvious.
Consider this.
The last thing any government wants is an incident like what happened with the Canadian truckers rebelling against vaccine mandates.
Had the Canadian truckers' vehicles been EVs, the government would have been able to stamp out the resistance much easier.
Here's the bottom line.
The people really in charge do not want the average person to have genuine freedom of movement or access to independent power sources.
They want to know everything, keep you dependent, and have the ability to control everything, just like how a farmer would with his cattle. They think of you in similar terms.
That's why gasoline vehicles have to go and why they are trying to herd us into EVs.
Conclusion
To summarize, EVs are not green, cannot compete with gas cars without enormous government support, and are probably a crucial piece of the emerging high-tech control grid.
The solution is simple: eliminate all government subsidies and support and let EVs compete on their own merits in a totally free market.
But that's unlikely to happen.
Instead, it's only prudent to expect them to push EVs harder and harder.
If EVs were simply government-subsidized status symbols for wealthy liberals who want to virtue signal how they think they're saving the planet, that would be bad enough.
But chances are, the big push for EVs represents something much worse.
Along with 15-minute cities, carbon credits, CBDCs, digital IDs, phasing out hydrocarbons and meat, vaccine passports, an ESG social credit system, and the war on farmers, EVs are likely an integral part of the Great Reset—the dystopian future the global elite has envisioned for mankind.
In reality, the so-called Great Reset is a high-tech form of feudalism.
Sadly, most of humanity has no idea what is coming.
(From Doug Casey newsletter)
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.
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
For many years, governments have heavily subsidized EVs through rebates, sales tax exemptions, loans, grants, tax credits, and other means.
According to the Wall Street Journal, US taxpayers will subsidize EVs by at least $393 billion in the coming years—more than the GDP of Hong Kong.
To put that in perspective, if you earned $1 a second 24/7/365—about $31 million per year—it would take you over 12,677 YEARS to make $393 billion.
And that's not even considering the immense subsidies and government support that have occurred in the past.
Furthermore, governments impose burdensome regulations and taxes on gasoline vehicles to make EVs seem relatively more attractive.
Even with this enormous government support, EVs can barely compete with gasoline vehicles.
According to J.D. Power, a consumer research firm, the average EV still costs at least 21% more than the average gasoline vehicle.
Without government support, it's not hard to see how the market for EVs would evaporate as they would become unaffordable for the vast majority of people.
In other words, the EV market is a giant mirage artificially propped up by extensive government intervention.
It begs the question, why are governments going all out to push an obviously uneconomic scam?
While they are undoubtedly corrupt thieves and simply stupid, something more nefarious could also be at play.
Reason #3: EVs Are About Controlling You
EVs are spying machines.
They collect an unimaginable amount of data on you, which governments can access easily.
Analysts estimate that cars generate about 25 gigabytes of data every hour.
Seeing how governments could integrate EVs into a larger high-tech control grid doesn't take much imagination. The potential for busybodies—or worse—to abuse such a system is obvious.
Consider this.
The last thing any government wants is an incident like what happened with the Canadian truckers rebelling against vaccine mandates.
Had the Canadian truckers' vehicles been EVs, the government would have been able to stamp out the resistance much easier.
Here's the bottom line.
The people really in charge do not want the average person to have genuine freedom of movement or access to independent power sources.
They want to know everything, keep you dependent, and have the ability to control everything, just like how a farmer would with his cattle. They think of you in similar terms.
That's why gasoline vehicles have to go and why they are trying to herd us into EVs.
Conclusion
To summarize, EVs are not green, cannot compete with gas cars without enormous government support, and are probably a crucial piece of the emerging high-tech control grid.
The solution is simple: eliminate all government subsidies and support and let EVs compete on their own merits in a totally free market.
But that's unlikely to happen.
Instead, it's only prudent to expect them to push EVs harder and harder.
If EVs were simply government-subsidized status symbols for wealthy liberals who want to virtue signal how they think they're saving the planet, that would be bad enough.
But chances are, the big push for EVs represents something much worse.
Along with 15-minute cities, carbon credits, CBDCs, digital IDs, phasing out hydrocarbons and meat, vaccine passports, an ESG social credit system, and the war on farmers, EVs are likely an integral part of the Great Reset—the dystopian future the global elite has envisioned for mankind.
