Inslee mandates an all-electric State.
Published February 7, 2023 at CFACT
Ronald Stein is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”
Washington State Governor Jay Inslee, like California’s Governor Newsom, is mandating his state toward an all-electric state. In doing so, Inslee is demonstrating his visionary limitations, as he cannot see the ugly side of his wind, solar, and EV mandated world.
For the vast acreage required for wind and solar, it’s pathetic destruction of pristine landscapes!
- Further, after decades of working around the world, wind turbines and solar panels continue to have a live expectancy of about 20 years. To-date there is yet to be discovered a financially viable means of recycling those renewables. As a result, today’s old wind turbines and solar panels are being dumped into toxic waste dumps.
- Today, estimates are that by 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out solar panels, much of its non-recyclable, will constitute double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable materials from worn-out wind turbine blades.
Inslee could enhance his energy literacy by viewing a short 1-minute video produced by Epoch Times TV about renewables that only generate electricity, but manufacture nothing for society. The video has already been viewed by more than 800,000 on social media at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/stf2YrznkZU
Wind turbine blades are made of a tough but pliable mix of resin and fiberglass—similar to what spaceship parts are made from. Decommissioned blades are difficult and expensive to transport. They can be anywhere from 100 to 300 feet long and must be cut up on-site before getting trucked away on specialized equipment to a landfill that may not have the capacity for the blades. Landfills that do have the capacity may not have equipment large enough to crush them.
Solar panels are mostly made of glass, which has low value as a recycled material, but they also have small amounts of silicon, silver, and copper as well as heavy metals (cadmium, lead, etc.) that some governments classify as hazardous waste. Hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select routes. Because solar panels are delicate and bulky, specialized labor is required to detach and remove them to avoid their shattering and polluting local areas.
Before committing to an all-electric State, Washington has the opportunity to seek decommissioning, restoration, and recycling down to the last dandelion of every wind turbine, solar panel, and EV battery, just like we have for a decommissioned mine, oil, or nuclear sites in America.
Inslee fails to comprehend “the nameplate farce” associated with his “green” renewables:
- The problem with renewables is that they don’t work most of the time!
- There should be financial penalties for wind and solar power plants inability to deliver at least 90% of their permitted nameplate ratings on an ANNUAL basis, like their backup competitors of coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants that provide continuous uninterruptable electricity.
- Subsidies and tax credits for wind and solar power plants are based on “nameplate ratings”, thus they should be penalized when they cannot deliver what they have been permitted for.
- Practically every windmill or solar panel requires a backup from coal, natural gas, pumped storage hydro, or nuclear, thus understanding electricity generation’s true cost is paramount to choosing and prioritizing our future electricity generating systems.
- The percentage of actual electricity generated by renewable sources compared to the nameplate capacity, is about 24 percent.
As a result of the intermittency of wind and solar generated electricity, Inslee is mandating that homes, businesses, hospitals, and the military run on occasional electricity!
Washington, like California, is also phasing out the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. WA like CA has yet to answer the question: Where are the buyers, outside the elite profile of existing EV owners?
- The current EV ownership profiles of the oligarchic elite that are highly educated, highly compensated, multi-car families, with low mileage requirements for the families second car, are dramatically different from most vehicle owners that are single-car owners, not highly educated, nor highly compensated. Mandating a change to EV ownership and forced austerity may face a rebellion from those that need transportation.
- The primary owners of EV’s are the highly educated, most with college degrees, and financially well off with average income of $150,000, and not representative of the majority that are middle to low income folks, or those on fixed incomes.
- The EV owners represent multi-car families, the limited usage of the EV’s of about 5,000 miles per year is a reflection that the EV is a second vehicle, for those that can afford a second vehicle, and not the family workhorse vehicle.
Through his continuous support of subsidies and tax credits to go “green”, Washington Governor Inslee is providing financial incentives to the developing countries mining for those exotic minerals and metals to support the “green” movement to continue environmental degradation to their local landscapes, and impose humanity atrocities to citizens with yellow, brown, and black skinned workers being exploited for the green movement!
Inslee lacks some energy literacy which may be the reasons he avoids conversations about the ugly side of his “green” mandates. Before anyone in Washington decides to procure wind turbines, solar panels, or an EV, they should read the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations”, and decide for themselves if they wish to financially support the environmental degradation and humanity atrocities among folks with yellow, brown, and black skin occurring in developing countries, so that the wealthy countries can go green.
