Electric vehicle shock treatment

Britain showcases what US and global future will really look like with “sustainable” EVs

Duggan Flanakin

Joe Biden, his fellow Democrats, and apparently big U.S. automakers, have joined the rush to transform America’s transportation to 100% electric vehicles (EV) whether We the People want it or not. During an October town hall, Biden asserted that his plan would save “billions of gallons of oil” and help create a million auto industry jobs, in part by banning the sale or manufacture of new internal combustion (IC) engine vehicles by 2030. How this will happen in the Real World, he didn’t say.  

Biden’s California-inspired vision excludes hybrid vehicles, includes installing 500,000 EV charging stations, and provides “cash for clunkers” style rebates for new EV buyers. But as of 2018, nearly half of EV registrations (256,800 out of 543,600) were in California, with Hawaii, Washington and Oregon not far behind. Yet as of 2018, EVs comprised less than 2% of California’s 15 million total vehicles – despite huge tax credits, free charging stations, free access to HOV lanes, and other subsidies and incentives.

Only 727,000 electric vehicles were sold in the USA in 2019, and nearly half were plug-in hybrids. Hybrid sales peaked in 2013, but by 2019 had fallen to 2.3% (about 400,000 vehicles) of all light-duty vehicle sales, largely due to shunning by EV purists. Compare those numbers with the 6.3 million total vehicles sold in 2016, or to the 273,600,000 passenger cars, motorcycles, trucks, buses and other vehicles on U.S. roads in 2018.

Following China’s lead, U.S. automakers – not just Tesla – are all aboard for this big switchover. As IC vehicles are replaced and gasoline stations are transformed into EV charging stations, the pressure will rise to ditch remaining IC vehicles and buy more EVs. China-friendly General Motors plans to spend $20 billion on EV and self-driving vehicle technology through 2025, including 23 different EVs by 2023. Ford Motor Company has pledged to invest $11 billion by 2022 on EV development.

Biden is following in the footsteps of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, whose new climate plan includes banning sales of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2030, and hybrids by 2035. But, as economist and Global Britain think tank director Ewen Stewart argued, this is “frankly one of the most illiberal and economically destructive policies ever to come from Whitehall. It risks hundreds of thousands of livelihoods and much-needed exports for the most marginal benefit.”  

“The implications of this ban [in a country with only 1% EVs] are immense in terms of manufacture, supply chains, investment, sunk capital, employment, infrastructure, consumer choice, value of existing stock, and so much more,”  Stewart explained. “Never before has a government dared to close down an entire and critical industry almost overnight, by diktat.”  

It is delusional, he continued, to believe that destroying a successful British industry by banning IC engines – rather than letting consumer choice determine the market – will be good for the economy. Today’s British automotive sector comprises a fifth of the nation’s manufacturing base, with over 80% of the 1.3 million cars it manufactures being exported. That’s 13% of the UK’s entire export market.

The UK automotive industry employs over 180,000 Britons directly and many hundreds of thousands more indirectly. But the United Kingdom cannot compete with China for the global EV market, because UK labor costs are far higher, and its energy is increasingly far more expensive and unreliable. 

Worse, Stewart pointed out, this virtue signaling will have at best a miniscule benefits for the UK and global environment, but will be devastating for automobile owners. The British government already vastly diminished the value of the nation’s 12 million diesel vehicles with surcharges that cost owners of pre-2015 diesel vehicles up to $67 per week just to drive in “ultra-low-emission zones.” Other costs included doubling parking permit rates and higher taxes for diesel vehicles.

The new initiatives will do the same to gasoline-powered vehicles. They will phase out gasoline pumps, cause resale value to plummet, and devastate the nation’s export market.

Andrew Montford, deputy director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, says the misguided British plan could cost motorists £700 billion (US$938 billion). Several aspects of EVs, Montford contended, make them more costly than petrol cars: replacing expensive batteries, installing home charging stations (often requiring upgrading household wiring), time and inconvenience during battery recharges, and more.

Montford estimated that by 2050 the average household might have spent an extra £19,000 (US$25,460) – if they can still afford to own a vehicle. Moreover, with other government mandates driving up the cost of electricity, the cost of motoring could double, driving working classes entirely off the roads.

The absurdity of this British assault on its own existing auto industry is made even more ridiculous by the fact that wide-scale electrification doesn’t change current mobility patterns – and only manages to reduce transportation greenhouse gas emissions 15% by 2050, Spanish systems engineering expert Margarita Mediaville explained. To call EVs “green” or “sustainable” is patently absurd.

Ms. Mediaville’s company also found that manufacturing all those new EV batteries would deplete proven global reserves of copper, lithium, nickel and manganese, unless mining and/or recycling rates grow enormously by 2050. But opening new mines, mostly in other countries, as the European Union proposes, would have “devastating repercussions on water, biodiversity and the human rights of local communities.” 

Mining and processing ores, and manufacturing batteries, would also require enormous amounts of fossil fuels, involve hundreds or thousands of tons of ore and overburden for every ton of finished metals, and result in prodigious emissions of pollutants and carbon dioxide. Indeed, a new report by Competitive Enterprise Institute analyst Ben Lieberman concludes that replacing gasoline with electricity as the energy source for vehicles does not eliminate those emissions, but only changes where they are emitted.  

Yet another downside of vastly increasing the number of EVs is that the metals and minerals increasingly come from countries like China, Chile and Congo – where fair wage, child labor, workplace safety and environmental standards are far below anything the US or EU  would tolerate. EV batteries also require more energy to manufacture than batteries and engines for IC vehicles. Recycling them is likewise complicated, expensive, and fraught with pollution and public health risks.

The financial firm UBS found that replacing global sales of conventional IC vehicles with electric versions would require a 2,898% increase in lithium production; a 1,928% increase in cobalt; a 524% increase in graphite; a 105% increase in nickel; a 655% increase in rare-earth minerals; and at least a tripling of copper production. Coal, diesel and gasoline burning would also skyrocket, to fuel the work.

A separate report from Securing America’s Future Energy indicates China controls nearly 70% of electric vehicle battery manufacturing capacity, compared to just 10% by the USA. The report projects that 107 of the 142 EV battery manufacturing projects scheduled by 2021 will be in China, with only nine in the U.S. Moving toward mandatory EVs will clearly enrich China at America’s expense.

Before taking any steps toward converting America to EVs and non-fossil fuel electricity generation, U.S. policymakers must carefully examine the human and environmental costs – in precise numbers, including rising lung disease, cancer, injury and death rates in foreign mines, processing plants and factories.

They must also consider the impact on American workers and communities from outsourcing battery manufacturing to Chinese companies. The Chinese, with assistance from a President Biden, will happily take most of those manufacturing jobs back to the Middle Kingdom, while saddling American families with soaring costs for unreliable electricity, short-range driving and collapsing industries. Incredibly, our dependence on China for minerals and component parts for high-tech military equipment will also soar!

