© Eric Peters Auto
Since they can't sell electric cars - not enough of them, anyhow - and not without subsidies so huge they amount to outright bribes - the solution appears to be to outlaw all cars except electric cars.This is no joke.
There are IC engine No Go Zones in Germany and France. The Brits have just
decreed a ban on the sale of internal combustion-engined vehicles
period, beginning in 2040 - which sounds like a long time from now but isn't - because car companies begin designing cars about ten years before they see the light of production and so this
fatwa means the car companies are on notice that the current generation of cars they are selling is either the last or the second-to-last generation of cars they will be selling . . . at least insofar as they are powered by internal combustion.
And so, they won't be wasting resources to design and build the
next generation.
It's not just Britain, either.
If it were, the madness could be contained. Instead, the madness metastasizes. India (well, the
government of India) wants
all IC engined cars off the road - or retrofitted with electric drivetrains - by 2030, which is only about ten years away and so just over the horizon as far as product planning cycles go.
And now the commissars in China have announced they are all in . . . or out - depending on your point of view. The world's largest market for cars and the world's largest manufacturer of cars.
Same 2030 extinction-by-decree date.
That is comment worthy.
© Eric Peters Auto
More than a century ago, it was not necessary for any government to decree that horses and buggies - and the first electric cars, for that matter - will be verboten henceforth.They died a natural death - a free market death.Internal combustion proved superior. Economically and functionally
better than horse (and electric) power. People gave up their buggies and their equines freely, without being "nudged."
They didn't have to be.
Now, they do.
This ought to raise questions and probably does among the Thinking - but such questions are rarely given voice and answered even less often.
If electric cars are so functionally fabulous, so
superior to the Judas Goated internal combustion-powered car, then how come the bans?
Why not let the electric car succeed on the merits, organically?The answer, of course, is that it can't.Not yet - maybe not ever.
© Associated Press
It's obvious to anyone who does the math - the EV buy-in cost vs. the cost of gas for an otherwise similar IC-engined car. It doesn't add up, not favorably, anyhow. There is a
reason why arch crony capitalist and rent-seeking kingpin Elon Musk builds electric cars that are quick and sexy and laden with gadgets. It is to shove the economic inferiority of the things under the rug. And if they aren't economically superior to cars powered by gas and diesel engines well - why bother?
Isn't it like paying people to build - and buy Porsches?
Startling that this doesn't grate more than it ought to among the taxpaying masses - who are paying for the subsidized rich to drive around in subsidized rich people's cars.
Meanwhile, the cars
they drive - the ones they can
afford to drive - are being regulated and legislated out of existence.
No one talks about the Recharge Issue, either - and it's a huge issue. Unless you believe that having to wait a
minimum of 30-45 minutes every 100 miles or so to feed a
partial (80 percent) charge back into the batteries is acceptable or logistically feasible. Imagine hundreds of thousands of EVs queuing up to charge up at the same time.
Imagine what this will do to the grid.
© Eric Peters Auto
Imagine what would happen in the event you - and hundreds of thousands of other people with battery-powered cars - had to suddenly and unexpectedly get going and get
far. As in the case of a hurricane barreling down on the state. No time to wait 30-45 minutes and you need to be able to move hundreds of miles down the road, without having to stop and queue up for 30-45 minutes with hundreds of thousands of other people.
It's crazier than the combined contents of St. Elizabeth's Hospital in DC - the nuthouse where they kept lovesick John Hinckley, among others less famous. Which explains
why electric cars are not selling, in spite of the subsidies - and despite the quickness and sexiness of some of them.
It is because they are economically and functionally inferior.Thus, the necessity of banning their functionally and economically superior competition. It has come to this because - all the Breakthrough Talk notwithstanding - the necessary breakthroughs haven't happened and never may.
What's happening is a kind of
putsch by the technocrats. And - unless these technocrats are exceptionally stupid - they know perfectly well that absent the endlessly promised Breakthroughs that have yet to materialize and never may - electric cars can never be more than the subsidized
toys of the affluent and a recipe for national gridlock.
© Eric Peters Auto
Now think about what that implies.
Yes, exactly.
The object of this exercise - the banning, on the one hand, of economically and functionally viable internal combustion and, on the other, the mandating of extremely pricey and heavily subsidized electric cars - is to
reduce mobility.