Ronald Stein, P.E.
Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure
https://expertfile.com/experts/ronald.stein
And now to borrow a theme of an episode of The Simpsons: What does the Jay in Jay Inslee stand for?
Answers please.
Regards,
Bob
Looks like the ‘J’ stands for ‘Throwaw’, based on his shortsightedness.
(Also ‘Doomsd’; ‘Overst’; & hopefully ‘Fadeaw’)
Funny, I thought it stood for _ackas’
Jenius
As in pants.
Your Privacy is Our Priority
Jenius Bank™ understands your privacy concerns. Our online Privacy Policy describes the types of personal information we collect, how we use the information, with whom we may share it, and your options for controlling our use of the information.
You can call me Ray or You can call me Jay but ya doesn’t…Oh, Never mind. Inslee is a Johnson.
So after twenty years (if lucky) the cost burden of replacing wind and solar renewables must be born again. If you do the math it’s a geometric nightmare that will guarantee we 1. Won’t be able to afford it. And 2. Will never realize 100% coverage without massive overbuilding.
same stupid argument was against thenew tech it neglects
So after twentydays (if lucky) the cost burden of replacing coal and oil must be [sic]born again. If you do the math it’s a geometric nightmare that will guarantee we 1. Won’t be able to afford it. And 2. Will never realize 100% coverage without massive overbuilding.
you seem to be arguing for renewables
1) How do you make the wind blow stronger and the sun shine longer?
2) Costs of wind turbines have gone up 25% in just a year. Siemens Gamesa just had a quarter with no orders, and a €1bn loss.
3) The lessons are that the costs are much higher for all the extra grid capacity and backup solutions than were projected.
Meanwhile e.g. modern coal has seen efficiency leap by 50%.
Well, an indefinite term, no interest, €2bn loan from the trillions being allocated for future energy would likely make Siemens Gamesa feel better.
Unfortunately although they had a net loss of 940m euros during 2021 they still have a backlog of orders worth 35,051m euros and are, with other manufacturers, trying to pressurise the European Commission into upping the subsidies.
I should think that accountants would insist that those future costs be put on the books now.
Remember burn their bodies to save their souls? You have to think inside the ideology to make any sense of what goes on.
They’d certainly document the amortization schedules and the original formula used to make them along with all of the documentation why.
Fraud is frowned upon, no matter how optimistic the guvnor and his budget team.
One thing is certain is that the governor and his team are going to throw every renewables salesman who sweet talked them with how successful their technology is and the adulation of the world.
Should make a great party at their trial, all of them
Massive overbuilding solves nothing. When the wind and Sun aren’t cooperating, they ALL produce nothing.
And when the wind and sun are really putting out, there are massive contingency payments to be made.
yes we know that ICE owners are uneducated poor white trash,
so what?
EV owner and skeptic demographics very similar
https://inspireadvancedtransportation.com/industry/who-owns-evs-today-ev-ownership-trends-and-changes-2021-ev-consumer-behavior-report-rundown/
“EV owner and skeptic demographics very similar“. I suppose that was an attempt to plumb new depths of obnoxiousness. Well, try again:
“As a recent study shows,conservative white males are less likely to believe in climate change” – Scientific American
“full-size pickup drivers were more likely to vote for Donald Trump, while drivers of sedans, EVs, and hybrids were more likely to vote for Joe Biden” – MotorBiscuit
Why would Ice owners necessarily be white? Black, brown, yellow, red and albinos don’t drive ICE vehicles? Sounds like a racist comment to me.
Got yer battery car yet, mosh?
Sun will shine and winds will blow long after the idea of free renewable energy suffers its demise.
Here’s what’s in “store” for us, if we decide to go “storage”:
Copy: “Topaz Solar Farm (550 MW), California”.