All these issues demand the attention of our legislators and regulators, environmentalists and journalists. Unless of course they’re just engaging in cheap virtue-signaling, and actually don’t give a hoot about American workers and energy consumers, the U.S. and global environment, or global adult and child workers who will put their health and lives at risk providing EV and other technologies.

Duggan Flanakin is Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 11, 2020 2:16 pm

Forward this article to as many people as possible!!!

People occasionally talk about “End Times.” If all current (PI) proposals come to fruition, they begin in 2030!!!

Joel Snider
Reply to  tomwys
December 11, 2020 2:32 pm

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Gary K Hoffman
Reply to  Joel Snider
December 13, 2020 11:59 am

So wrote the guy who drank himself to death at age 39. He’d have been better off going gentle.

Reply to  tomwys
December 11, 2020 4:59 pm

Yeah who thought the “Mad Max” (aka “Road Warrior”) movies would do a better job of predicting the future than 136 (or whatever number it is) climate models?

Reply to  tomwys
December 11, 2020 7:35 pm

Unfortunately 2030 is to late according to Dimensia Joe.

“Biden: Only 9 years left to save Earth from climate change”

December 11, 2020 2:19 pm

Trend setting California is moving to EV’s only, regardless of the public’s interest or ability to afford them, and concurrently shuttering most of the in-state natural gas and nuclear power plants that have been providing continuous uninterruptible electricity, in favor of intermittent electricity from wind and solar. With California having a history of the most blackouts in America over the last decade, they are removing power generation at the same time the state will be adding EV charging loads onto the grid. Go figure….

Best of all, President elect Joe Biden wants to “clone” California’s policies and regulations for the other 49 states.

Reply to  Ronald Stein
December 11, 2020 2:50 pm

Ronald Stein said:
… ” President elect Joe Biden wants to “clone” California’s policies and regulations for the other 49 states.”

Mr Stein. it is not fair for the people of California to suffer alone.
They will feel better if they have company. We will all suffer together with our expensive, heavy electric cars, loaded with batteries to dispose of some day.

Here is southeastern Michigan, Our DTE Energy uses coal for over 60 percent of their electricity. So our electric cars are really 60 percent coal cars. For a few years, every Tesla I saw was black, looking like a big lump of coal in my imagination.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Ronald Stein
December 11, 2020 3:07 pm

I swear – they’ve only been saying they were going to do this all along. It amazes me how many people don’t believe it when they tell you their intentions flat-out.

Reply to  Joel Snider
December 12, 2020 2:50 am

Joel you have to remember RECORD numbers voted for Biden 😉

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Derg
December 12, 2020 7:28 am

I just saw an interview this morning with Rudi Juliani, Trump’s lawyer, and he said they had discovered that 60,000 dead people had voted in one State and 40,000 dead people had voted in another State. He didn’t name the States.

I don’t imagine any of those dead people voted for Trump.

So we don’t really know how many eligible people voted for Biden. There’s a possibility Biden didn’t get enough legal votes to win.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 12, 2020 12:11 pm

Joe Biden is America’s #1 choice of dead people. They came out in their 1000’s to support Beijing Joe.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 13, 2020 8:08 am

Simple solution to all this, every voter shows up in person, shows ID, signs and thumb prints their ballot, all ballot counting is done publicly and under guard of US military personnel. No more computers, no more early voting and all done on Election Day. Period. Full stop.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 13, 2020 11:15 am

Hey, if I can’t enjoy life any more, none of you living people should, either!
It’s only fair!

A dead Biden voter.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 15, 2020 6:17 pm

Provide some evidence of this. Rudi Giuliani’s ‘opinion’ is not evidence. You need to submit something that would stand up in a court of law. Or, shut up, and go away – in that order.

John Law
Reply to  Ronald Stein
December 11, 2020 3:46 pm

It’s what corpse would do!

henry Chance
Reply to  John Law
December 12, 2020 5:00 pm

Lotta dead people will roll over in their graves if Biden gets busted.

Reply to  Ronald Stein
December 12, 2020 4:31 am

There are many unintended consequences of unrealistic political decisions.
Other issues with this is that IC engines will not go away.
Trains run on diesel electric systems
Heavy equipment lifting and earth moving equipment
Long haul trucks
What would refineries do with all the excess gasoline produced from making diesel, aviation fuel and fuel oil.
You always get more than one product from distillation.
John Rockefeller solved his waste gasoline from kerosene production by the introduction of the IC engine.
It all depends on the type of crude available.

M Courtney
December 11, 2020 2:38 pm

This is the stupidest blunder Boris has ever made.
And he thought he had an oven-ready Brexit.
The most foolish man in Britain.
Except for those who follow the fool.

Reply to  M Courtney
December 12, 2020 4:20 am

I couldn’t agree more. Boris has been a great disappointment. The problem seems to be he’s entirely governed by his gonads.

December 11, 2020 2:42 pm

Everybody knows that Biden and China have to have cont(r)acts, but what’s about Johnson in UK ?

Big Al
Reply to  Krishna Gans
December 11, 2020 7:01 pm

Hunter’s laptop shows China has blackmail on Biden . GITMO for Joe.

Reply to  Big Al
December 12, 2020 6:31 am

You won’t hear much more about that laptop in about 4 weeks or less.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Spetzer86
December 12, 2020 7:28 am

And don’t ever forget, 80 million people “voted” for this idiot.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
December 15, 2020 6:20 pm

Same amount of idiots that voted for Trump last time around. Are you seeing a pattern here? Doesn’t matter who you speak to, the majority of Muricans are idiots.

Note: The rest of the world has been grimly aware of this fact for a very long time.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Spetzer86
December 12, 2020 7:45 am

Yes, that’s the problem. The criminals will be in charge of all our institutions, including law enforcement and opinion formation.

The last time these same criminals were in charge, during the Obama administration, they used their positions of power to harm their political opposition, and trampled the U.S. Constitution along the way. There is every reason to expect this activity will continue.

Note that Biden is appointing Susan Rice to head up his Domestic Policy board, which has its hands in just about everything. Also note that Susan Rice is an Obama Flunky, and so what has happened with this appointment is Obama has been put in charge of much of Biden’s domestic policy, through his surrogate, Susan Rice.

We never did get around to investigating Susan Rice for all those unmaskings of Americans she did, now did we. Well, she may be back in a position to spy on more of us in the future.

The U.S. Supreme Court could fix this travesty of justice. Are you going to punt and allow a bunch of criminal Democrats to steal this presidential election? That’s what you will be doing if you punt and refuse to enforce the rules of the U.S. Constitution and its election laws.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 12, 2020 10:23 am

I should really re-stock my ammo. Haven’t been shooting in over a decade, don’t know if ammo goes “bad”, but it’s not worth the risk.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 13, 2020 8:02 am

Long as it is sealed watertight it is fine. I have fired .303Brit produced before WW1 that was fine, other than being corrosive propellant and Berdan primers. Over the years I have bought lower grade ammo so that we would have misfires, ruptured cases, etc etc. Can’t get proficient handling problems if you don’t have any. Older Indian, Pakistani and Indonesian ammo tend to be the worst, newer production is quite a bit better.

