Teslas Suddenly Get Pricier . . .

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tesla announced the other day that it will no longer be producing the least-expensive version of its Model S sedan – which lines up with Tesla’s failure to produce many (f any) of the lower-priced versions of its constantly trumpeted Model 3.

It’s a hint about how one of the biggest problems with electric cars – their being too expensive for most people to consider, so long as there are less less expensive options available – will be handled.

We’ll all just pay more – because their won’t be any less expensive options.

And not just at Tesla stores.

As “electrification” gallops ahead – every major car company is practically on a war footing, frantically rushing as many EVs to market as they possibly can and retiring as many non-electrified models as they possibly can – the price of EVs will necessarily go up as the option to avoid them diminishes.

It’s genius.

Everyone inside the business knows quite well that electric cars are not going to get cheaper – or rather, become affordable – anytime soon and quite probably never. Because the technology just costs more. The chirpy stuff you hear about battery costs going down is true – just not honest.

Yes, batter costs have come down. They are still nowhere near cost-parity with an equivalent internal combustion layout. Which means even with subsidies in perpetuity – which GM and other major car companies now want Congress to rubber stamp – most people still won’t freely buy an EV so long as they can freely buy something that will cost them literally thousands (if not tens of thousands) less to own.

That’s italicized for the sake of clarity – and editorial honesty – which you’ll not find much of in general media accounts of the electric car. These accounts will convey the truth that EVs don’t cost much to drive – and may even cost less to drive than an equivalent non-EV. At least so long as electricity is not taxed the same as gas and the utilities don’t jack up the price as a result of a massive uptick in demand (because of a massive increase in EVs) which will require investment in new generating capacity – which isn’t free or even cheap.

But they sotto voce the EV’s ownership costs – which include not only its much higher initial cost (even with subsidies and rebate kickbacks) but also its higher long-term costs, which includes the inevitable replacement of several thousand dollars worth of batteries and the likely inherently shorter service life of the EV itself, due to the inherently greater complexity (and cost) not of the electric motor (which is relatively simple) but the myriad peripheral systems, especially the electronic ones, without which the thing is a brick.

Most non-EVs can be counted on to go 15-20 years and at least 150,000 miles before they get to the “not-worth-fixing” point

The economically viable life of an EV is much shorter – around 8-10 years or less.

A barometer of this – a canary in the coal mine – is EV depreciation. Which makes Solyndra stock look like a sound investment. You can find less-than-five-year-old Nissan Leafs (the most “affordable” EV on the market, at just under $30,000) for less than $10,000.

EVs will need to be replaced more often than non-EVs, another cost tsunami almost no one in the business wants to talk about publicly because they’ve invested so much in EVs; they are like the guy who knows he has high blood pressure but refuses to take his meds or even cut salt out of his diet – and goes to the Chinese buffet for a gorge.

The average car buyer has no clue because he knows little about EVs and isn’t being told the full story. The hope – the plan – is to get him into an EV before he does know it and then give him no way to get out.

Tesla knows it can’t make money – even with the subsidies – on the “affordable” $35,000 Model 3 (and the “affordable” $76,000 version of the Model S) so it won’t sell them anymore.

If you want a Tesla S, you’ll pay $94,000 for it.

The Model 3 you can actually buy costs $44,000 to start; with options, it goes for $60,000-plus. At least you can pick a color other than black (the only color available with the $35,000 Model 3, which isn’t available).

Other brand EVs will cost you, too – because within just a couple of years, as “electrification” proceeds – there will be fewer and fewer opt-outs. Almost no mainstream press car journalist is writing about or talking about the fact that the federal government’s “fuel economy” fatwa has become a de facto electric car production fatwa.

The fatwa prescribes a mandatory minimum of 50-plus miles-per-gallon for every car built – to be achieved by model year 2025. Google around and see how many 2019 cars achieve even 40 MPG that aren’t at least partially electric (i.e., hybrids).