In reality, the so-called Great Reset is a high-tech form of feudalism.
Sadly, most of humanity has no idea what is coming.
(From Doug Casey newsletter)
Laughing, he pointed at a hooked-up EV being powered up in a neighbor's driveway and said, "I wonder how much coal is being burned to charge up that car."
About a year later I was picking my bro up on the other side of Birmingham for needing a drive back from a medical procedure.
I told him my neighbor had traded in his EV for a car with an internal comustion engine, telling me that he "needed something more practical."
My bro and I thought that given reason pretty well simplified a why for never buying one of those libtarded virtue statements.
That reminds me. Today I saw a lady wearing a red mask alone in a car. Thought the color red always has a way of being noticed.
A masked man rides off into the sunset on a white horse, yelling, "Hi ho, Silver! Away!"
One onlooking cowboy says to the other, "Hey, who was that masked man?"
The other cowboy shrugs as he says, "Just some stupid libtard."
A Vegan and a Vegetarian Jump off the cliff to see who hits the ground first... Who wins?
... Society ...
Some of these people can be convinced with a simple discussion. But the minute it has a zealot's flaw, they will snap right back to CNN.
I had an argument about AGW with a soccer buddy of mine, and I pointed out that CO2 is clearly not the greenhouse gas directly causing the problem that Al Gore asserted and everyone else just accepts. All climate experts know this, for sure. All climate models that show any correlation include a feedback mechanism from CO2 to water vapor, the real culprit. This is also a FACT.
He went off and found a NASA propaganda:
https://climate.nasa.gov/
My view of this is that NASA (and maybe others) have figured out that what they have been saying is obvious bullshit, but now people have been acclimated (no pun intended) to more narrative. The CO2 sound bite is well-fixtured in the lemming-idiots minds that other narrative can begin. If you read this stuff, it is clear that the message for decades has been COMPLETE nonsense. The story is changing to conveniently back into the conclusion.
If this had started with "CO2 is bad because CO2 precipitates water vapor, and water vapor is bad", who would have listened? No one!
Now they must go into a treatment program to get them off their addictions.
Starting with not letting them vote on anything until they pass tests
to prove they can think rationally and deserve a voice in managing
government constitutional acts.
Government mandating irrational financial incentives is killing civilization.
I came here to learn and develop means to sway others. If it is just going to be a bitch session, and funny, but BS statements, are the flavor of the day, I'll drop off and stick to Reason Magazine, et al.
And said it takes almost the first 2 yrs to break even.
Thoughts?
Also, do you believe that CO2 is the "root cause" of warming? (because assuming that premise is flawed, and I feel it is, then the amount of CO2 savings is immaterial... It's just another way to control us)
I DO NOT see that anyone has definitively proven CO2 is the root of any issue. It is clear that
1. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas
2. Water vapor is THE greenhouse gas in ALL models showing warming
3. CO2 is assumed (not physics) to precipitate water vapor.
Here is the NASA cite, now admitting as much.
https://climate.nasa.gov/
In terms of "belief" (which I avoid after Rickover's Nazis drilled me about it), I believe the climate experts always knew it wasn't fundamentally CO2, but funding drove their publications. After arguing and discussing with several (including the head of the dept at Rochester University), they will admit CO2 is not the actual greenhouse gas, and it is probably water vapor. They will also admit that they don't know how CO2 causes water vapor.
These science geeks have money and some control. They never had any, and don't wield it responsibly. They are as easily corrupted by this as by the attention of a pretty girl.
My fundamental view is that no one knows enough to legislate away our freedoms regarding CO2.
Getting independent on oil is good. It takes away the funding from terrorists, and is much cheaper than military solutions to terror. We should be pursuing nuclear much harder, and get rid of the stupid regulatory impediments. We should NOT subsidize anything.
When you reply to things, I take them quite seriously, as you have proven to be well-grounded!
What was the last boat you were on?
Boat... Meaning ideological ride... With you, it was the details on ICE efficiency and Battery Efficiency, I believe about 2+ years ago.
Boat... As a reference to "Well-grounded"... Well now you understand what being on the spectrum causes someone like me... LOL
And I have an Autographed Photo from Shatner...