Old Gobi Jumper
December 11, 2020 2:54 pm

A solution that can’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist.

Sam Capricci
Reply to  Old Gobi Jumper
December 11, 2020 6:02 pm

But they’ll claim victory anyway because catastrophe has been diverted.

Gunga Din
December 11, 2020 2:54 pm

It will take a lot of reliable energy to produce the EV’s to replace the real cars and trucks in the US.
If The Green New Wet Dream is enacted, only China and India will have that required energy.
The “jobs” Joe is promising to produce these vehicles will not be in the US.
And there will be few buyers in the US since the price of electricity will skyrocket (as Obama promised) to the point where people couldn’t afford the drive around block every other day! (Blackouts, brownouts will reduce how frequently your “Green Dream Machine” can be partially recharged.)

December 11, 2020 2:56 pm

Just wait for all the EV unintended consequences to start adding up. Given the slow uptake of EVs …. for various reasons already identified or not ….. the changeover won’t be gradual but rather reach a point of no return and cause economic and lifestyle havoc. Little things like where will we store all the unusable ICE vehicles awaiting recycling when gasoline becomes a scarce commodity? Like almost three million in the US alone?

Reply to  markl
December 11, 2020 3:53 pm

That should be almost 300 million vehicles!!

Steve Case
Reply to  markl
December 11, 2020 5:28 pm

markl December 11, 2020 at 2:56 pm
Just wait for all the EV unintended consequences to start adding up.

Destroying the free market capitalist economy IS their intended goal. Get your mind right!

December 11, 2020 3:00 pm

“Compare those numbers with the 6.3 million total vehicles sold in 2016”. Mistake. Total vehicle sales in the US in 2016 were 17.5 million.


Jim Gorman
December 11, 2020 3:05 pm

There is not a chance that the electrical distribution system would be ready for this to start by 2030. The State PUC’s will need to approve the rates necessary to provide the money for new neighborhood wiring and substation transformers. The amount of equipment nationwide wouldn’t be available by this time, even if ordered today. This doesn’t even count the equipment to support nationwide numbers of high capacity charging stations.

These people aren’t just crazy but ignorant. They have been government employees their whole careers and have NO EXPERIENCE in what provisioning local electrical distribution requires. Who the he11 are the people advising them? It looks like the FUBAR planning disaster of the century.

Bill Rocks
Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 11, 2020 3:33 pm

Jim Gorman,

Roger that.

Reply to  Bill Rocks
December 12, 2020 4:24 am

And in the UK, likewise Carrie!

Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 11, 2020 5:41 pm

They’re crazy but not ignorant, at least the ones pulling the strings. They know their green utopia of renewable energy can’t provide for the relatively affluent lifestyle of the western world. They know that earth’s environment is not under any significant threat from the activities of mankind. They also know that the woke social engineering policies espoused by their fellow travellers won’t create a wonderful society of happy people. Their objective is the implementation of Agenda 21/2030.

December 11, 2020 3:08 pm

The best is, they want and will power all that only with wind and solar 😀
Good luck 😀

Flight Level
December 11, 2020 3:14 pm

Alibaba dot com, the place where you can order cheap (literally) explosive power tool batteries, is overflowing with potentially re-brandable made in China electric cars and related scams of all shapes and sizes.

Self explanatory why green leftards overflow with favorable to China’s export legally binding coercive marketing strategies .

Doug Huffman
December 11, 2020 3:54 pm

fem-STEM will provide.

December 11, 2020 3:54 pm

The mineral bottleneck will be the biggest issue that these rotten political green promises have to face.
Considering copper, for instance, if EU, UK, and Biden promises are to be taken seriously, we will have to dig and transform as much copper in the next 10 years as all the copper that the humanity used since it’s dawn. All this only for wiring cars, for the charging infrastructure, as well as for the so called green energies. How is this possible? It can be funny in the beginning but it will fail easily or, otherwise, mining will have to reach to the backyard of a lot of people that are promising these things or are supporting it. I’ll be watching from my sofa with a bear and peanuts.

Reply to  JN
December 11, 2020 4:02 pm

beer 😀

Bryan A
Reply to  JN
December 11, 2020 5:01 pm

Bear and pinenuts works too

Ed Hanley
Reply to  JN
December 11, 2020 5:15 pm

I had hoped you really meant “bear,” and it was a wonderful image.

Reply to  JN
December 11, 2020 5:07 pm

“…we will have to dig and transform as much copper in the next 10 years as all the copper that the humanity used since it’s dawn.”

Ay, there’s the rub! Infinite growth meeting the end of supply. Our seemingly hard-wired prediliction for getting wealthier forever has a logical flaw with no repair and no work-around. Its not going to end well for anyone with the natural world and our fellow species merely collateral damage. But I’m guessing that concept won’t even put a scratch in the paintwork of the dream for some here.

Reply to  Loydo
December 11, 2020 5:41 pm

One constant with Loydo, whatever it thinks it knows, is always wrong.
No, we are nowhere close to running out of copper, or any other metal.

Despite what you want to believe, the natural world is doing well and getting better all the time. And it’s that wealth that you despise that is the reason why the natural world is getting better.

Perhaps if you would get a real job and start supporting yourself, you would be able to get rid of you hatred towards those who aren’t losers.

Reply to  Loydo
December 11, 2020 6:03 pm

The extra demand for copper will encourage thieves to rip up more cables to sell into the recycling market.

Reply to  Loydo
December 11, 2020 6:15 pm


What a ludicrous post. The “running out” is not a natural occurrence, it is totally artificially created by forcing unwanted solutions for a nonexistent problem. If what JN stated is true for the EV autos alone, how much more copper will be required for the infrastructure windmills and solar panels?

And where is this infinite growth you speak of. Every country that has achieved “first world” status is becoming unable to maintain its population levels without importing “migrants”. Your green buddies blocking of advancement in the third world is what is perpetuating the growth of the worlds total population.

Look at the two links below. I provide the links for your edification. (I know the “some here” you speak of already know what I have explained to you above.) The first is to my point regarding population growth per country. The second is so you can see that, for example, the US and UK are growing in population from immigration only, not from the birthrate of natives citizens.



Awaiting a cogent thoughtful response. S/off

Reply to  Drake
December 11, 2020 8:05 pm

I’m not talking about infinite population growth but infinite economic growth. If what JN says is correct, where does the following ten years worth come from and the ten after that? And no, I never said “runung out”, we’ll never run out of copper but we may run out of easy, cheap copper. It wouldn’t matter if its for EVs or any other technology.

Reply to  Loydo
December 11, 2020 8:49 pm

There are plenty of asteroids with copper, you create a market and capitalism will find a way to service it. The asteroid 16 psyche contains more wealth than the entire earth economy at current prices and there are a number of launches destined in 2022 to do samples.

Making predictions about shortages on 50 year time frames is the height of stupidity.