Location: Carrizo Plain, San Luis Obispo County
Nameplate capacity: 550 MWAC
Annual net output: 1,282 GW·h, 272 MW·h/acre
Construction cost: $2.4 billion
Annual net output: 1,282 GW·h, 272 MW·h/acre
Construction cost: $2.4 billion
USA consumed 4000 tera-watt in 2021
The Topaz solar farm produces 1.2 tera-watt/year (30% capacity factor)
4000/1.2 = 3333 Topaz size wind farms at $2.4 billion each
$8 trillion
Battery storage is $400 KWh, $400,000 MWh, $400,000,000 GWh,
$400,000,000,000 ($400 billion TWh,
Data on the internet suggests one (1) month of storage for renewables
4,000 TW/ 12 months = 333 TWh required storage (300 TWh nominal)
$400 billion/TWh x 300 TWh storage = $120,000 billion ($120 trillion)
Grid scale storage packets without the batteries cost $200,000 MWh for the site prep, Labor, enclosures, switch gear, fire suppression and more. So, if the batteries were free the storage would “only be” $60 trillion. Not that it matters, it will never happen. The economy would collapse long before we got “halfway” to all (ruinous) renewables.
N2N, natural gas to nuclear with small scale modular leading the way (see NuScale Website).
Topaz Solar was an early, large-scale project. You can’t use that cost today or in a projection.
OK, give me your numbers, maybe we can whittle the cost down to $100 Trillion? BTW 2023 prices for battery storage is now $500 kwh, not the $400 kwh in the example. Likewise, solar panel costs are also up this year. Fact remains, none of this matters it’s economically impossible. Wind and solar is disease, not an energy source.
Yeah, the prices of all the materials are going UP.
To electrify NY, NY (zero FF sourced energy) with just solar, based on Topaz Output figures, would require an area the size of Connecticut to be covered with panels … just for the inhabitants of Manhattan Island.
It would further require Battery Back-up the size of 3 World Trade Center buildings to cover potential week long storm seasons.
At least their have a current aptly names area to place them … Battery Park
The Inflation Inflaming Act needs a little more capital. Here’s a solar area estimate for the international community:
Let’s save the planet and run it on just solar, all is needed is 540 million acres. Let’s ignore the storage cost until we’re sure we want to stay with the solar plan. We don’t want to scare people off with “big numbers”.
World consumes 26,000 tera-watt hours of electricity annually. 145,000 twh total energy
One sq kw contains 100 hectares
Electricity is 18% of total annual world energy consumption.
But if all the panels are going to be installed around the planet in those two narrow strips of SoCal sunshine, and you’re not floating them in the ocean, then the reactive/resistance value of 15% must be adjusted (25%?).
Note 1: Texas is 172 million acres.
Note 2: Any location north of 45 degrees North latitude (Canada, UK, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Russia etc) the CF for solar is < 15% and realistically if renewables are “required” then 30-45% CF wind generation is “less horrible” than solar.
Copy: “Topaz Solar Farm (550 MW), California”.Location: Carrizo Plain, San Luis Obispo County
Nameplate capacity: 550 MWAC Capacity factor 27%
Topaz Solar Farm has 9 million solar panels occupying an area of 4700 acres. It has 9 million CdTe solar panels installed.
Area:
1900 hectares (19 sq km) 4,700 acres, (7.43 sq miles)
1.3 tWh annual production
1.3/1900=0.000684 twh annual per hectare: 0.0684 tWh per sq km (68 gWh/sq km) 68,000 MWh/yr
World electrical consumption 26,000 twh:
26000/0.0684 =380,000 sq km, 38 million hectares (147,000 sq miles) (94 million acres)
World consumes 145,000 twh equivalent, 5.75 greater than electrical only.
380,000 * 5.75= 2,190,000 sq km, 219,000,000 hectares, x 2.47=540 million acres, total energy (>3x size of Texas)
Annual net output: 1,282 GWH (1.3 TWH rounded)
One hectare contains 2.47 acres
27% capacity factor 1.3/(550 MW*24*365)
Construction cost: $2.4 billion
Are you purposely leaving out the more than one billion people who now have no electricity but want it?
A couple of questions.
First, where can I find the cost of solar for the entire state of CA, as I watch caliso a bit.
Second, how do you make money with a $2.4B install which returns at $60/kWh only $21M per year? It would take 112 years just to pay the principle on the loan.
Sounds about right, maybe only 100 years? The most incredible thing about solar farms is the Left surely knows these huge arrays aren’t going to be replaced every 30 years (or less) for the next 90 years, but they still claim they’re wonderful. It’s conspicuous that if we want to cut down on ATM plant food, it can only be done with nuclear. And the Left calls us “deniers”.
Anyone here remember the WPPSS default back in the 80’s? Aka WHOOPS.
