Posted on 06/05/2024 5:50:11 AM PDT by Red Badger
25 refrigerators.
That’s how much the additional electricity consumption per household would be if the average US home adopted electric vehicles (EVs).
Congressman Thomas Massie—an electrical engineer—revealed this information while discussing with Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, President Biden’s plan to have 50% of cars sold in the US be electric by 2030.
The current and future grid in most places will not be able to support each home running 25 refrigerators—not even close. Just look at California, where the grid is already buckling under the existing load.
Massie claims, correctly, in my view, that the notion of widespread adoption of electric vehicles anytime soon is a dangerous fantasy based on political science, not sound engineering.
Nonetheless, governments, the media, academia, large corporations, and celebrities tout an imminent “transition” to EVs as if it’s preordained from above.
It’s not.
They’re trying to manufacture your consent for a scam of almost unimaginable proportions.
But first, a necessary clarification.
You no doubt have heard of the term “fossil fuels” before.
When the average person hears “fossil fuels,” they think of a dirty technology that belongs in the 1800s. Many believe they are burning dead dinosaurs to power their cars.
They also think “fossil fuels” will destroy the planet within a decade and run out soon—despite the fact that, after water, oil is the second most abundant liquid on this planet.
None of these ridiculous notions are true, but many people believe them. Using propaganda terms like “fossil fuels” plays a large role.
Orwell was correct when he said that corrupting the language can corrupt people’s thoughts.
I suggest expunging “fossil fuels” from your vocabulary in favor of hydrocarbons—a much better and more precise word.
A hydrocarbon is a molecule made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms. These molecules are the building blocks of many different substances, including energy sources like coal, oil, and gas. These energy sources have been the backbone of the global economy for decades, providing power for industries, transportation, and homes.
Now, on to the three reasons EVs are a giant scam at best and possibly something much worse.
Reason #1: EVs Are Not Green
The central premise for EVs is they help to save the planet from carbon because they use electricity instead of gas.
It’s astounding so few think to ask, what generates the electricity that powers EVs?
Hydrocarbons generate over 60% of the electricity in the US. That means there’s an excellent chance that oil, coal, or gas is behind the electricity charging an EV.
It’s important to emphasize carbon is an essential element for life on this planet. It’s what humans exhale and what plants need to survive.
After decades of propaganda, Malthusian hysterics have created a twisted perception in many people’s minds that carbon is a dangerous substance that must be reduced to save the planet.
Let’s entertain this bogus premise momentarily and assume carbon is bad.
Even by this logic, EVs do not really reduce carbon emissions; they just rearrange them.
Further, extracting and processing the exotic materials needed to make EVs requires tremendous power in remote locations, which only hydrocarbons can provide.
Additionally, EVs require an enormous amount of rare elements and metals—like lithium and cobalt—that companies mine in conditions that couldn’t remotely be considered friendly to the environment.
Analysts estimate that each EV requires around one kilogram of rare earth elements. Extracting and processing these rare elements produces a massive amount of toxic waste. That’s why it mainly occurs in China, which doesn’t care much about environmental concerns.
In short, the notion that EVs are green is laughable.
It’s simply the thin patina of propaganda that governments need as a pretext to justify the astronomical taxpayer subsidies for EVs.
Reason #2: EVs Can’t Compete Without Government Support
For many years, governments have heavily subsidized EVs through rebates, sales tax exemptions, loans, grants, tax credits, and other means.
According to the Wall Street Journal, US taxpayers will subsidize EVs by at least $393 billion in the coming years—more than the GDP of Hong Kong.
To put that in perspective, if you earned $1 a second 24/7/365—about $31 million per year—it would take you over 12,677 YEARS to make $393 billion.
And that’s not even considering the immense subsidies and government support that have occurred in the past.
Furthermore, governments impose burdensome regulations and taxes on gasoline vehicles to make EVs seem relatively more attractive.
Even with this enormous government support, EVs can barely compete with gasoline vehicles.
According to J.D. Power, a consumer research firm, the average EV still costs at least 21% more than the average gasoline vehicle.
Without government support, it’s not hard to see how the market for EVs would evaporate as they would become unaffordable for the vast majority of people.
In other words, the EV market is a giant mirage artificially propped up by extensive government intervention.
It begs the question, why are governments going all out to push an obviously uneconomic scam?
While they are undoubtedly corrupt thieves and simply stupid, something more nefarious could also be at play.
Reason #3: EVs Are About Controlling You
EVs are spying machines.
They collect an unimaginable amount of data on you, which governments can access easily.
Analysts estimate that cars generate about 25 gigabytes of data every hour.
Seeing how governments could integrate EVs into a larger high-tech control grid doesn’t take much imagination. The potential for busybodies—or worse—to abuse such a system is obvious.
Consider this.
The last thing any government wants is an incident like what happened with the Canadian truckers rebelling against vaccine mandates.
Had the Canadian truckers’ vehicles been EVs, the government would have been able to stamp out the resistance much easier.
Here’s the bottom line.
The people really in charge do not want the average person to have genuine freedom of movement or access to independent power sources.
They want to know everything, keep you dependent, and have the ability to control everything, just like how a farmer would with his cattle. They think of you in similar terms.
That’s why gasoline vehicles have to go and why they are trying to herd us into EVs.
Conclusion To summarize, EVs are not green, cannot compete with gas cars without enormous government support, and are probably a crucial piece of the emerging high-tech control grid.
The solution is simple: eliminate all government subsidies and support and let EVs compete on their own merits in a totally free market.
But that’s unlikely to happen.
Instead, it’s only prudent to expect them to push EVs harder and harder.
If EVs were simply government-subsidized status symbols for wealthy liberals who want to virtue signal how they think they’re saving the planet, that would be bad enough.
But chances are, the big push for EVs represents something much worse.
Along with 15-minute cities, carbon credits, CBDCs, digital IDs, phasing out hydrocarbons and meat, vaccine passports, an ESG social credit system, and the war on farmers, EVs are likely an integral part of the Great Reset—the dystopian future the global elite has envisioned for mankind.
In reality, the so-called Great Reset is a high-tech form of feudalism.
Sadly, most of humanity has no idea what is coming.
Worse, many have become unwitting foot soldiers for this agenda because they have been gaslighted into believing they are saving the planet or acting for the greater good.
This trend is already in motion… and the coming weeks will be pivotal.
Some people are making enormous profits from the Green Grifter New Deal.”
ayup
Perhaps for many people. But to that I have two observations that keep me from accepting the premise wholeheartedly.
A) The new legislation for a "kill switch" in cars unfortunately isn't for just EV's. It's for all cars.
B) The left has much control of our access to energy from hydrocarbons (I agree with the author that we should quit using the term "fossil fuels"). The bottom line is that virtually no one can make his own gasoline or diesel (or propane) to fuel his car. But many of us who live in the south can feasibly produce our own power with solar. It takes lots of homework to do it feasibly for your particular situation. But it can be done.
In our case last year, 83% of the power we consumed in our all-electric home came from solar, including charging our EV for a total of 16K miles (not counting miles from charging away from home on trips). 12K of those miles were in the warmest 8 months of the year (when our power is almost 100% free). That's with other luxuries like running a hot tub and such without limiting our lifestyle or care about running or heavy appliances or charging our EV only on days when we have free solar.
I'm not saying EV's are the best solution for everybody, nor should it be forced or coerced with subsidies. But if you have a bit of a prepper mindset and one thing you're worried about is the left controlling our transportation, and if you live in the south where we get lots of sunshine, then having one of your cars being an EV might be the best option at reducing the left's ability to limit your transportation.
We have both an EV car and a gas pickup. The left has to mess up our access to both gas and power to limit us from driving on long trips. And if they do that, we still can drive locally with the EV.
I am not "anti-EV" in the sense that I fully believe and accept that people should be able to spend their money they earn as they see fit. And I mean that, from the bottom of my heart. If I say someone is insane to buy an EV as their primary choice of transportation, I still believe that, but I fully support their right to do so if they think it fits their "case study" need. That is FULLY APART from the "money problem" described below, because it is now MY money they are spending, not their own.
I have had conversations with Freeper Tell It Right who frequents these threads (and I see on this thread as well) because he is apparently not the kind of virtue signaling or ignorant Leftist drone that we often see. He looked at the existing situation, formulated his own "case study" after careful consideration, and decided it worked for him. I cannot condemn him for any of the tax credits any more than I condemn myself for riding on a bike path for entertainment purposes which was built with government funds, IOW, my own taxpayer monies I paid in. Tell It Right is right not to take offense at the tenor of these threads, because of the way he has chosen his path. He appears to understand fully the drawbacks and limitations of EVs and lends value to the discussions.
But that is clearly not the case with all purchasers of EVs.
Of the many problems with EVs, the problem that most rankles me is the money problem.
If someone wants to buy a Ford F-150 Lightning which starts at $49,500 with a $7500 credit, are they still going to buy it at $57,000 if that $7,500 tax credit is not there? Of course not. And never mind the losses that the auto industry incur. Car and Driver Magazine says that Ford LOST $130,000 ON EVERY Model e it created!!!! Not a typo, I triple checked that.
The EV industry cannot survive without your taxes and my taxes being paid to people who are wealthy enough to afford a car over $50,000 while I have to stick to cars UNDER $30,000.
What is wrong with that?
I AM PAYING MONEY FOR SOMEBODY WEALTHIER THAN I AM TO BUY AN ELECTRIC TOY THAT COSTS NEARLY TWICE WHAT I CAN AFFORD BECAUSE I CHOOSE TO LIVE WITHIN MY MEANS!
And that does not even touch on the problems inherent in Electric Vehicles themselves, OR the issue of energy availability distribution.
There is guy on YouTube from Australia (MGUY Australia) who is an Engineer (turned lawyer) and car enthusiast, and his excellent YouTube channel has dozens of videos on why Electric Vehicles are a non-viable technology as currently constituted.
He covers everything from the physics and battery construction to insurability. Here are some excellent ones:
These videos are very well done, by someone who understands the fundamental problems and the science behind them.
This business of mandating EVs in some places by 2030, suppressing petroleum production and refinery, all without either increasing energy availability in the form of electricity or upgrading the infrastructure on the ludicrous hope that "battery technology will have a breakthrough" is like lemmings running towards a cliff while assuming that when they arrive at the precipice the cliff will no longer be there !
Imagine that.
It would be great if Greene or some other Republican that gets Twitter time to bring this up.
A bill that demands the federal fleet, even the ones with guns, have to transition. With Hertz trying to off load all of theirs, it would be easy.
You mentioned a ‘hot tub’ which reminded me of a friend of mine now deceased.
He was an Electrical Engineer.
He took the electric pump for his hot tub and mounted it on an aluminum plate that became a heatsink connected to the piping for circulating the water. Thus the water was constantly warmed by the motor heat.................
“The ends justify the means.”
Of course. If the ends don’t justify the means, what does?
“A controlled population is the wet dream of every dictatorial regime since time began.”
I don’t believe having a controlled population is the end. I believe it is the means to some other end and I don’t know what that end is.
Yes and no. In other words, your statement above shouldn't be taken in the absolute.
Power utilities have some plants that operate efficiently that are what they call "steady power", and other plants that provide "reserve power" that they turn on or crank up higher when needed. In Alabama, fighting the heat during the day, combined with power to offices and people being up in homes during the day and using more power is the main culprit power companies are having to satisfy. They don't want EV's added to that part of the day. At night there's often excess steady power on the grid not utilized while everyone is asleep.
So yes, EV's are an additional power usage and yes, us conservatives are right that the grid can't handle it. But from the utility engineers' perspective, their problem of adding a bunch of EV's to the grid demand is lessened some if most EV's are charging at night when on many nights there's already a lot of steady power not being utilized. Hence the incentive of a lower rate if charging at night.
I think you probably know well “to what end”.
It isn’t about “saving the planet”. And it isn’t about “improving our lives” by making things more reliable and efficient.
Tyrants fully understand that limiting the mobility of the population is a key to controlling the population.
Communist China used the COVID QR codes to do just that. When a large group of Chinese citizens were going to descend on the big cities in China to protest the evaporation of their life’s savings that they invested in the collapsing real estate market (the ONLY place they were “allowed” to invest) the ChiComs simply changed their QR code from green to red, meaning they couldn’t leave their domicile legally.
They knew who all the people were due to their all-seeing surveillance of their citizenry, had them all flagged, and with a flip of a switch, they couldn’t buy food, they couldn’t get on a train, they couldn’t buy gas for their cars, they couldn’t stay at a hotel.
All with the flip of a switch.
Now, just imagine what they could do if all cars were EV cars. With the flip of a switch, if they saw a subset of people planned a march on Washington DC to protest, say, a stolen election, they could simply stop them with a flip of the switch from driving.
And if we have a digital currency, with a flip of the switch, they couldn’t buy food, they couldn’t get on a train, couldn’t buy a plane ticket, couldn’t get a taxi from the airport, they couldn’t drive their cars, they couldn’t stay at a hotel.
The is the end they strive for.
Latest scam in Mojave Desert is destruction on hundreds of PROTECTED Joshua Trees for a solar array.
Latest scam in Mojave Desert is destruction on hundreds of PROTECTED Joshua Trees for a solar array.
DESERT TORTOISES rfe also protected & they are in the same area.
“The is the end they strive for.”
And then what? I believe the ability to do everything you noted is the means to achieving whatever they want to achieve after they have that ability.
I was stationed at 29 Palms in the Marine Corps in 1973.................
2. I alway thought and discussed that hybrids were the way to transition. It is not very difficult to install an electric motor and some super capacitors on a Chevy Suburban, thus addressing the biggest energy use of a vehicle, moving from a stopped stage. This system could also be retrofitted to many older vehicles. Hybrid vehicles are 40% more efficient than non hybrids. Good start!
3. Even if you only get a 20% increase that’s a good start and you’re not throwing away and already built a vehicle. My vehicles tend to be old but very well maintained, my newest is a 2011, my oldest is a 1994. Do you know how many cars I have prevented from being built? The average new car is traded in every 5 years….. The Greens, save the planet types are buying new vehicles and with their EVs throwing them away because they cannot economically replace a battery! Or economically repair after an accident.
The “Then what” has been amply demonstrated by communist regimes in the 20th century.
But if you want to get into particulars, I disagree with this part:
If someone wants to buy a Ford F-150 Lightning which starts at $49,500 with a $7500 credit, are they still going to buy it at $57,000 if that $7,500 tax credit is not there? Of course not.
I submit to you that without the EV tax credit, but all else being equal, the up front price of the EV would be $7,500 less (would be $49,500 in this case). Why? IMHO the EV tax credit artificially inflates the up front costs just like subsidies inflate everything else (i.e. college tuition, medical costs).
For example, I saw it happen with my own eyes in 2022 when the Inflation Raising Act increased the solar tax credit from 26% to 30%. That was the year I not only bought the EV, I also added onto the solar system. Most of the solar equipment was bought before the IRA, so I got lucky. But some was bought after the IRA, and those prices jumped by 4% to absorb the extra tax credit.
The IRA also changed the EV tax credit to include EV's made from car manufacturers that had already exceeded their tax credit limit. (The old EV tax credit was good for only the first 200K or so EV's made by a manufacturer. So it'd been a while since you could get the EV tax credit for buying a new Tesla or GM EV.) Thus, the passage of the IRA included Tesla's and GM's and Ford's. Thus the prices of those EV's immediately jumped up by $7K and the EV forums were full of people who were livid. One EV forum I frequent to swap tips for optimizing the throughput on my EV is full of lefties like most EV forums. I posted there what I'm posting here that the tax credit doesn't help consumers because it just artificially inflates the up front price. Some of them are now believers that maybe the free market is best -- well only a few of them LOL.
50% of cars sold in the US be electric by 2030.
And they can be found in junk yards China has the largest on and France is in second place.
“people who rarely think things through”
THey think it through.. its just that the peasants are not part of the equation.
Getting re-elected and/or what’s in it for them.. is a much larger component of the equation.
That figure is not achievable unless they stop making ICE cars totally. Our local dealerships have EV’s on their lots for months and months just sitting in the Florida sun rotting away................
Too bad the earth didn’t have as many dinosaurs as Saturn’s moon Titan. If we did, then we would have oceans of hydrocarbons like Titan does.
Every notice that Democrats hate human beings.
Everything they do harms humans.
I wonder who wants to harm humans.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.