Reply to  Loydo
December 12, 2020 5:32 am

Who needs asteroids?

We’ve got a giant moon that is 1/4 the size of our planet sitting right next door, ready to be strip-mined of the minerals that have accumulated over billions of years of meteor strikes. We’ve just got to work out the pesky technological issues of finding a cost-effective way to do it.

Pariah Dog
Reply to  Loydo
December 12, 2020 5:57 am

I’m sure some Malthusian idiot was saying the same thing right after the dotcom bubble burst. But guess what? Here we are with Facebook, Google, eBay, Amazon and Apple which are worth more than the entire IT industry was back in 2000. Hell, Google alone is worth more – see http://www.oecd.org/digital/ieconomy/1939833.pdf, page 24, World Production of ICT goods.

So long as human ingenuity and access to capital is not shackled by government edict or anti-competitive practices, new products and services will be invented and people will buy them.

Reply to  Loydo
December 12, 2020 7:17 am

Typical progressive, has it’s mind stuck in the 1800’s.
In today’s world, economic growth often results in fewer materials being used.
How much material does an 80 inch TV of today use compared to a similar sized one from say the 80’s?
How much material does a lap top contain compared to a computer of similar computing power from the 80’s?
How much material does a mid-sized car of today use, compared to a mid-sized car from the 80’s?

Loydo knows whatever his handlers tell it to know. Nothing more, nothing less.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Drake
December 12, 2020 7:52 am

“The “running out” is not a natural occurrence, it is totally artificially created by forcing unwanted solutions for a nonexistent problem.”

Excellent point.

December 11, 2020 4:04 pm

As long as you understand that the first and only objective is to shutter the oil and gas industry, then all of this makes perfect sense.

Robert of Texas
December 11, 2020 4:25 pm

Biden (or his VP) have only 4 years to wreck havoc – and then the public gets to decide again on the best path. Assuming some progress can be made on reducing voter fraud, there is a good chance the next administration will be more rationale.

I usually keep my filthy gas burning vehicles for 15 years or more – I work hard to take care of them. If I buy my next vehicle in 2029 (assuming I live that long) I will have the last vehicle I will ever need. This is a younger-person problem and they need to step up to it. If they want a socialist government dictating how they will live, who am I to tell them no…Just don’t realize it until I pass on please.

I have said this before and will say so again…when we lost the school system to socialists, social justice, and multi-culturalism causes we lost our fight to stay free. When I heard a tenured professor in a California university was teaching that science was just a belief system no different or better than Voodoo I knew we where in trouble. That was many years ago. I do however believe that Voodoo is the main system of belief that Climate “Scientists” use to justify their predictions.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 11, 2020 4:32 pm

The public don’t get to decide. It will be the side that muster the most pre-printed ballots from China and gets them into mail-in envelopes.

I will stand corrected if anyone can give a plausible explanation how four US States in 2020 can find thousands of exclusively Biden votes in the wee hours after Election Day and in three states over the next two days.

Flight Level
Reply to  RickWill
December 11, 2020 5:08 pm

Then a miracle occurs…

comment image

Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 11, 2020 5:12 pm

If Biden’s policies take effect, the US will look like Cuba with most people driving cars that just get older and older. Why? First, EVs are now substantially more expensive than internal combustion cars and unless a new battery technology is invented they will just get even more expensive over time as the already rare materials used in batteries become more and more rare. Most people simply can’t afford a new EV. Second, there won’t be the production capacity to replace ICE cars with EVs any time in the next few decades. Estimates have EVs taking about 5% of market share in 2025 and only 10% to 15% in 2030. 85% to 90% of new cars sold in 2030 will still be ICE cars. Biden has been duped by the dishonest greens. He believes that there is an impending climate crisis. He’s a fool – a fool that’s growing more senile by the day.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 11, 2020 5:31 pm

If they want a socialist government dictating how they will live, who am I to tell them no….

Don’t be a wimp, Robert. I’m their Dad. They will thank me when they grow up. : > )

Reply to  Juan Slayton
December 15, 2020 6:24 pm

There is not now, nor has there even been, or will be, a ‘Socialist’ government in the United States. The only reason you buy into this fallacy is because you have no idea what ‘Socialist’ means. Not supporting Trump is not the same as being Socialist.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 11, 2020 6:01 pm

why will there be progress on voter fraud? who will be in charge? what would motivate change? if progress means building on the last fraud because they got away with it then what it really means is Dems to infinity.

Reply to  yarpos
December 12, 2020 12:19 am

The won’t the reps learn how to fraud the votes?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 12, 2020 10:31 am

“Biden (or his VP) have only 4 years to wreck havoc:’

Failing that, they might actually wreak havoc. 🙂

December 11, 2020 4:27 pm

EVs will infest government fleets. Roads will be less crowded as the plebs move to public transport – many will ZOOM to work. The world will be wonderful for those making the rules – wide open roads with little traffic. Only inconvenience will be the long lunches at highway charing stations during the weekend getaway. But life was not meant to be easy.

Plebs can enjoy the local playground with their family providing they can put up with the crowding. Plebs will be fitter from walking; maybe more cycling as well.

China already has more than 300M electric vehicles – mostly 2 wheels and under 1kW. Tesla’s autos are a crime against humanity – behemoths that consume an incomprehensible amount of resources for the required task – lunacy in the form of transport.

Flight Level
Reply to  RickWill
December 11, 2020 5:02 pm

1 kw, huh ? Sometimes roads go uphill and, despite leftist ideology, normal ordinary families, mom, dad and kids, you know, still exist and will to safely travel together in something more protective than a monowheel made of recycled toilet paper. Even in winter.

Reply to  RickWill
December 11, 2020 7:52 pm

Highway charing station? Is that where one can wait, while barbecuing a meal.

Reply to  RickWill
December 12, 2020 9:08 am

I have an electric bicycle too. I use it mostly for fun and exercise. Not so much in the winter. Never to get groceries. Haven’t used it to pick up building or landscaping materials, to make a run to the dump, or for towing my trailer to pick up and deliver furniture donations. I never take my family out on it. I don’t travel 80 miles to the big city to go to a concert or a sporting event with friends on it. If you think that electric bicycles are the solution you need to get out more.

Bruce Cobb
December 11, 2020 4:45 pm

It’s as though they want to perform a frontal lobotomy on the nation’s energy and economic systems.
Frankly, I’d rather have a bottle in front of me. And I don’t drink.

Ian Coleman
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 11, 2020 7:34 pm

You don’t drink, Bruce? Start. Put liquor in your mouth and swallow. Repeat as necessary, or until you pass out. I don’t want to hear any excuses from you about this. I’m not going to tell you again.

Jim B
December 11, 2020 4:58 pm

I am astounded at the aplomb with which leftists propose to destroy a successful industry.
Gross ignorance combined with huge egos. Always a dangerous combination.o

Reply to  Jim B
December 12, 2020 7:20 am

Progressives have been told by their teachers how special they are since they figured out how to use a toilet.
As a result, they truely believe that they are capable of designing a perfect economic system, all they need to do is kill everyone who disagrees with them.

a happy little debunker
December 11, 2020 5:01 pm

There are some 40 000 vehicles registered in the UK – banning them would be like scrapping just 40 CO2 emitting wood heaters (in a country where there are 1-1.5 million wood heaters installed).