Looks like dejavu all over again..This in the region of the Columbia River
hydroelectric dams of which led us to defeat the Japanese in WWII. I used
to fish with one of the nuclear physicist’s that worked on the Hanford cleanup.
He went on to run Sequoia Fuel..Can’t fix stupid.
Sure you can, do it all the time. Slap Mr Ed with my slide rule and he stops saying stupid stuff.
Kit P, forty years after the WPPSS bond default, some of those who were working construction on the WPPSS projects — the ones who are still alive, anyway — insist that the Satsop plant could have been completed as well as the Hanford plant, if another month or so of financial negotiations had been allowed to go forward.
At the time of the bond default, the Satsop plant was further ahead on its construction schedule than the Hanford plant — IIRC it was roughly three-quarters complete while the Hanford plant was roughly two-thirds complete — and the Satsop plant had demonstrated a much-improved rate of construction progress after a new management team had been installed earlier in the decade.
Friends who worked WPPSS construction early in their careers and who later worked VC Summer, Vogtle 3 & 4, and MOX tell me that it was Deja Vu all over again seeing what was happening on those three 21st Century nuclear construction projects.
Vogtle 3 & 4 survived because its original project management team was completely replaced and because Georgia is a nuclear-friendly place to build reactors. The other two, VC Summer and MOX, were so totally hosed up nothing could have been done, or should have been done, to save them.
Here is the deal BB. Power plants are built because power plants are needed. Projection for new demand never materialized so the only reason for bullring new nukes was to replace oil fired base load plants in the 70s.
I grew up in the Seattle area until my dad moved to Califonia and always wanted to get make to the area. When I got out of the navy I had a job offer at WNP-2 but went with GE as startup test engineer.
Between the navy and my fist few commercial plants I thought everyone did nuclear right. Then I ended up and plants on the NRC watch lists including. Management thought the NRC was unfair, I thought management belonged in jail.
When I was at WNP-2 it was because the NRC demanded they hire some more experienced people. One day I came in late during the refueling outage so I could interview someone on second shift.
I heard two young engineers laughing in the next cubicle. I asked two questions and then pointed to my pager. We had been in an unusual event for 14 hours and no one noticed.
Only one manger could work with me to do the root cause investigation because he came late too. I asked the assistant QA manager who was hired about time as me for the same reason why he did not jump up and yell stop?
He was afraid he would lose his job.
The basic problem with the Hanford area is they think they are the best at nuclear and no one should tell them they are not.
The best management team could not have saved the other WPPSS plants because of interest rates for construction projects at the time.
Kit P, concerning the WPPSS projects: “Here is the deal BB. Power plants are built because power plants are needed. Projection for new demand never materialized so the only reason for building new nukes was to replace oil fired base load plants in the 70s.”
Everyone who advocates for new-build nuclear power in the United States should recognize that we wouldn’t be doing it at all if it were not for the zero-carbon mandates now being pushed by public policy decision makers. Left to its own devices, the US power market would move decisively towards gas-fired generation. No wind, no solar, and no new-build nuclear.
My history of nuclear construction’s cost & schedule overruns in the 1970’s and 80’s, and my root cause analysis for what happened at VC Summer and at Vogtle 3 & 4, are written from the perspective of someone who spent part of his working career supporting nuclear quality assurance organizations in the 1980’s and early 1990’s.
Very similar problems occurred at DOE’s MOX project between 2004 and 2017, except that the problems were worse.
A full understanding of the issues I was seeing in the early 1980’s didn’t crystalize in my own mind until I attended a seminar put on by the NRC in 1985 concerning what they were doing to address the serious QA problems then being seen the nuclear construction industry. A good portion of that seminar covered what the industry itself should be doing proactively to avoid these problems.
I myself had been a personal witness to all of the issues discussed in that 1985 seminar.
The 1970’s and early 1980’s were a time of considerable regulatory and technological change in the US nuclear industry. Forty years later, the regulatory environment for nuclear power in the US is considerably more stable than it was in the 1970’s and early 1980’s. But it still remains a very demanding regulatory environment, to be sure. And that regulatory environment isn’t going away. Not now, not ever.
The original managers of the VC Summer, Vogtle 3 & 4, and MOX projects knew what the NRC expected of them. They failed to account for the work needed to meet the NRC’s expectations in their project planning and project control activities. Just as had happened in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, the original managers refused to take direct responsibility for the success of their projects.