Compliance with the fatwa effectively requires mass production of EVs – and the discontinuation of alternatives to them. Both for the practical – mathematical – reason that the more EVs and the fewer non-EVs, the higher your “fleet average” MPGs and thus, Uncle is appeased. And also because to get people into EVs, you must  get them out of non-EVs – which most people will continue to choose, so long as they have the choice.

Thus, eliminate the choice.

Non-EV alternatives won’t be outlawed. They’ll just kind of go away. In the same way that affordable large sedans with rear-wheel-drive and V8s went away (also because of the fuel economy fatwa).

The next step is to make the rest go away, leaving the $44,000 (to start) EV as your only choice.

The car companies see this – though they’ll never admit this – as the way to fluff their profit margins. Which it will, so long as the debt necessary to keep the carousel running can be underwritten, pawned off and (ultimately) written off.

But unlike the federal government – which can float apparently limitless debt – the average American cannot. At some point – probably not far distant – the bill for all of this will come due.

And it won’t be Uncle (or the shyster banks) who pays the tab.

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $5 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  





Share Button


  1. The EV market is no different than any other market folks either you can afford a particular product or you cannot. The price is the price, right now because of battery tech, plain and simple. If it was cheaper (prices will go down), you’d pay less, just like a simple car is cheaper than a high performance car.

    There are a lot of people here crying about the price. That speaks to only one part of the market dynamics. The iPhone was like this too. No one wanted to pay $400 for a cell phone. New ones are now typically double that and people are buying them or signing up for long term payment plans (by switching carriers usually, etc.). Clover

    If you have not yet driven all the available EVs, you should. It will help you understand more about them. If you are just following along with Eric’s rants because they seem like a good line to follow, you are just shorting yourself with your ignorance.

    Go learn about what’s available and become a smarter consumer so that you can help build the marketplace that will serve your needs!

    • Hi GRwww,

      You miss the point. The price of EVs is too high for them to be other than what they are: specialty cars bought by a relative handful of affluent people who don’t particularly care about the economics of electric cars.

      But if EVs are “for the rich only,” why are they being subsidized – and mandated?

      How is this different from mulcting average-income people so that rich people can drive Porsches? And how will electric cars ever replace IC cars if the majority can’t afford to buy them?

      The iPhone example is absurd – because it was never subsidized or mandated. People who bought them paid the market price. EV buyers pay a partial price…a hefty chunk of the actual price paid by others who are forced to subsidize it.

    • If I could afford a Tesla right now, I would probably buy a new 2500 HD 4×4 diesel pickup instead!

      At least with that I could get in and out of my property year round, which no electric vehicle currently available could do.

  2. The US has gone completely batshit insane.

    Americans used to fight Nazis and Commies, but have now become Nazis and Commies.

    Americans are simply unable to see hypocrisy or understand unintended consequences.

    Americans say Obama was an asshole for destroying the US with wars, debt, and tyranny, but then they turn around and scream Trump is a holy god for supporting wars, debt, and the police state.

    Americans think the government can magically rule by decree.

    Americans say tyranny only affects others and that they are immune from the police state.

    Americans insist freedom only benefits other people.

    Americans want the government to ban saggy pants and smoking, but then they are puzzled why prisons are overcrowded.

    Americans demand that the government start a trade war, but then they are stunned when prices rise and no one wants US exports.

    Americans say tiny homes must be illegal, but then they baffled why homelessness and housing costs increase.

    Americans beg for welfare and then they are shocked that the US debt is growing.

    Americans want the government to have regulations and high minimum wages, but then they are dumbfounded why there are no jobs.

    Americans want the government to start endless wars, but then Americans do not understand why the world hates the USA and why there are refugees, terrorism, and tyranny.

    Anyone who loves wars, debt, and tyranny is considered to be normal and anyone who supports peace, balanced budgets, and freedom is called a nutjob and racist and is banned, gets an IRS audit, gets arrested, or is killed.