Meanwhile Boris seems intent on increasing the number of wood heaters, by banning more efficient gas heating.

Paul C
Reply to  a happy little debunker
December 11, 2020 9:00 pm

Don’t you mean 40, 000, 000 – a lot of the government statistics are given in thousands of vehicles. There are other road vehicles besides cars too.

December 11, 2020 5:09 pm

If internal combustion cars are banned from sale or manufacture by 2030, I will become the first human to set foot on Venus.

December 11, 2020 5:11 pm

A solution is search of a problem…

When crude oil was first cracked, we didn’t have a use for gasoline and it was just burned off to get rid of it. Gasoline is still going to be produced when crude oil is cracked for: asphalt, wax, lubricating oil, fuel oil, and kerosene. It’s not going to simply disappear.

December 11, 2020 5:46 pm

Since “Steal everything within reach” Biden is going to collapse the energy production industry no one is going to be driving these useless pieces of shyte anyway.

December 11, 2020 6:05 pm

This reminds me of the time Pelosi said Foodstamps were a positive economic indicator.

December 11, 2020 6:40 pm

Leaving aside the question of whether this is a good idea, there are many ways this could happen. 2030 is further off than July 20, 1969 was when President Kennedy announced the intention to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. (And yes, I realize that was expensive.)

For one, there is a lot of research going into storage batteries, and it’s quite possible this research will eliminate the mineral bottleneck. (I don’t count lithium or graphite as issues, there’s lots of both on this planet. It’s the rare earth elements that are, IMO, the main issue.)

For another, I haven’t heard that they’re banning resale of gas-powered cars, only new cars; so there will probably be a market for those for awhile (along with gas pumps and gasoline refining).

As for whether cars will become unaffordable, I wish I didn’t have to afford a car; I don’t drive it that many miles (and didn’t even pre-covid). If instead I could summon, or walk a short distance to, an easy rental car (like Zipcar), or even call an uber/lyft/etc., I’d be happy: with someone–or something–else driving, I could read, doze, or make happy with my wife in the back seat. (Well, maybe not the latter, if this car had a human driver.) And while I don’t think it’s practical now in the suburbs where I live, if lots more people were doing it, it might become practical. Most cars in our neighborhood sit in one of two places 90% of the time: at home, or at work. The cars are doing nothing of value for that 90% of the time, besides rusting. Not to mention the fact that I could do something else with my garage (or buy a cheaper house without a garage).

In sum, it’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future. (Didn’t someone say that on this site?)
Biden’s plan might just work, and without all the negatives people are talking about here.

Reply to  mcswell
December 11, 2020 8:26 pm

And aliens might land and give us the secret to flying cars powered by wishful thinking.

Get real..

Reply to  mcswell
December 12, 2020 3:03 am

That is fine for you…you don’t drive. Other people do drive. Are you saying we all need to live like you? You should be allowed to tell us how to live?

Reply to  Derg
December 12, 2020 6:59 am

I do drive, I put 15k miles on my car last year. This year much less, of course. But I don’t enjoy driving, and most of the time even pre-covid my car was sitting in the garage or my office’s parking lot rusting and depreciating. And I’ll bet even if you do drive a lot, your car mostly sits stationary too. If instead you used something like a zipcar or uber/lyft, the car you rode in would likely get a lot more use. That means it would wear out faster, and someone–not you–would have to buy a new one sooner, which would be paid for out of your charges (as it should be). It also means there’d be fewer cars in total (bad for the auto manufacturing industry), and the cars on the road would be newer.

Reply to  mcswell
December 12, 2020 7:28 am

The option is available today. However most people, and even you, chose not to use it.
If you could figure out why, you would also be able to figure out why this option won’t work in the future either.
Just because you can dream big dreams, is not evidence that those big dreams will work in the real world.
The problems being pointed out by others are real, and you can’t dismiss them with a wave of the hand and a declaration that they are just being negative.

Reply to  MarkW
December 13, 2020 7:32 am

I already figured out why: electric cars cost 50-80% more than an equivalent gas powered or hybrid. One point in my posting (in case you missed it) was that that could change in ten years, so that EVs are as cheap as gas (or diesel) cars.

Richard Lyman
Reply to  mcswell
December 12, 2020 6:34 am

mcswell: Kennedy may have said that, but it for sure was not in 1969!

Reply to  Richard Lyman
December 12, 2020 7:03 am

Right, I didn’t say he spoke in 1969, what I said was that 2030 is further off now (ten years) than July 20, 1969 was when Kennedy made his speech about reaching the moon. His speech was given on Sep 12, 1962 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon), so the moon landing in 1969 was then less than seven years off.

Reply to  mcswell
December 12, 2020 7:29 am

One big dream came true, so obviously any big dream can come true.
Have you actually grown up?

Reply to  MarkW
December 12, 2020 9:10 am

Yours has got to be the dumbest reply I’ve seen in a long time. My point was that lots can happen in ten years, but I guess that was too hard for you to understand.

Ian Coleman
Reply to  mcswell
December 12, 2020 12:47 pm

Most of the technology for space rocketry already existed in 1960, mcswell. In 1960, the United States Air Force had a plane, the F-104 Starfighter, that had a top speed of 1.8 times the speed of sound, and that could fly straight up, to within a few hundred miles of the edge of outer space. A manned rocket, in other words. The understanding of metals, fuel, engines and aerodynamics was well-advanced. There were already reliable guidance systems for intercontinental missiles. And of course, there were no real budgetary constraints, and no one was trying to make a consumer item that millions of people could afford to buy for personal use.

How long has Tesla been making cars? Years and years. Tesla has yet to sell even one car for more than it took to manufacture it, and would have gone under long ago if it weren’t for generous government subsidies and revenues from what may eventually turn out to be the greatest stock market bubble of all time.

Reply to  Ian Coleman
December 13, 2020 7:49 am

Space rockets existed, obviously (I was there then). However, calling an F-104 a manned rocket is nonsense: the two technologies are vastly different (turbofans vs. rocket engines, for example). (BTW: “within a few hundred miles of the edge of outer space”: I’m there standing on the ground. The US considers the edge to be 50 miles, most other nations 62 miles (= 100km).)

And you gloss over the many things that did not exist in 1962: orbital rendezvous; miniaturized computers that could guide the lunar lander; space suits that would allow you to walk around on the moon (including cooling systems that would function in a vacuum, and function without being plugged into your space ship or jet); throttlable rocket engines that would allow you to hover over the moon and pick out a landing site, then make a controlled descent the rest of the way; reliable and sufficiently powerful fuel cells (admittedly, “reliable” was not quite there, as Apollo 13 showed); and of course sufficiently large and reliable rockets. Mercury-Atlas could put 3000 pounds in low earth orbit; the Saturn V, 100 times as much.