Advocates of the large AP1000 size reactors make the claim that because Vogtle 3 & 4 is nearing completion — even if it is way late at double the original cost estimate — serious consideration should be given to initiating another AP1000 size reactor project here in the US.
Given the realities of the current situation, with high inflation and with nuclear power’s capital costs under intense scrutiny, starting construction of another of these large 1,100 MW reactors like the AP1000 will be a very hard sell indeed.
Demonstrating that a nuclear construction project can be brought in on budget and on schedule is now in the hands of the oncoming SMR vendors to prove it can be done. If they fail to do that, then new-build nuclear power in the US will fail.
It really comes down to the design. France for
example uses a single design on their plants. Here
in the US it seem that every plant is trying to outdo
the previous units in size and and with a new design.
If they would keep the size down and the design
the same when they have some problem they could
go into each one and know what to do, not redesign
every single one.
Naval propulsion units are like that.
Note that in the fleet they only use nuclear on carriers
and subs, no more smaller surface nuclear CGN types.
The gas fired turbines replace those. I have no
nuclear background I just learned a bit from some
who do. Coal is sill hard to beat. Wind in WA state
has some major environmental issues that are curiously
being overlooked by said greens.
Yes, I remember Whoops, back in the day before big banks were considered “too big to fail”. That example tempered my stock/bond portfolio ratio for a long time.
Wind turbines are fossil fuel batteries. A breeze activates the release of the energy that went into their construction, installation and hook up.
And you don’t get out what you put in!
I do not see total restoration of any wind farm site. The physical labor required to remove the cement foundations is beyond comprehension. How do you remove a 60 foot diameter 20 to 30 foot deep cement block from the land and restore it to its original condition? My guess is that all foundations will be left in place destroying the ecology of the area for generations.
Great place to bolt down swings and tables, but because it’s usually windy, no one wants to picnic there. Perfect for new parks paid for with lottery funds. /s
State lotteries: Predatory, regressive and illegal for competition, but governments run it so it must be okay. NC called it “the education lottery” because it was all for paying for education. Then mostly it was paying for education.
If you can’t calculate permutations and combinations, then you have no business playing any lottery because you are misinformed. It’s safe to say that only the uneducated play lotteries. Education is sorely lacking in mathematical subjects and the creation of state lotteries to improve education hasn’t seemed to improve the results. Otherwise, all lotteries would eventually disappear from non use, but the reverse seems to be the case.
Similar to what General George S. Patton called fixed fortifications – ” monuments to the stupidity of Man.”
Perfect
Standard operating procedure is reportedly only breaking off the top four feet. Also reported is that in Germany the SOP for dismantling, including toppling the tower, has been done using using dynamite. Sounds like a good plan. Too good probably, not very PC and almost certainly no longer permitted. My hunch is the SOP will be “temporary mothballing” (until they rot).
Why mess with the foundations? Bearings and blades would fail decades before.
Perhaps the next glaciation will scrape them up and deposit them in the ocean.
As a resident of Washington state I am deluged with “solar” offers for my home. The problems are plentiful with these offers
Last year I installed 400 wh of solar and 2,400 wh of Lithium batteries on my travel trailer but that is so I can run vent fans and the refrigerator while towing the trailer 5+hours on the Olympic Peninsula. Lots of sun in the summer and not many trees on the highways. Running AC on battery is possible but will kill the batteries in 90 minutes.
Inslee is nuts. Only in office due to the same reasons other leftists are in their elected offices…voting machines. Just sayin’.
Washington State is 100% vote-by-mail.
Manipulation of the voter registration database and addresses generates innumerable ballots for collection and usage by Leftists. The “Republicans” are too stupid and naive to correct the flaws or also cheat.
The prime directive – de-development; for most
Inslee lacks some energy literacy which may be the reasons he avoids conversations about the ugly side of his “green” mandates.
His energy illiteracy is a plus, in the political community that supports him. His literacy in governance extends only as far as winning elections go, and in his arrogant steps over the line of democratic governance – as opposed to faux Great Leader diktats by the use of perpetual ’emergency’ – he’s setting himself up for a nasty, inevitable fall.
In a way itbis good that Newsom and Inslee are trying to electrify everything by 2035. They cannot but fail. As that failure grows closer and more obvious, they and their successors will be outed and then ousted. The rest of the country needs these object lessons in pure wishful thinking. The sooner the better.