    The entire country seems to be committing suicide.


  3. Selling gas is a very low margin business for a retailer. That’s why most gas is sold at convenience stores, rather then a service station like in the past. So it wouldn’t take much disruption in the business for many to get out of the business. Guessing that disruption will be slowly strangling government regulations, as most gas retailers are small businesses that will be unable to hold out long.

    Guessing gas stations would be harder to find about a decade after the major automakers are forced out of the ICE business and only make electric.

  4. Don’t forget – once FedGov shoves us all into EV’s – we will have only one choice for our energy needs – the heavily regulated, government controlled, electric utility monopoly. Is that freedom? At least we have some choice with fossil fuels. I’ve been around quite a few EV’s, bought some in my previous career – they work in some applications, but I haven’t the slightest bit of interest in plunking down my hard earned $$ on a whirring, government controlled transportation appliance!

    • Hi Keith,


      If it’s about economy – any currently available $15k-$17k economy sedan is superior to the least expensive electric car (the $30,000 Nissan Leaf). Who would pay twice as much for a car that goes half as far – and takes at least 6 times as long to partially refuel? You will never “save money” driving the Leaf – so who cares that it uses no gas? If the object is lowering one’s cost to drive, I mean.

      If it’s luxury, an S-Class Mercedes is a far nicer (and much larger) car than the Tesla S. Without the Teslian functional gimps.

      If it’s performance, a Hellcat costs less than a Tesla S and while the Tesla S is a little bit quicker, if you use its performance, you’ll run down the batteries and be stuck for hours…. or at least 45 minutes. The Hellcat can be gassed up in less than 5 minutes – and it costs $20,000 less than the Tesla S.

      Are you and I and the regular here the only ones not smoking crack?

    • Unlike gasoline or diesel it doesn’t take a million dollars to make a fixed amount of energy. Sunlight and wind will allow you to be free from the grid. You’ll be able to finally not rely on the gov for electricity.

  5. When I was at the doctor’s office earlier today, I read an old issue of Road & Track. At the back of the magazine is a feature, “Go Lutz Yourself”, in which Bob Lutz (yes, THAT Bob Lutz) comments on various issues pertaining to the car, answers reader questions, etc. In this issue, from March/April 2016, he talked about the end of the automobile.

    To make a long story short, he sees cars becoming autonomous transportation modules and car ownership coming to an end. He said that, with our mobile devices, we’ll hail a transportation module when and where we need it; it’ll take us where we want to go. If we have that capability, he says, why would anyone own a car anymore? He said that he sees cars becoming a plaything, much like happened to horses when the automobile was first developed.

    Lutz sees these transportation modules traveling in packs at 150 mph along the highways. He said that they’d be electric. He said that, with little to differentiate a BMW transportation module from a Mercedes, that the car industry as we know it will change. Why would the end user care what MARQUE of transportation module carries him to his destination, provided it does so?

    Anyway Eric, while your concerns are real; while I see where you’re going with your point about EPA fatwas and the loss of affordable car choices; I think Mr. Lutz had a good point almost three years ago now. If cars become autonomous, will we even own them anymore? Will we even want to? I don’t know. I just thought I’d throw that out there…

    • It will matter when someone realizes the city bus experience sucks and offers a “premium” ride that has upgraded seating, entertainment and snacks, and costs 10X more than the “standard” ride. It will matter when the service doesn’t clean out the various bodily fluids that will accumulate everywhere, especially after the bars close.

      • In this brave new world a cell phone will be a toy and you’ll use brain waves to summon your module. Which will always be clean by the way because WE take care of each other, WE are one in all and all in one. There are no men but only the great WE, One, indivisible and forever. You see in this new world we are nothing. Mankind is all. By the grace of our brothers are we allowed our lives. We exist through, by and for our brothers who are the State.

        Okay enough Rand for the evening, Cheers!