To Kirk... From Kirk... One of the few prized possessions. (Some warn to never meet your heroes... I suggest meeting them... After you realized they were just flawed men, like all the rest... Then it's great! LOL)
Big Star Trek fan too. I have the original technical manuals, Enterprise blueprints and a signed picture of Michael Dorn as Wharf. Have an TOS comm box on the wall of my office.
https://startrekunlimited.com/product...
Can't believe Shatner was the one to be the richest and the longest lived.
There was an actual Captain James (Adam) Kirk in the Navy recently. He was on the DDG1000 program when I knew him.
https://www.cnet.com/culture/captain-...
Made Admiral and retired.
Great Retro Refit over my Doorbell!
Almost just ordered it on impulse.
Pun intended. LOL
Awesome, I loved his
Live Long, and Prosper comment.
I answer the phone: Kirk Here
I end emails: Kirk Out!
LOL
Awesome conversation. I am a Trek fan as well, but obviously not as strong as you two. Glad to have you both in the Gulch as I have learned much and always read your posts!
Live long and prosper!
Hayek predicted it perfectly. And we can't afford to permit it.
tech can solve the problems
high temp super conductors, solar in orbit, more fission and fusion plants
but that is not the goal of the politicians and their paymasters
control of We the People is
and they must be shown how wrong they are
When you own electric, you are tethered to the grid.
If you own a Tesla, you are tethered to the factory and the grid.
Power. Money. Societal Control.
Given this triad, that makes it a trifecta.
Gasoline motors are quite inefficient. Electric motors get much more power per unit of energy.
Electrical power generation plants are much, much more efficient (even burning whatever fossil fuel) than gas cars are.
So you can burn coal to make electricity, but the coal creates much more usable efficiency at big scale than gas can in a car. And then you can use that energy, with some transmission losses, to be sure, in an electric car, and the total system energy use is more efficient.
I will also remark that from 2019-2021, the most successful car company in the US by far (Tesla) was not being subsidized, while it's competitors were. Yet Tesla sold far, far more cars. And made good profits, too.
Now, it's quite true that many car companies (GM and Ford come to mind) haven't figured out how to make electric cars at a reasonable cost. Boo on them.
Please don't debase reason and science just because you don't like subsidies or because your political enemies like a technology.
Also, Tesla absolutely was subsidized. Last figure was $3 BILLION: https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst....
Again, I was just talking about electric car subsidies unique to electric cars, and the period 2019-2021. But hey, confound normal business with direct product subsidies if you want.
"So you must hate all big businesses and all major investments."
When those are sponsored using tax dollars? YES. See keiretsu. They are direct interference in the market by government fingers.
And as I remarked, Tesla did quite well in 2019-2021 without subsidies at the margin (I mean, per car subsidies, at least at the Federal level in the US.)
That's all I should need to say. Government loans are subsidies. Always have been. In my book, it's a contradictory position to say you are against subsidies while immediately celebrating Tesla's success...
I'm not in favor of that loan, but it was paid off well before Tesla had begun to manufacture their main mass-market vehicles, the models 3 and Y.
All I'm asking if that you all be objective.
Petroleum companies have gotten lots of subsidies of one kind and other, too. Do you hate them?
Get out of the echo chamber.
You're the one who asserts on the one hand you are against subsidies yet you keep talking about all these companies that get them as if they are necessary for success. It seems to me your argument isn't with me, but with yourself.
My ideal would be that government wouldn't be involved. No industry-specific taxes. No subsidies. Let the market do its job.
Ford is transparent about this in their price. Tesla included it as a reduction in their price when they got it (no longer). A little underhanded of Elon.
Tesla carbon credit subsidies: '19- $600 million, '20 - $1,580 million, '21 - $1,430 million, '22 - $1,780 million
I said that in the case of Tesla, I doubt it. And indeed for many companies I doubt it.
I did say that most every big company that invests somewhere gets some tax breaks or whatever. Costco (or the developers) just negotiated a big tax discount for building a store near my house.
I abhor this situation. I'm for lower taxes and no subsidies as a general policy.
Yet one cannot hate one company in particular for doing what most all companies do these days, without giving similar treatment to all like cases.
GM and Ford were in the top 10 every year. This is true for US unit sales and for global unit sales.
No one has "figured out how to make electric cars at a reasonable cost".
All car companies are making EVs only due to government force and/or government financial subsidies.
Tesla is still selling carbon credits created by government (to promote EV's that can't compete otherwise)
to other car companies. Every single dollar of carbon credits sold is a government created subsidy to
Tesla (and stolen from other car makers.)
