Posted on 12/02/2021 4:14:47 AM PST by MtnClimber
The Democrats are doing everything they can to get Americans into electric cars. However, those cars come with the risk of a serious loss of power—not just for the car but for those who buy those cars.
We have to begin with asking why is the governing pushing electric vehicles? And it’s not just cars, it’s also trucks. Why are they ignoring hybrid vehicles? If something happens to the electric guts of a properly designed hybrid car, the vehicle can limp along with its smaller gas engine until it reaches safety. What happens to a fully electric vehicle if its electrical system fails? Nothing, of course! You’re stuck. All you have is a hunk of metal and plastic. And if you run out of electricity while driving, you can’t just get a gallon gas can to fill the tank until you get to the nearest service station. Again, you’re stuck.
The next question is, “Are electric cars cheaper than gas cars?” No, they cannot be cheaper, and that’s even if you run them on renewables. Take solar energy, for example. Even if sunlight is free, the laws of thermodynamics still control.
Every time energy changes form, there is a loss factor. Sunlight impinging on solar cells only changes 14-47% of the energy to electricity. The forty-seven percent figure is state-of-the-art, so it is not available for everyday use.
Electricity is then stored in chemical-based car batteries (with a loss). And then chemical energy is reconverted back to electricity (with a loss) and finally to mechanical energy where the tire rubber meets the road (with a loss). At a guess, not more than 5% of the original sun power turns the wheels of an EV car. That’s awful. What this means is that it is more efficient to run a gas-powered...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
When they can get electric cars to charge them self then they can give me a call.
Hydrogen fueled care sound better zero emissions.
Now we live in a world where folks will not even start their car and try to go anywhere because their GPS isn’t working... lol
If the Lightning gets 1.8 miles per kWh, that means it'll cost $2.97 to make a 40 mile commute (not counting if some of that is free from my solar system). Compare that to my 15 mpg used pick-up truck with gas currently selling for $3.09 and it costs $8.24 to make 40 mile round trip. (The old used truck I've got now is the kind of truck I've driven for decades and vowed I would never buy a new truck and make a truck payment until the EV trucks became a thing with the Lightning supposedly selling for $40K). That's a $5.15 difference per day, for me 6 days per week, is about $125 per month difference. Enough to make a truck payment? Nope. But with not having to replace my old used truck with another one every 6 or so years for $10,000, plus no $60 oil change twice per year, then it starts to pay for itself in about 13 years. And that's not getting into car repairs (of which EV supporters talk like there are none, but that's a pipe dream, I'm sure there will be some car repairs after the EV is 5 or 6 years old, but even then not as many car repairs as I currently do by driving old used trucks). Then throw in a 3% inflation rate for both gasoline and power and the $5.15 difference in cost per day today is saving me more in future years.
I have solar on my house largely because both electricity rates and natural gas rates have skyrocketed way past 3%. (Though Trump deserves some blame for that by exporting natural gas, which raised demand, which raised the price of both natural gas and power because some of our power is generated from natural gas plants. The main blame lies in Obama for shutting down coal plants and replacing them with natural gas ones, a cost the power co's pass on to us. Then Biden for blocking various drilling for fracking, which lowered natural gas supply and raised costs for both natural gas and power.) I now have an all-electric house that's so far been powered 50% by the solar system since I converted my gas appliances to electric. I expect that to go down to 40% in the winter then up to 65% to 70% in the summer. To give me 55% to 60% of my power net for the year.
I did tons of research on my own power consumption per month, peak solar hours my zip code gets per day on different months, etc. So I bought a solar system and home battery system specific to my needs at what I thought would give me a good return on investment without running into the barrier of the law of diminishing returns. So far that seems to work out well for me. I'm wanting to do the same kind of research if I get an EV truck.
There in lies the problem. You cant slow crash a demolition. That's what they ( Republicans too, don't fool yourself) are trying to pull off.
The first well-documented “live” test of susceptibility to EMP was conducted on August 6, 1945. There were three B-29s in the skies over Hiroshima on that day, one of them less than 12 miles (straight line distance) from the Little Boy atom bomb at the instant it detonated.
None of the three experienced any equipment failures attributable to the bomb’s electromagnetic pulse (EMP) despite all three planes being close enough to the blast to be rocked (not once but twice) by the bomb’s shock wave. All 12 of the Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone magneto-ignition engines continued to run flawlessly, and all of the vacuum-tube radio communications and radio navigational aids continued to operate.
Furthermore, one of the three planes on the Hiroshima bomb run, The Great Artiste, also was on the Nagasaki bomb run. And it flew home merrily tra-la after witnessing both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb detonations. No harm, no foul.
So EMP doesn’t have to be a civilization-killer (unless everybody’s driving Teslas).
Checking kWh of past power statements is on my list to do, now that I have 4 full months under my belt.
Trump permitting export of natural gas didn’t hurt the cost of NG; it hit so low a price they were almost giving it away because the producers had a market and as such increased exploration and production.
The tax credit of (currently) $7,500 for the EV is nothing to sneeze at. But, as I said, the real benefit is extending the life and decreasing maintenance costs of my gasoline vehicles. Short trips are the hardest on an ICE car, and they are the kind of trips an EV is made for.
It’s not just the economies of the EV, it’s my total cost of ownership for my “fleet”.
IMHO, the $7,500 EV credit is like the 26% solar credit for me. Our suppliers probably raised their prices anyway because of the tax credits. The tax credits may have had a zero effect on our overall cost.
For me the tax credit was one of my major considerations. And I don’t have any solar panels; not really a good option where I live.
The government does not belong in the car business.
This is Communism.
EMP generated from an endoatmospheric nuclear explosion is entirely different from EMP generated from an exoatmospheric explosion.
In an endo explosions the gamma rays kicking Compton electrons out of gas molecules on one side of the explosion are in the opposite direction from the electrons kicked out of the opposite side of the explosion. The electromagnetic fields cancel from the opposite electron directions which form a sphere.
In an exo explosion the gamma rays hit the upper atmosphere and all of the electrons are travelling in pretty much the same direction and then the spin around the Earth’s magnetic field lines is synchronized so all of the small fields add to a huge electromagnetic field.
Theey did not know this in WWII, but they were lucky. Also Vacuum tubes are not nearly as succeptible as semiconductors.
What I’m saying is that Ford probably charged you $7,500 more than they normally would have, knowing you’re willing to pay $7,500 more because of the tax credit. I’m not shaming you for getting an EV or claiming the tax credit (nor for me for getting solar and claiming the 26% tax credit). I’m saying the whole belief that “we ought to make a tax credit to encourage buying XYZ” isn’t effective because all it does is encourage the people selling us the product to raise the price accordingly — which equally reduces the interest in buying the product.
I know that’s what you are saying, but I disagree. As a matter of fact that would be “price fixing”.
But when gubment leaders use things like tax credits to push an industry over others, that's unfortunately legal (in a practical sense, in a Constitutional sense it's illegal but they don't care about the Constitution anymore). All that's done is move money from the government (through the tax credit) to the businesses the government likes (i.e. you wound up giving Ford $7,500 more than you otherwise would have, same with me giving my solar suppliers more than I otherwise would have). Without the tax credit I would have given my suppliers less money (because their prices wouldn't have been artificially inflated by the tax credit) and given that amount to the government in my taxes.
There’s horizontal and vertical price fixing.
Look them up.
And it isn’t unconstitutional, it’s against federal regulations.
The democrats with the help of republicans passed a bill that mandates a kill switch in new cars in a few years.
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.