    • Thus proving Lutz would be right at home in a Pringle’s can! Why don’t we all just get on the IV now, so we can merely exist, instead of living? What he is predicting is an existence without struggle, challenge, or growth. Watch “Logan’s Run” and you will get a good idea of just how shallow and pointless humanity will be at that point.

      • Hi Graves!

        Lutz misses one (of several) important – arguably, decisive – things ride-sharing will never deliver: Immediacy.

        Unless teleportation is invented, the ride-sharer will have to wait for his ride. And plan for it. No just deciding on a whim – or because it’s urgent – to jump in your car and go right now. Just think: Your kid has been hurt and is bleeding out. Instead of not wasting those perhaps life-deciding minutes for your ride (or the ambulance) you just get in the car and get to the hospital… right now.

        It is the difference between turning on the tap and – voila – water… and having to wait while someone runs down to the corner store to get (and bring back) some bottled water.

        Bottom line: Our mobility is being reduced – contrary to the glib (and imbecile) chatter about how transportation as a service is going to be a boon for us all.

        • “It is the difference between turning on the tap and – voila – water… and having to wait while someone runs down to the corner store to get (and bring back) some bottled water.”

          Ah, the story of my life. Here in NJ, we’re essentially forced to buying bottled water because the state would rather blow our money on corrupt politicians than to improve our infrastructure. And everyone wonders why folks are fleeing from “The Garden State” in droves.

      • @GTC: You, sir, hit the nail right on the head! These fools essentially want life to be completely effortless and, like you said, devoid of any risks or challenges. In fact, Nike (with others probably not far behind) is supposed to be rolling out a line of “smart” sneakers that enable the user to automatically tighten and adjust them via an app on their brain-controlling devi…err, I mean, “smartphones”. Yeah, it’s THAT bad.

      • gtc – Watch “Logan’s Run” and you will get a good idea of just how shallow and pointless humanity will be at that point.

        I’m really not seeing much difference at THIS point, other than the polyester jumpsuits.

  6. Eric, do you think that someday a stubborn holdout like me, with my ’76 Lincoln Mark IV, will not be able to find gas stations?

  7. Contrarian here.
    I own 2 Teslas ( X & 3). Engineer by education – manufacturing businessman by career.
    Teslas offer a driving experience well beyond that of an ICE vehicle. It’s that simple. Add the convenience of charging at home (at night when the load on the grid is low), no tuneups/oil changes, and you have simply improved the vehicle transportaion part of my life.
    I consider myself as a “car guy” and I have owned a goodly number of upscale and performance vehicles. After driving my first Tesla (the X) for a few months, I simply found an ICE to be crude by comparison, so I sold my very nice ICE 2nd car and bought a Tesla Model 3.
    When we get beyond minimum expenditure to do the transportation functrion, the unique benefits of the Tesla (probably other EVs also, but I have no experience there) are a powerful sales tool.

    • Jack Lundberg – are YOU the lucky guy in the “Office Space” movie, whom, unlike Bill LUNDBERG, actually got frisky with the waitress portrayed by Jennifer Anniston (at about age 29, to boot!)?

      Seriously, IF you spend YOUR money (and knowing the Tesla SRP, it’s a bunch!) for this EV experience, fine and dandy, although no mention if you have something else that’s “crude” ICE (like a “Cowboy Cadillac” diesel pickup) for when you want to foray well beyond the charging range of the Teslas, especially on one loooong road trip! It’s the taxpayer-funded SUBSIDIES that I object to, especially since the effect is to provide a tax subsidy to a very well-heeled gentleman, and THIS promulgated by those political twits professing to have the “working man’s” interests at heart! Please also answer this question: IF the price subsidies AND the tax credits weren’t available, how ‘wonderful’ or ‘unique’ would the Tesla be?