“How long has Tesla been making cars?”, you ask. I’m not sure what the point of that is, but the answer: lot fewer years than people had been making liquid fueled rockets in 1962.

In sum, a lot of research and development had to be done to make Apollo 11 possible, and it was done in seven years. I would not want to bet that the next ten years won’t result in EVs that cost less than a comparable gas vehicle does today, and get you at least as far on the road.

Reply to  mcswell
December 12, 2020 7:25 am

Do you really believe that designing and building a few dozen rockets is the equivalent of replacing every car in the country, plus upgrading the entire electric grid at the same time? Expensive, this would be thousands of times more expensive. But what the heck, it’s other people’s money so it won’t affect you.

So your solution to making cars unaffordable, is just to have nobody own a car and rely on others to get them where they need to go.

As you point out, you don’t have to own a car now, taxis and buses exist. So why do you wish to force those who don’t agree with you into the solution that you seem to believe to be the best, but aren’t using now?

Biden’s plan might work. And unicorn’s might be real.
Wishes are for children, the rest of us are stuck with making the real world work.

Reply to  MarkW
December 13, 2020 10:52 am

You–and several others who have responded to my post–have put words in my mouth. I started out my post with “Leaving aside whether this is a good idea”, and proceeded to say how it might work. “Good” and “practical” are two different things, which you and others seem to miss. Hitler’s plan for the Jews was practical; it was not good. Universal love would probably be good, but it is not possible.

So if you have nothing to say about what I actually posted, don’t say it.

Your last para does suggest that you also don’t think Biden’s plan will work. It’s nice that you think that, but you ought to give some reasons, or else it’s just “Hooray for our side.”

Reply to  mcswell
December 14, 2020 6:21 am

No, you did not say what you now claim to have said. Seeing a pattern with your comments.

Reply to  mcswell
December 13, 2020 8:11 am

So you, too, want to destroy energy production, agriculture and manufacturing in America. Got it.

December 11, 2020 7:15 pm

When the rubber meets the road on bad public policy, there will be real consequences out by the woodshed.

December 11, 2020 7:18 pm

Ford Motor Company has made this plan clear in its recent ad campaign. “We have electrified the Mustang!” and on and on with their pledge to “save the planet” and “decarbonize” their plants and the car buying future..

They have read the writing on the wall and have decided to go “all in” with the electric car madness.

Why not? Hey it’s what the kids want and the culture is pushing it so they would be stupid not to exploit this madness.

I hope that someone will call them, and the rest of the idiots pushing this nonsense, out and cash he party with reality.

But. sadly, I think it will take ten to fifteen years of idiocy and failed auto market, spurred by irrational government policy, to correct this lunacy.

Lee Feldman
Reply to  Lancifer
December 12, 2020 6:29 am

Virtue marketing. Looks good and gets good publicity. Same as VW converting their entire line to EV. Not entire production.

Ian Coileman
December 11, 2020 7:28 pm

This is a fine example of how the affluent classes, given an unearned confidence in their own moral authority, have no trouble crushing the less affluent. What this looks like is, if you’re not quite wealthy, you may not operate a motor vehicle. Rich people have to breathe the air you pollute, you working class schlubs. Is that fair to rich people? No.

December 11, 2020 7:47 pm

On a positive note some here (Eric) will be happy Teslas shares have fallen lately. But, not so happy it’s because there’s a new battery company that seems to be a major threat. Actually one new and one old (Toyota look to be working on an EV that looks pretty clever). Checkout Quantumscape. Saying their battery will charge in 15 minutes. Not there quite yet, but one would not bet against some clever stuff happening over the next 10 years from them.

Ian Coleman
Reply to  Simon
December 11, 2020 10:52 pm

Well, you’re right there, Simon. Clever stuff does happen. The problem is that electric cars must displace an already successful and ubiquitous technology, gas-powered cars, and the odds that that can happen in the next ten years are low.

Right now, in Canada, if you buy an electric car, you must pay fifteen times more for it than you’d have to pay for a gas-powered car, and the electric car would be far inferior in operating capacity to the gas car. Why? You can buy a fully operational used gas car for about $4000. You couldn’t find a good EV for less than $60,000. That’s a price factor of 15. You can drive the gas car anywhere without worrying that you won’t be able to refuel it. It has a far greater range in the cold weather that is a five months a year feature of living in Canada. The EV may be useful for driving around town and charging at night, but you wouldn’t want to take it on a hundred mile trip to another city, and in Canada there are no charging stations yet.

The future of EVs will depend on a breakthrough in battery performance but that is a physical problem that may be impervious to human ingenuity. If it is solvable it will depend on a new invention on the order of industrial advancement of the inventions of the transistor or the jet engine. Possible, but obviously a long shot.

Reply to  Ian Coleman
December 12, 2020 5:10 am

I would like to look at two use cases presented in your argument: Local vs Long Distance.

Lets say that 90% of the use case involves local driving where a range of X is more than enough.
What does one do with the 10% use case where the range of four times X is required?

Batteries are both expensive and heavy. They create design changes to accommodate the bulk, cause compromises on ride and handling quality, and require beefier components (like structure and brakes) which compounds the weight and size issues. What percentage of buyers consider rentals of long distance models, over those who buy the high capacity models for those longer trips and then have to amortize the cost and waste energy moving battery bulk?

A lot of largely unused battery capacity is going to not only have to be mined out of the earth, more money tied up in the cost of the batteries and components, and will require even more electrical power generation to move the bulk.

It seems to me to be a lot of waste.

And we haven’t even addressed the issues of a pick-up truck or SUV that spends most of its life as a commuter but occasionally tows a trailer, or has to actually carry something heavy in its bed through not so low-ground-clearance friendly terrain.

Reply to  Ian Coleman
December 12, 2020 5:54 am

“The problem is that electric cars must displace an already successful and ubiquitous technology”


Look how long it took cars to replace horses. The first car was invented before the USA even existed (Stugnot’s steam powered automobile in 1769), the first ICE engine came at the dawn of the 19th century (Wischett’s hydrogen car in 1803 ), Karl Benz introduced the first production model petrol-powered vehicle in 1885, and Henry Ford introduced the first mass produced petrol-vehicles in at the dawn of the 20th century. Yet, horse and other animal powered vehicles were still ubiquitous in the USA and Europe during WWII, 35 years after Ford released the Model-T. Animal-powered farming is still ubiquitous in many parts of the world even today, a quarter-millennia since Stugnot’s steam car and over a century since the Model-T changed the production paradigm.

The notion that we will be able to completely flip to electric vehicles in less than a decade is preposterous.

Reply to  Steve
December 12, 2020 7:35 am

People seem to believe that all it takes to convert a factory from ICE cars to EV cars is throwing a switch. One day one, the next day the other.
The reality is that it takes time to first redesign a factory, and more time to then shut the factory down so that the production lines can be re-laid out. Unless they have already started designing the new factories, it’s unlikely that they could completely switch over every factory by 2030.