To limit the average person's ability travel by private car.It's not just Britain - or France or Germany and China and India. The push is worldwide and coming to America, too. EV Production quotas and sales mandates are already in effect in states like California. IC No Go Zones and outright bans are surely next.It sounds hard-to-believe, but the concatenation of facts is hard to ignore.
More than a century ago, technology liberated the average person, expanded his horizons. 100 years down the road, technocracy is bound and determined to reverse that.
Reader Comments
Anyone who believes that we live in a world where the better technology wins the market, lives in a naive fairytale bubbler.
We live in a world where the technology wins, which is promoted by the most ruthless psychopaths.
If for example the US government decided that every building in let's say California had to have solar panels, there would probably be more energy than needed for the whole US. But the reason such efforts are stifled is because of the already established coal, gas, and nuclear industries and their lobbies.
Granted not every piece here is fair and balanced, and many are quite biased, but arguing for global oil domination causes me to question the allegiances, cognitive biases, and intellectual capacity of the editors, and diminishes the usefulness of this site by orders of magnitude.
Why is it that people assume anyone that challenges the green agenda is with big oil
We would never, ever, shill for anyone, much less extremely responsible and ecologically conscious oil companies. We would never suggest that fossil fuels, which are safe and inexhaustable, were the backbone of the world economy and of incredible value to human flourishing (brought to you by Gazprom, Gazprom - fuskiavitch roosky dyel fredvidovitchevsky).
We've never been so insulted.
(Brought to you by the IEA, IEA data you can trust, from a family you depend on).
Personally, I'm mostly afraid of noiseless cars (because they would be causing more deaths - but this can be prevented by noise-making technology, which is also being presented on the show), and autonomous cars (which is a bigger problem worth more studies). There is also a not quite separate issue of costs of generating electricity - including both financial cost and environmental cost.
However, I somehow doubt that the electric cars will have a rosy path to domination. I just can't see it being in line with American geo-strategy, especially the one depending on oil, and making others depending on petrodollar. Unless they plan that electric power for the cars will be produced from oil...
There are issues with electric vehicles at this time; poor power storage, dangerous conditions during collisions and the current pricing places them above what many people can afford. Similarly there are issues with the financial and environmental cost of building the electric vehicles which rarely make it into an energy balance when trying to compare electric to gasoline vehicles. Divide By Zero brought up the good point that electricity needed to operate the vehicles is generated by burning fossil fuels or releasing radioactivity.
At the end of the day, nobody trust the current scientific community to promote truths when there are funding dollars at stake and governments who control the funding are trusted even less. Will the 'ultimatums' put forward by India and G.B. and those governments listed in the article really be implemented? Do many people in those countries really care?
I am sure the people of China and other developing countries with poor infrastructure are sick and tired of breathing in bad air and they would jump at the chance to be part of the 'cure' (as the EV advertising suggest). People living in cities and urban environments where driving 100KM out of town is a safari will not be put out by trashing their IC engine for electric. People living in countries where driving 100KM barely gets you to the next city will have a much harder time accepting the current limitations of electric vehicles.
One other issue for those in colder climates: I am travelling 300KM one way this weekend to go canoeing in the mountains. I will rely on a gasoline engine to carry us back and forth over that distance without stopping and to generate enough heat to keep us warm on the trip and possibly save us from hypothermia should the rapids get the best of our canoe. Would I want to take an electric vehicle into a situation like this? No freaking way. The technology just isn't practical in every part of the world at this time.
To do car job you need a new EM car, then after time a new battery is required,2nd,3rd.....
The simple cost of replacement for a power pack will stun you, after that you don't even ask the replacement motor question.
The whole issue of duration and trying to operate over long distances is minimized most times.
Being niche the electric is just going to cost more to service.
The most often missed problem is the electromagnetic fields these sorts of cars produce and what they do to living things.
The Men filling vaults with your treasure think EM is a jolly bitchin idea The taxation of the electric car is why it has such troubles, the control they get from E.C. is very good too don't forget.
I recall the cost of diesel before every kid had to have a 6L turbo pickup, i sure do see what that fuel costs after 20 years of marketing diesel pickup trucks, the same thing will effect the price of the E.C. fuel that is in use for much more than just car fuel. Moving you into these taxation waters is a very long game being played on the credit dazzled consumer. No life guards in these realms.
The electric car is never going to do car job like internal combustion can now.