Tesla carbon credit subsidies: '19- $600 million, '20 - $1,580 million, '21 - $1,430 million, '22 - $1,780 million
Add to that the $7,500 tax rebate subsidy for each Tesla purchased in the US.
If EV's could compete in the free market there would be no need for subsidies.
I'd love to have more efficient vehicles, but EV's aren't good enough yet to make it in a free market.
The only logical reason for government to subsidize EV's now is to control and loot people and to
reduce individual liberty, imo.
D.C. is tyranny. NIFO
I was talking about Tesla's car sales compared to other EVs. Although, as they grow sales at around 50% a year, it shouldn't be long before Tesla's market share overall gets quite appreciable.
You are right about the carbon credits.
You are wrong about the $7500 Federal Tax credit, which Tesla did not get 2019-2021.(GM also lost access to the credit in this time period.)
The instructions are like trying to read Sanskrit though.
Big surprise that Tesla had more EV sales since the govt hadn't applied much pressure on the rest
and it was clear to car makers that the market wasn't there. Toyoda still doesn't want to build them.
Elon has been the a really big looter in the EV biz. Tesla would have been dead years ago without subsidies.
Now a problem with a 7.62x39 AR that won't go into battery. More tinkering, heh heh.
Ground vehicle internal combustion engines are 20% efficient. EV power trains are ~95% efficient. Battery round trip charge/discharge is about 95%. Average power generation efficiency is 46.8% in the US. This is about 40% vs 20%, saving twice the energy. It is not complicated. It is not an opinion.
With respect to infrastructure it is about a 25% increase to the total (not peak) electrical power produced to move ALL road vehicle transportation loads to electric. In terms of peak demand, it is almost trivial. This is NOT the problem. It is a minor adjustment, that we frankly need anyway to address grid vulnerability.
The meme is the absolutely stupidest part of the argument. The words are far more correct as a percentage.
We have to stop saying things that are wrong! I have explained this here at least 5 times, probably more.
I am getting to the point the people who aren't listening and understanding this simple calculus are just in cognitive dissonance (idiots).
The rest of the points about subsidies, etc, are correct. EVs may be core to the Great Reset, but they do save energy. "Feudalism", "Oligarchy" and Totalitarian are all good terms to describe what the Great Reset seeks to accomplish.
CO2 as AGW is silly, yes I agree. The hypocrisy is clear. If climate zealots want CO2 reduced, the ONLY solution we have is nuclear. We should be rushing to nuclear, if they believe what they say. They are not because a majority of people are technical idiots, and those carrying the message are totalitarians seeking power by disrupting the status quo.
"Green" is a meaningless term. It means whatever the people seeking control say it means.
Here are some of the "inconvenient truths" of EV's:
1) Ecological damage caused by mining of rare-earth elements for batteries
2) Ecological damage caused by disposal of batteries
3) Lack of rare-earth elements to support moving all vehicles to electric
4) Control of rare-earth element mining in hands of political adversaries
5) Weight of EV's 2x that of ICE
6) non-ubiquity of infrastructure necessary to support EV's such as charging stations
7) Lack of basic electrical grid infrastructure to support influx of EV's
8) Range issues with EV's typically 1/2 to 2/3 of standard ICE
9) Weather issues render EV's unusable in moderate (and especially extreme) temperatures
10) Vehicle fires in EV's exposed to water are impossible to fight
11) Cost of replacing battery far outweighs costs of gasoline over same time period (at least 2x even @ $4/gallon)
12) Impracticality of EV use in large vehicles (weight, range issues)
Again, not arguing that EV's should be outlawed. Just that ALL the costs need to be considered. (And this list doesn't even go into the political ramifications of the government effectively controlling ALL electrical power infrastructure...)
There are solutions to the rare earth issue already, and a bunch more on the way. Battery and rare earth recycling is already massively uinderway. We buy recycled magnets for some of our electric machines.
We need to object to the real objectionable things: FORCE = regulation, legislation, subsidy, tax relief. EVs work fine.
and burn down the garage and the attached mansion.)
They are not competitive on cost of ownership.
That is not fine for those who are not wealthy.