Iaqn Coleman
Reply to  Steve
December 12, 2020 7:53 am

Regrettably, Steve, as so many posters on this thread have pointed out, the green guys don’t actually intend that electric cars shall replace gas cars. They just want to ban gas cars. Replacing them with electrics will be somebody else’s problem.

There is already a strong undercurrent of loathing of personal cars. During the pandemic in some Canadian cities, some roads were converted to multiple usage, meaning cars and bikes on the same roadway, with bikes having the right of way. The biking movement is a Trojan horse (so to speak) to suppress driving, and it is strangely popular with city councils here in Canada, even if ordinary citizens trying to drive to work oppose it.

A lot of people hate cars, or at any rate hate the thought that other people drive them. They long for a carless paradise, in which fit, healthy people get around on bicycles, or ride in electric trains. Of course this movement is purely elitist, and has little support from most people. Unfortunately, the elites have real power, which is why we call them elites. There are few things that elites hate more than democracy, because they hold most people in contempt.

Jim B
Reply to  Ian Coleman
December 12, 2020 10:09 am

My question is “For what purpose?” Why in hell would we do this? Obviously, it is being force-fit by government edict, not by consumer demand. And when you start running the air conditioner and/or heater the power drain is enormous. I also wonder about waste disposal. Will there be another debacle like used up turbine blades?

Reply to  Simon
December 12, 2020 7:31 am

There isn’t a new battery. There is a new proposal. They don’t even have it working in the lab yet, much less have it in commercial production.

Progressives are really into self delusion.

Paul C
December 11, 2020 8:29 pm

Wow! 100% electric vehicles. Electric cars is bad enough. Trucks are going to be a problem. Railways can be electrified even though issues arise. Electric boats are possible in theory, but ships are going to be a big problem. At least you won’t need any oil tankers, but how are we going to get the woodchips for our powerstations? Complete nonsense with aircraft. It definitely means an end to any space program. I presume you will be able to return to horse and cart, or do horses have to be electrified too. Might as well have some electric sheep for androids to dream of too. It is a dystopian near-future after all.

Vincent Causey
December 12, 2020 12:28 am

Do not be fooled into thinking the government wants you to drive EV’s. They don’t want you to drive at all. Or, more specifically, they don’t want the majority to drive – leave the roads clear for the elites. That’s the plan. And it’s predicated on 2 factors: 1) the majority won’t be able to afford new EV’s (especially if they live under permanent depression, but that’s another story), and 2) there won’t be enough used EV’s available for everyone – nowhere near enough (think about it).
This is medieval feudalism for the 21st century. Wave to your lord as he drives past in his Tesla.

David E Long
December 12, 2020 12:45 am

I plan to buy a good IC car just before 2030 and hang onto it. As people are forced into EVs and the price of gas falls and the price of electricity skyrockets I’ll just hang onto it. As the prices of the remaining IC cars climb year after year I will happily sail past the crowds waiting around at charging stations. If the fools persist in their folly long enough they will eventually wise up, but it will be a painful journey.

Sidenote to LdB: there is abundant copper on earth. The main value of asteroid metals is that they are already off the earth, thereby bypassing the enormous cost of lifting them off the planet. In other words, their value is in mining and smelting and manufacturing in place the things needed off earth.

December 12, 2020 4:25 am

Electric vehicle shock treatment.
It’s the unsuspecting public who are going to need shock treatment when it finally dawns on them what a monumental cock up this is. I wonder if they’ll wake up before it’s too late, I doubt it.

December 12, 2020 5:13 am

There is an understory here that people should be aware of. There is no way that every automobile that currently operates in the U.S. can be “replaced” by an electric vehicle. The masters of the universe want very few automobiles to be on the roads. They will push MASS TRANSIT and human powered transport like in Asia and the days of a car in every garage in the U.S. will be GONE. Don’t kid yourself. They want to fundamentally change life in America to be more like life in Asia or Africa.

Reply to  Gandhi
December 13, 2020 8:16 am

Which means Americans can act like people in Asia and Africa and make open war on the elites. OK, if that is what elites want they shall receive it.

December 12, 2020 5:17 am

Liberals are not good economists. That is why they are liberals. They don’t understand cause as effect. They are like children in this way. They see an electric car drive 20 miles and they say ‘there, it just saved a gallon of gas’. They have no concept of how that gallon will get burnt somewhere else. It’s too abstract. On the other hand liberals are good politicians. Having seen that electric vehicles are starting to edge into cost effectiveness they want to take credit. The idea of just letting things take their natural course and let there be a generational transition to EVs as battery technology progresses. No can’t do that. Need to boss people around. Take away their freedom so they can feel like a big ___________ .

Reply to  Starman
December 12, 2020 7:38 am

“Having seen that electric vehicles are starting to edge into cost effectiveness”

Where is this happening? Around here, electrics have to be massively subsidized in order to get anyone to buy them.

David Stone CEng
December 12, 2020 6:21 am

All very interesting but the real problem is simple: There will not be enough electricity. Boris wants to ditch gas heating in the UK, and turn that electric, although heat pumps do not work very well with our cold weather. Then he wants to rebuild all the inadequately insulated housing stock. He is totally delusional on all fronts as all this will take 100 years at the current replacement rate of properties. Green nuts are beginning to cause me severe doubts about life at all, I suspect that he wants to kill 90% of the UK population!

Tom Abbott
December 12, 2020 6:24 am

From the article: ” Hybrid sales peaked in 2013, but by 2019 had fallen to 2.3% (about 400,000 vehicles) of all light-duty vehicle sales, largely due to shunning by EV purists.”

That’s just silly!

The purists shun nuclear powerplants, too.

Climate alarmist/Greens purists aren’t very smart.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 12, 2020 7:40 am

Being a progressive/green requires one to believe many things that simply aren’t possible.
Like the idea that the government is capable of designing and running an economy.

Reply to  MarkW
December 12, 2020 10:15 am

Who was it who referred to believing ten impossible things before breakfast?

David Stone CEng
December 12, 2020 6:25 am

Another point
Somewhere above someone suggested a battery that can be charged fully in 15 minutes. Do they realise that this would take 0.25MW of electricity, the same as the average street? So a Motorway services would probably need a 50MW supply, the same as a medium Town. The total of Motorway services would need more than 10% of our total electricity supply capability, and a single car with a fault would probably destroy the surrounding 50 or more. Wonderful ideas these, more like bad dreams!

Tom Abbott
December 12, 2020 6:35 am

From the article: “A separate report from Securing America’s Future Energy indicates China controls nearly 70% of electric vehicle battery manufacturing capacity, compared to just 10% by the USA.”

It looks like the U.S. needs a “Buy American” policy when it comes to EV batteries. That would increase that 10% share.

We should not be sending money to the Chicoms. They’ll just go buy weapons and people to use against us. We shouldn’t pay for our own demise.

Coach Springer
December 12, 2020 7:36 am

I’m not seeing some Golden Age of Travel at the end of their rainbow. Less travel, more internet, more dependence, more authoritarianism.

