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)
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
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...)
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)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
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.