Not having enough range may be fine for the rich who
never have to drive more than 100 miles. It is not fine
for family vacations by car. It is not fine for working people who
drive trucks that haul heavy tools, building materials, heavy
equipment, etc.
I'd love it if EV's were competitive on cost and capability,
but they are not.
And cost gets worse when the taxes on miles driven are added in
the future (as they already are on hydrocarbon fueled vehicles.)
Forcing everyone to pay for toys for the rich is slavery.
This is not the middle ages and Americans are not serfs.
In addition my town has their own electric company, and power between 4pm-8pm is 10x the price of power other times (our rate is already quite low (70% of neighboring towns). With the variable rate, I can charge off peak and pay virtually nothing to drive.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
The way things are going there may be no freedom of speech by then.
and it will take more than voting. It should already be clear, but some still cling to the fantasy
that elections can change the fedgov for the better. That has not happened since the 19th century.
Replacing any administration won't fix the problem; at best it gives false hope.
Repeating the same action and expecting a different result is not sane.
The People must act and there's no time like the present.
If we resist we will regain freedom; if not we are dooming humanity to serfdom for centuries.
Freedom is the most important thing in the universe.
Without it there is no pleasure in any gadget or convenience, and the pleasure of production is extinct.
We must resist the bribes of the deep state.
We must no longer do as we have been programmed.
As for the rest, there are always theories and I'm not saying there can't be solutions. I'm just noting what the existing and outstanding problems are rather than glossing over them or trying to ignore them.
1. Real.
2. Real.
3. Real.
4. Real.
5. Fact.
6. Fact.
7. Disputed. Awaiting data.
8. Fact.
9. Fact.
10. Fact.
11. Fact.
12. Fact.
1) Yes, but unquantified (like I said), and unclear if this is severely affected by EVs. Nuclear power increases local radiation irrelevantly, and it might even decrease total radiation by reducing carbon 14 in coal.
2) Unquantified
3) Unquantified, and may not even be real. The next magnet tech is Iron Nitride, not rare earth
4) Yes, for now, The US and Australia also have what is needed, AND may be irrelevant (to EVs) soon enough
5) Exaggerated. The weight of EVs is 700-800 lbs more than an ICE, not double. Batteries have doubled in energy density every 10 years.
6) No - SAE adapted Tesla's plug as the new standard: https://www.sae.org/news/press-room/2...
7) No - About the same level concern as Range Anxiety, explained above.
8) Overwhelmingly irrelevant
9) Cold reduces EV range by 30%, irrelevant.
10) Fires are not from water. They are from battery overheating. There is not elemental lithium to liberate hydrogen. Fires are a concern. Water is not the cause.
11) If you have to replace the battery. A new battery does cost a lot. The batteries last 100k-200k miles. Most people don't keep cars that long. The replacement battery market has not gotten off the ground yet. Arguing that this customer need will not be met by industry is laughable in a website dedicated to capitalism. https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping...
12) Agree. EVs are not the solution to trucking. Trains and diesel works. If you believe in CO2, convert ALL ethanol production to biodiesel - DONE.
You need to get your facts from places that are not loaded with cognitive dissonance from reactions to subsidies and spiteful reaction to political opponents.
Gasoline isn't a part of the existing electrical grid so removing it doesn't add capacity to the grid, it transfers the load TO the grid.
"Demand factor (how often charging occurs is a lot less than 50%. Loading (when to charge) is completely controllable."
Controllable by whom? What you're going to get is a huge load on the grid right when people get home from work - at the same time they are firing up their newly-mandated electric stoves, etc. to fix dinner... Be objective. This isn't going to improve the load on the grid in any fashion - it is only going to create more problems.
1. Glad you agree that this is a real issue.
2. But real nonetheless.
3. Hypotheticals are not real solutions - yet. I'm more than happy to revise when it becomes real. Until then...
4. Leadership in both will have to change first. Both Biden and Australia's PM are owned by China. Until that happens, these resources will remain unavailable.
5. For a small car like a Tesla, that's 1/2 its weight. Road engineers are already sounding the warning bells about the higher amounts of road wear - which isn't going to be paid for with gasoline taxes. And even structural engineers for parking garages are sounding the warning in light of several recent collapses...
6. Doesn't change the fact that you can't find a charging station near as often as a gas station. There are even apps in California which track which charging stations are operable because many aren't...
7. I already showed that you have your math backwards. EV's ADD load to the grid - not subtract.
8. Irrelevant? Isn't that a decision to be made by the individual consumer - not you?
9. Irrelevant? Again, that's a decision to be made by the consumer - not you. For me and where I live (with temp extremes) it's a deal-killer.
10. So you don't disagree that battery fires are a serious problem. Glad we agree.
11. "Most people don't keep cars that long." Sounds like "Cash for Clunkers" all over again...
12. We are in 100% agreement here.
There's a lot of information (deliberately?) hidden behind current Orwellian language. "Four legs good, two legs baaaad." No, suddenly it's four legs good, two legs better. Also notice the use of "carbon" to mean carbon dioxide. Or are we supposed to think it's carbon monoxide? Nobody mentions the effects on the weather of hydrogen hydroxide boiled up by our friendly fusion reactor.
Am I the only one stunned by the fact that for the first time in American - maybe human - history, governments are trying to force people at gunpoint to adopt a fad? So whenever faced with something stunning from government - and these days it takes quite a bit, believe me - I start doing what I have been doing since I first read The Fountainhead: I start questioning motives.
And the a+b=x / solve-for-x motive here is pretty clear: Force the entire population of America into vehicles which by the very nature of their motive power are 100% dependent on government for their fuel. Electric cars must be plugged into power grids to recharge; ICE cars have any of hundreds of thousands of independent, privately-owned and -operated gas stations to choose from, none of which under the control of government except for the usual panoply of taxes and regulations. When I mention this I'm frequently hit with the rejoinder "Well gas stations are dependent on electric utilities to run their pumps," Which of course is true. But if you take it down to a worst-case scenario, with the availability of petrol - and believe you me, the goal for these misanthropic bastards is to obliterate fossil fuels so that they are no longer produced and no longer available - a gas station owner hit with a power grid shutdown only has to have a gas generator sitting out back and his whole business and all of his customers can proceed with business as usual. But with no source of fossil fuel - therefore of raw power for a generator - zilch.
So I submit that the underlying motive of this gunpoint demand is the shift of the fundamental right to travel from 100% individual, autonomous choice to 100% control by government. If your car has to be plugged into the grid to run and some bureaucrat sits on the electric kill switch - and with today's digital technology we needn't talk about a general blackout but that bureaucrat merely hating your politics or your ethnicity or just your face - then someone else decides whether you get to travel or not. Even setting aside the volumes that have been written about the avalanche of data-collection (read: privacy-rights-obliteration,) engineered into the guts of all cars these days, if your means of transportation is 100% dependent for its fuel on a government entity, then your right to travel is no longer a right, it's a permission. And yes, the right to travel is indeed a right, not a "privilege." The opposite of the right to travel is, in a word: Imprisonment. If we were living in 1723 or 1823 the ability to travel 100 miles in a couple of hours would not be a big deal. But we are not living in 1723 or 1823, and in today's world that ability is virtually as vital as food and water.
So until the vast majority of America's power grids are privatized in total - which should be our pushback goal - electric cars will continue to represent a profoundly potent weapon in a broadening variety of assaults on human rights and liberties by vestigial and recidivistic collectivists. It's the "slowly-boiling-frog" meme in real life, maybe more than any other issue, because most people take electricity for granted and never stop to ponder who controls it. As a resident of LA I watched in horror during the Wuhan Hypochondemic as businesses refusing to comply with the "Lock your business down and go bankrupt for safety's sake" edicts got their water and... (guess what...) power - shut off by the LA Dept of Water & Power.
I hasten to add - and assume people familiar with Objectivist philosophy will take this as a given - this is no slam on electric cars per se and definitely no slam on Mr. Musk, whose 21st century entrepreneurialism is nothing short of historic (the issue of subsidies also being separate, and subsumed thoroughly in Rand's article on the subject in any case.) Though I'm partial to hydrogen cars, which I see as the single best "alternative fuel" vehicle option in existence and which I would already own (particularly if Tesla would produce them,) and if it weren't for the fact that they look like Electrolux canister vacuum cleaners aesthetically, electric cars are a welcome addition to the choices we have in automobiles. But that's: choices. Herr Newsom and Herr Biden, until they are removed from positions of power along with their ideological ilk, are not talking about choice.
And there is a reason for that.
.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion...
.
more especially the youth must come to comprehend the reality