Not exactly
Responsible Solar | Environmental | First Solar
Inslee is a no nothing fool but Washington state has no one to blame but themselves. Washington is a cesspool of liberalism, they are getting what they vote for, unfortunately neighboring states get the refugees fleeing the cesspool.
Washington has been polluted by California refugees for decades, I remember the locals complaining about that back in the ’90s when I was out there for a bit.
Wow, they must have continued it from the 70’s when I was out there for a bit.
Are we sure its not an attempt to get/hold the electric car industry for USA?
Forget that:
copy
Chinese EV sales increased to record high levels in 3Q 2021, almost tripling year-on-year to 882,000 units.
The Chinese need customers for the electricity their ever-expanding fleet of new coal plants will be producing.
No surprise really as China is the world’s largest market for EVs with around two thirds of global sales. But many of those cars will be smaller than the typical SUVs sold elsewhere.
Would also add that the boss of Kia in the UK recently told the Times newspaper that “A mass market in affordable electric cars will not happen because of the difficulty of producing them on a viable basis” He also said the Kia had no immediate plans for such a car. (Times Jan 23)
The can just make more hydro dams. Amiright?
Nope. The enviro-activists are working hard to tear down the existing dams.
Ron Stein does not know the three most important things about making electricity.
Location, location, location!
Washington State is not Califonia.
Washington exports power to Cali because it has a
large nuke plant (that I worked at), lots of hydro, and wind that is balanced by hydro.
My sailboat is located on a lake behind the dam because of the great wind. Better than SF Bay and Newport RI. I have been there for 30 years and the wind farms for 20 years. They are in dry land wheat fields not bird sanctuaries.
I even have 3 friends who own EVs.
Ron and many of the rest of some of you do not know much about our goverment. The correct response to such mandates is to raise one figure on both hands and salute.
Governors have a right to say what they want and so do I.
It’s too bad that these nut zero states don’t have their own power grids, separate from the rest of the grid. That way, when their insufficient energy sources fail, they would be unable to get (fossil fuel and nuke generated) electricity from states that are run by people who have at least some brains….
That way they could succeed (or most likely fail) on their own merits. Otherwise they will be like the kid in class who spends little or no time studying and resorts to copying other students’ answers (or otherwise cheats) during exam time.
To people like Inslee and the other enviro-activists, the important thing is not whether their ideas work or not but whether they seem progressive; and if consumers get short-changed and inconvenienced by them, that’s strictly secondary.
Those of us living in Washington State have to endure the antics of this man every day in the local media. To find him on WUWT ruins a person’s day. 😒😁
Inslee, and the rest of the climate alarmists, have no intention of actually building a functional and sufficient energy generation and distribution system.
The goal is create severe scarcity and total control. Only the wealthy and politically connected class will be able to travel freely or power their homes. Only mass transit and high density housing will be allowed for the hoi polloi.
“Inslee fails to comprehend…”
He doesn’t fail to comprehend anything. He just doesn’t care.
Let’s visualize for a moment the physical size of the fossil fuels really is:
https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/the-scale-of-fossil-fuel-production/
Phreakin’ ginormous is a solid answer!
It took me too much time to find that the visualization is annual fossil fuel production for 2021. Poor visualization leaves reader searching for a time scale not shown in units.
the so called expert writing this doesnt understand that marketing people are always ahead of engineering
EVs are not just for the wealthy.
nothing is more american than a Chevy
https://seenonev.com/?utm_source=google&utm_campaign=C3F1_Brand_Neutral_49S&utm_medium=paidsearch&utm_term=the_electric_car&utm_content=search_ad&gclid=CjwKCAiA0JKfBhBIEiwAPhZXD0fMUjzbyRJl5Et1y6etXfT7-9s4emYpaPBmLIzdvnzF7-UAJ6-fMBoC2BwQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
EVs only for the rich? your looking backward mr expert.
look forward.
F150 EV changes everything.
Agreed. Today’s “rich people stuff” has historically been tomorrow’s “everybody stuff”.
There doesn’t seem much point in trying to market a product which isn’t well into development.
So you know better than the Chief Exec of Kia Motors in the UK?
He recently told the Times newspaper “A mass market in affordable electric cars will not happen because of the difficulty of producing them on a viable basis” (Times 23rd Jan 2022)