      • Douglas L Self – no I don’t own a backup ICE vehicle.
        I have not taken a really long trip via Tesla, but several day trips, plus the experiences of other Tesla owners, makes me believe long trips are entirely feasible. Tesla offers a trip planning function to accomodate long trips.
        As a conservative citizen, I wince at acepting the government subsidies, but yes, I would have made the same purchase decisions absent them.
        BEV prices will decline in the future, however I want the driving experience now.
        There is a personal vehicle revolution going on and the engineering merits of the BEV will be the victor.

        • “Tesla offers a trip planning function”

          I have to laugh at stuff like this. I can buy the cheapest econobox out there and not have to do “trip planning”, just take to the open road when the whim strikes and not worry about it. A $15,000 Hyundai Accent has more basic functionality and convenience than a $90,000 Tesla. Nobody that buys a cheap conventional economy car has to even give a thought to whether long trips are entirely feasible. They just gas up and go.

          As Eric points out elsewhere, if one wants the Tesla “driving experience” (presumably that is crazy fast acceleration) you can get much the same in a Hellcat for a lot less money than a Tesla and not have to worry about “trip planning”.

          Of course most people are concerned about getting from Point A to Point B in reasonable comfort with a minimum of fuss, not with blinding acceleration or some other esoteric aspects of the “driving experience.” Thus there is no free market pressure for electric cars. The public is not demanding them. The vast majority of people are perfectly content with the performance of their ICE vehicles.

          The limitations of current battery technology overshadows any other engineering merits of current battery electric vehicles. That may well change in the future, but as it stands now if I were in the market for a new car using my own hard-earned money and could afford my pick I’d take the Hyundai over the Tesla in a heartbeat. (Actually my own version of the ideal new car would be something really basic like a Studebaker Scotsman.)

          • Some people want a Rolex, some want a Timex.
            Different strokes for different folks.
            Neither is wrong.
            Argue abolut someting else.

            • What I want is a car that does not require a “trip planning function” to take a cross-country drive. (Also a car that is not wirelessly tethered to the manufacturer which can change functionality remotely, but that’s another issue.)

              That’s the case whether I’m in a Studebaker Scotsman or a Cadillac Eldorado. Either provides the freedom to simply take off down the road with no special planning required. Tesla simply doesn’t fit the bill.

              • Hi Jason,

                Go easy on Grwww as he’s suffering from an increasingly common delusional disorder, Malthustyria. It is a degenerative disease that attacks one’s rational faculties while enhancing emotional sensations. It is characterized by an irrational fear of a looming, total cataclysm, coupled with an absolute certainty that anyone who doesn’t likewise suffer the same affliction (agree with them) is blind or corrupt.

                Unfortunately there is no known cure as the disease is impervious to evidence, experience, history or reason. Recent clinical trials of hallucinogenic drug therapy showed promise but have been abandoned because a statistically significant number of participants advanced into full blown, irreversible psychosis. What is most vexing to researchers is that the repeated failure of what is feared to come to pass only seems to enhance the disorder.

                The disease is most concentrated among environmental activists and eschatological theorists, though it is becoming alarmingly frequent among a new political movement that dubs itself, the “Resistance”.

                While there is no cure, palliative therapy has become common. This approach conditions the sufferer to believe his disease to be a noble virtue, a sign of deeper knowledge, greater compassion and a more acute sensibility. An early pioneer in this method was Dr. Paul Ehrlich who managed to parlay his irrational fear and hysterical doom saying into a lucrative and prestigious career.


            • Hi Jack,

              Yes – and that’s fine (Rolex vs. Timex) so long as the guy buying is the guy paying. The problem with EVS – well, one of the problems with EVs – is that the people buying them are forcing other people to pay for them.