Al Miller
December 12, 2020 7:47 am

Complete lunacy of course! Even if it’s possible we can’t currently charge all these oh so wonderful and unwanted machines on our current grid. With these geniuses working to destroy the grid as well as forcing everyone into electric heat poverty it simply cannot work – so there should be some fun times ahead…
I am cringing while we wait for someplace that actually has cold winters to try and go electric only. (California has it easy that way) I suspect even the useful idiots will rebel as they did when Ontario implemented this foolishness recently.

Steve Richards
December 12, 2020 8:55 am

Simon, if Quantumscape batteries can be charged to 80% in 15 minutes, does that mean they require 8hrs/0.25 = 32 times more current to charge them. Where is all of that power coming from and who pays to upgrade every neighborhood wiring to carry that current?

geoffrey pohanka
December 12, 2020 9:12 am

Electric vehicles cost about $10,000-$15,000 more than equivalent gasoline powered vehicles, not including tax credits. Do not expect the price to come down much due to mass production (manufacturers currently are losing money on every sale). Do not expect price differential to change unless the price of commodities also significantly lowers. I am driving a nice 2020 Hyundai Kona EV. 250 mile range. Level 1 charger charge time, 55 hours. Level II charger charge time, 10.5 hours. Can not accept a charge above 75KW. A 50 KW charger requires 75 minutes charging time for a 80% charge (200 miles range). With a 75KW or greater charger, requires 55 minutes charge time. Current time to fill a tank with gasoline, 4 minutes. Many people will not have access to home chargers apartments, town homes etc). If I do not have a home charger I will need to go to a public station at least ever two days. If I had a gasoline car, I can drive 350+ miles, fill the tank in 4 minutes. If I only had an EV, I would need 110 minutes, (1 hour 50 minutes) to 150 minutes (2.5 hours) ever other day to charge my car. This is assuming a charger is available and I do not have to wait in line for one. Something to think about.

Reply to  geoffrey pohanka
December 14, 2020 2:23 pm

I regularly drive two days to get from one place to another. Two 11 hour days in the van, lugging a lot of toys to use when I reach my destination. If I was forced to go electric, first of all I wouldn’t be able to drive a vehicle capable of hauling bikes and boards and other recreational equipment and, second, even if such a vehicle was available, I would almost be adding an extra day to my trip due to recharging times. That alone would make my trip much more expensive and shorter, due to the extra night in lodging and the time lost that I could be using for recreation. Add to that the cost of buying an electric vehicle–assuming a commensurate vehicle to mine even existed–and I’d be unable to afford the trip. Last summer on one of these trips, a guy in a Tesla blew by me like I was standing still, but an hour later I cruised by him, perhaps because he was running out of battery out in the middle of the Wyoming outback. And while he was charging his battery, I was a hundred or more miles down the road. Electric cars might–MIGHT!–work in urban areas, but things change out in the West, where distances are greater and weather is nastier.

Kevin kilty
December 12, 2020 9:59 am

This is all wrong in so many ways that a person hardly knows where to start an honest critique. Money, talent, labor, materials, transportation, industrial capacity, technology, reality, physics/chemistry, direct and indirect impacts on other needs — all inadequate or toxic to the proposal. Look what happened to Scotland when it pressed ahead with the Darien colony in what is now Panama, and which suffered most of the same defects. I really wish it were possible to allow this to occur in selected places as an experiment to see how it does. First “innovators” usually get wiped out, as Roger’s classic work on the diffusion of innovation shows.

December 12, 2020 10:35 am

EVs make sense for China. The country has huge coal and uranium reserves. Using them domestically gives China a great deal of energy independence. Likewise their rare earth reserves and processing facilities fit well into the picture.

That’s why the Chi-Coms have about 400 new coal fired plants in some phase of construction.

The US has similar factors in their favor but won’t use them. This si why China will dominate the global economy and cutting-edge technology for the rest of the century.

Paul Drahn
December 12, 2020 11:43 am

Why am I still waiting to see a list showing the Government agencies number of EV they have in their fleet. A Life-Flite helicopter just flew over our house. With only EVs there will be no more of that, or other emergency vehicles.


Danley Wolfe
December 12, 2020 1:28 pm

Hunter’s laptop is rechargeable, he just forgets where he left it.
Just as Obie said “we’re gonna fundamentally transform America.”
Biden is clueless – his plan for government subsidies for EVs will take money away from hard-working families (us) and redistribute it to a small group of (affluent) people who don’t need tax breaks to buy or operate a vehicle. If wealthy Americans want to purchase EVs, that’s great. Let them buy them with their own money, not ours. In an earlier study the Manhattan Institute found that Tesla buyers had an average income of around $286.000; another study found that buyers of the less expensive Ford Focus EV had an average income of $199,000. To put into perspective, the median household income in the U.S. in 2019 was was around $66,000 while typical prices for EVs range from around $50,000 to $100,000 depending on model, with some going much higher. In addition, around half the states now charge an annual fee of up to or higher than $100 per year for EV owners.

henry Chance
December 12, 2020 5:34 pm

My virtue signaling spread sheet.

Large cruising sloop sailboat 5 stars
Diesel auxilary 2 stars
Large truck to pull boat 2 times a year from the crane to the boat yard 1 star
Boat fiberglass and epoxy resin from crude 1 star
E-bike 2 miles today and 25 miles yesterday 6 stars

Bike is good for 15-20 miles based on wind and goes way down in the cold. It is assist.
4 hours to charge for 1 hour of power.
I have battery indoors. Go out and ride and the temps are in the 20’s, my distance is down a third. Cars will NOT have good heat and defrost without loss of range. If you have cold winters and car outside, electric will not work. Then a garage but parked outside all day at will work if commute is short.

My consultant is my daughter. EE PhD Power systems BS Aeronautical engineering and MS Architectural engineering. She runs Ultra marathons and does bike racing. She says future is bleak because of costs and regulation hindrances. Every element of “green” power has a negative environmental issue in it. From toxic materials to other pollution.

Litigation, regulation and poor efficiencies plus the cost of new grids will drive up power as much as medical costs.

Steve O
December 12, 2020 9:20 pm

Let’s try it in California first and see how it goes!

December 13, 2020 5:52 am

Any switch, reset of whatever means end of the West, as anything meaningful. The reason begin lack of talent. According to Dutton&Woodley (“Our Wit End”) the west is loosing intelligence at rate of 1 IQ point per decade, being genetically 15 points behind Victorian times. There won’t be enough talent to “Great Reset” the civilization to something new in 2050, unless of course such Great Reset leads to the lack of civilization.

The continuation is possible – just incrementally improving existing technologies like an internal combustion engine can work even with demographic-based loss of talent.

December 13, 2020 2:15 pm

The government already controls the planes and trains. Once all the cars and buses are electric, it’s a simple matter to shut down the power for charging and lock everyone. but government people. in place. A dream of dictators everywhere.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights