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.
This guy might have more credibility if he himself didn’t use the propaganda term “carbon” when he should be saying carbon dioxide. “Carbon emissions” are not the issue in this scam. Carbon dioxide is.
“The “Then what” has been amply demonstrated by communist regimes in the 20th century.”
Do you mean that “they” are true believers in Communism and want to establish it as widely as possible for the good of humanity so that everyone can live happily ever after?
Playing Captain Obvious here ... ‘They’ want the bulk of the population gathered into a few large urban centers where all are totally dependent on electricity for everything - transportation, financial transactions (digital dollars), etc.
If someone pi$$es off a gubmint official, BAM - your electrical connection to the world ceases to function. You have no access to money and no way to get around. You may not even be able to get out of your apartment. After a few weeks your neighbors will complain about the smell. If that were to be the case, someone will come around to take your dead body to the incinerators or the soylent green prep center.
From the FedGov’s point of view - problem solved.
BTT
China’s EV junk yard is massive most of them were never sold they ended up the slow death on the factory death lot.
Of course it’s sinister!
Obama’s promise to fundamentally change America.
Trump will make sure they don’t get away with this treachery.
the Left will attempt to change reality by legislation even past the time when its obviously nonsense.
the overnight EV credits are to get people to suck down that power at off peak times, because it is stressing the grid. Maybe what you should do is start a movement of ‘we have the right to charge our EV during the day’ movement to make it more obvious to everyone how this is a bad idea
Well said.
Great article, thanks for posting.
The so called “Great Reset,” is above all a road map for global genocide.
The primary communist goal in all this EV crap is “control”...
The freedom of movement by the serfs is a direct long-term danger to the goal of 1000 years of permanent global-communism rule...
With speed, distance, and driver-thought control all carefully recorded by the car’s computer, the monthly uploads can mean either fines, imprisonment, or death for naughty serfs...
Logically, this is exactly what the American serfs have consistently voted for...
Nothing like the current & looming scale and level-of-terror tyrannical-control has ever existed on the planet...
I would agree that the price would drop to $7500 less if there were no tax credit, but...if you are already losing $130,000 on some model (I still cannot wrap my head around that, and wouldn’t believe it except it was Car and Driver I saw it in)...well.
I guess the difference between losing $130,000 and $137,500 on each one sold would be a spit in the wind.
I really cannot fathom this. Are all the shareholders complete and total Leftists, where this kind of loss on each vehicle is okay if it pushes an agenda?
I am not embarrassed at all to say I don’t get it.
Oh, yes.
That is exactly what I am saying.
Of course, if you ask them right out if they are Communists or Marxists, or even Socialists, 99.9 % of them will deny it with a straight face, and will do so right to your face without even a twitch or a blink.
But if you look at who they are, what they do, and what they stand for, they are.
The current and future grid in most places will not be able to support each home running 25 refrigerators—not even close.
Duh
“So long as they (the Proles) continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern...Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one public event to which the proles paid serious attention. It was probable that there were some millions of proles for whom the Lottery was the principal if not the only reason for remaining alive. It was their delight, their folly, their anodyne, their intellectual stimulant. Where the Lottery was concerned, even people who could barely read and write seemed capable of intricate calculations and staggering feats of memory. There was a whole tribe of men who made their living simply by selling systems, forecasts, and lucky amulets. Winston had nothing to do with the Lottery, which was managed by the Ministry of Plenty, but he was aware (indeed everyone in the party was aware) that the prizes were largely imaginary. Only small sums were actually paid out, the winners of the big prizes being nonexistent persons.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides of a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget that there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it.”
― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
The Civic, for sure.
The Honda Civic is the only vehicle I have ever MADE money on.
I bought a four year old one for my wife. She drove for another four years. We sold it for $400 MORE than we paid for it. I don’t think we had to put any repairs into it either.
Similar story with the 1999 Lexus SC400 I owned. I paid $13400. Sold it a year later for $13,400. However, I had to repair a fender bender on it when someone hit it in a parking lot.
25 refrigerators.That’s how much the additional electricity consumption per household would be if the average US home adopted electric vehicles (EVs)....
That's the only reason that matters because even if they were practical for the individual owner (which they're not), or better for the environment (also not), the grid won't support them.
And the new power generating station is pointless if you don't also beef up the grid. So to mitigate the impact on the grid for each 5.6 million EVs sold, you're looking at BILLION$ in government expenditures, plus years of environmental impact studies to locate a proposed site for the new powerplant, then more years of court battles over the site, and finally still more years to build it and get it on line.
Multiply that by 50 to measure the cost to America for abandoning ICE autos and replacing them with battery-only EVs.
Parking lots are poorly designed in that they literally encourage cars to back into each other.
Geometric parking is the way to go.
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.