            • JL, some people want heroin instead of cocaine, and like your watches, both do the same, each in a different manner and/or social circle. There is no EV with the flexibility, versatility, and utility capabilities of IC automobiles, that is where your flow chart of logical progression ends. Each has different purposes and venues of function, and EVs have so many crippling disadvantages that they cannot even stand on their own merits. Hell, they are an unprofitable hemmorrage of funds for anyone building them, even with all the Federal tax theft and subsequent “dictates” of permissive use of IC vehicles.
              Eric is 100% correct that the natural economic processes of supplying to meet functional needs is being seriously screwed with. It’s “people farming” to a degree that is so insidious because it feeds on greed, pride, and the infatuation of wealth and power. Interesting that you mention a Rolex watch, because 40 years ago it became not just a quality functional timepiece, but an Icon of Greed and Self-Importance that symbolized the generation of Yuppies, the same people who are now in political power and making every effort to micromanage everyone else’s live, but still only for THEIR progeny, not yours or mine. Your just being another gilded brick in their wall of self edification. I really feel sorry sheeple like you that just jostle and elbow to have the best place at the trough, so long as you live better than the rest before your slaughter.———-Oh my, I didn’t mean for that to turn so dark and depressing, well, there it is, and not staying these things will not make them any less true.

          • The model 3 performance is cheaper than the hellcat. If you haven’t actually driven a Tesla for at least an hour using all the driving features at night and during the day, all the convenience functions and features of the Tesla platform will not really be know to you.

            I no longer have any desire to drive a gas car. In the summer, I can drive through the desert with no worry of overheating.

            The Tesla navigation system is a convenience not a crutch. There is electricity in all the places there is gasoline to be purchased. The car is not the problem, the infrastructure is.

            I don’t sit in my car while it’s charging. At destination chargers or at home I do other things. On the road I go to superchargers where I take bathroom breaks and eat a meal, shop etc.

            I thought it would be a while until EVs came. Tesla has taken more than 300,000 profit points away from ICE manufactures in their top margin markets. They are having to move on with EV development using cash they have today or else they will be non-profitable in a quarter or two and their stock prices and investors will be going down/away very quickly!

            Electric is so much better than ICE from a tech simplicity point of view but also total cost of ownership.

            • “I no longer have any desire to drive a gas car. In the summer, I can drive through the desert with no worry of overheating.”

              So your Tesla avoids a problem no car made in the last 30 years has a problem with? Wow.

              “I don’t sit in my car while it’s charging.”
              I don’t sit in my car while filling either. And it only takes 5 minutes. I don’t have to find soothing else to do while my car fills….. because it only takes five minutes.

              What are you trying to say, that having to wait an hour to partially refill your car is some sort of feature and not a bug? Rationalize much?

              • No I am saying that my Tesla works just fine. It’s not a problem to own and operate. All the ignorance spouted here with bias about EVs is just hilkatious to see. So much small penis conversations and so many who just have no idea….Clover

                • Grwww,

                  You’ve leveled juvenile and illiterate insults – but not addressed any of the points made in re the EV’s range/recharge/cost issues – all of which are objective facts.

                  Your Tesla may “work just fine” for you. Probably some Yugo owners said the same.

                  And they ask me why I drink…

                  • The cost is real it’s not an argument. The problem is that money is controlling your consideration. Money is not finite. Do you pay a baby tax each time someone is born so they will have money to spend? No, the FED prints money , inflating the cash available so that there is some to spend for all.

                    Range in any vehicle is limited by the energy on board in whatever form. Why argue about that? Temperature, rain drag, wind drag, hills etc. affect your energy usage. It’s a fact! Why argue about how bad it might be against one particular driving style, route, use pattern? It’s just something to consider for what size battery or tank you need.

                    People don’t all own gas guzzling pickup trucks that cost $70,000.00. People pick what they can afford and what meets their needs for overall cost vs benefits.

                    EVs cost less to operate! EV batteries drive the costs up. Gasoline and diesel continued use is going to kill all of us within 20 years, plain and simple.Clover

                    Standing around and arguing and pointing with your penis at how manually your opinion and reasoning is while clearly demonstrating complete ignorance of the facts with all of your posturing is childish and just speaks directly to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

                    All of us are ignorant of many things. The question is, how stupid are you for not recognizing your ignorance and standing around in your little box feeling like your the smartest and have the perfect few of everything?

                    We already know all these things about ICE environmental damage. We already know how we’ve structured our lives around car dealers, buying a car, getting insurance, getting a tag, putting fuel in the tank, watching cooling system, changing out lubricants, replacing failed Motor and transmission parts as well.

                    What you don’t know until you own an EV and more directly avTesla, is how much of that crap doesn’t have to be a part or much less a part of the interruptions or daily/weekly/monthly routine.Clover

                    Charging is not a major part of my life because I plug in and charge at home for 90% of what I drive. When I need to travel, I have superchargers to use and it’s 99% happening when I am eating diner or shopping.

                    Clearly this thread is a bunch of positioning of opinion and throwing down insults to try and make a point. I am just laughing at all of that. Your ICE car will only be worth scrap in another 5years. Enjoy!

                    • Grrrr,

                      This comment of yours – “Gasoline and diesel continued use is going to kill all of us within 20 years, plain and simple” – puts you in the camp of Hale Bopp comet apocalyptics; it’s not worth my time to deal with this sort of thing and besides, I lack the psychiatric credentials.

                    • Grrrr,

                      How is “the cost” – which you concede to be real – “not an argument”?

                      Do you believe the price of a vehicle – its total cost to own – is an irrelevant consideration?

                      This is an interesting argument!

                      It is certainly an elitist argument.

                      Yes, of course “range is limited” in any car. But it is much more limited in an electric car. And the electric car is further limited by its preposterously long recharge time.

                    • Grrr,

                      You write:

                      “Standing around and arguing and pointing with your penis at how manually your opinion and reasoning is while clearly demonstrating complete ignorance of the facts with all of your posturing is childish and just speaks directly to the Dunning-Kruger effect.”

                      I can’t even parse this. Res ipsa loquitur.

                      What I have done – which isn’t arguing with my penis (however one does that) is point out… facts about electric cars. And then you – like so many Tesla and EV apologists – accuse me of “ignorance” while ignoring these facts!

                      Once more:

                      EVs cost much more than IC cars. .
                      An EV’s range is comparatively short – forcing more frequent stops to recharge – which takes much longer than an IC car takes to refuel.


                      And they ask me why I drink…

                    • “Gasoline and diesel continued use is going to kill all of us within 20 years, plain and simple.”

                      That’s what environmentalist assholes were puking 50 years ago.

                      Rest assured that gasoline and electric vehicles will still be mainstream in 20 years (let alone 5), everyone will still be here, and a new generation of environmentalist assholes will be making even more ludicrous predictions that will never materialize.

                    • Grwwww
                      Whatever marginal grip you had on reality when you arrived, it’s gone.

                      Honestly wondering if you are really that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez idiot.

                      Not sure why you bother with responding to them Eric, it’s pretty obvious that Grwwww lacks the mental ability to even understand your responses. Even when given clear and factual data that refutes the stupid shit it spews, it still cant’ grasp the facts.

                      The truly stupid never understand that they don’t understand.

                  • Hey Eric,

                    “Do you believe the price of a vehicle – its total cost to own – is an irrelevant consideration?”

                    Well, of course. After all “money is not finite”, so the FED can just inflate “the cash available so that there is some to spend for all”. Easy peasy, everyone can afford a model 3!

                    BTW, this is not an ignorant opinion, but a fact!


              • Teslas and all EVs have to watch their battery temps. I know that when Formula E is racing when it’s hot out (e.g. the Santiago, Chile race in January, i.e. summer down there), they have to watch their battery temps. Furthermore, the battery temps can affect their ability to use regen; if the temps are too high, they can’t use regen. That affects their energy management, which in turn determines race strategy. Anyway, in so many words, EVs DO have to watch temps too…

            • We drive 700 miles straight through, two five minute stops to gas up and pee. Have to do that to fit between somewhere before daylight and rush hour. An electric car would require two days, a motel night, and restaurant meals – plus two more damn days away from home.

              And, I don’t need any focking navigation system because I’ve driven the route so many times and know where I’m going.

              • The trip would take a little longer with a Tesla, but it wouldn’t take two days! The stops at the Supercharger would take 1/2 hour or so, during which time you can go to the bathroom, get something to drink, get something to eat if hungry, and so on.

                I could live with a Tesla on a road trip, because I stop every 2-3 hours or so. I do all the things above; after 2-4 hours behind the wheel, I need to stretch my legs. My typical stops are about a 20-30 minutes, unless I need a power nap too.

                So, why don’t I have a Tesla? Why don’t I have an EV? For me, it was economics. I got very gently used 2015 Ford Focus late last year, and it was about 1/3 the cost of the cheapest Tesla. Economics like that were compelling, so I got an ICEV. Maybe next time…

                • Hi Mark,

                  It slays me the way people excuse/rationalize away the EV’s gimps. The fact is these things reduce mobility, by not going nearly as far and taking much longer to recharge than a non-electric car takes to refuel.

                  This might be compensated for if the EV were inexpensive; if it cost less – much less – than a non-electric. But they cost much more!

                  Plus, they have an inherently shorter useful service life because of the inevitable fading of their battery packs. And they are affected by high heat and extreme cold far more so than non-electrics.

                  It is sick. A real-life parade of the naked emperor – with the masses admiring his new clothes.

                  • My latest experience with EV fanbois tells me that they now prefer to outright deny the problems. They cite some example of a Tesla that went 300+ miles with the A/C on, with no mention of the driving style used… wonder what they’d say now that several Teslas got their range cut. If you mention the recharge time they’ll fall back on the shorter fast-charge time and say that’s just a perfect excuse to get out of the car and stretch your legs etc., never mind that many areas don’t have fast chargers, you may not want to spend 30+ minutes “stretching your legs”, and you can still do this at a gas station if you actually want to. If you mention the cost they’ll say that even without the subsidies a Model 3 is “only” several thousand dollars more expensive than the BMW 3-series it directly competes with and “only” a couple thousand more than that BMW’s big brother the 5-series. (If only we could all be rich enough to not care about such trivial differences!) If you bring up China’s “absolutely spotless” environmental and human-rights records, they’re not worried because someone out there already converted all the serf tears and sloppy mining into a dry, contextless CO2 equivalent to prove that liquid fuels are still worse overall!

                    • GTC, That’s how they all are it seems.

                      I’ve gone the extra step in pointing out that the BMWs and other cars they compare to are profitable. That they have normal or better profit margins and TM’s products do not. Then they fall back on TM showing a profit from selling credits.

                      It’s simply delusional like most modern ‘thinking’.

                • It WOULD take two days because I’m not ever going to drive through the Denver area during rush hours, and even an extra two or three hours would make the trip impossible in one day. There are actually only a few time slots that are NOT a rush hour.

                  Plus I doubt that there even is a damn Supercharger in Wyoming.

                  • Just so you know, there ARE Superchargers in WY! You can go here to see: https://www.tesla.com/findus/list/superchargers/United%20States.

                    Scroll to the bottom for the list. If you look at the map, they appear to be located along the Interstates mostly.

                    On road trips, I don’t push it; I’ll get there when I get there. That’s not to say I don’t have a goal, but I won’t crash because I fell asleep trying to make a schedule. If I need to sleep, I’ll pull over-simple as that.

                    As for stretching my legs, that’s what I do. I have an ICEV, so I don’t have to; I just prefer to do things that way.

                    • Hi Mark,

                      I get that – for you – these regular and fairly long pit stops aren’t a big deal. It’s not a big deal for me to put up with the idiosyncrasies of my old two-stroke bike, which fouls plugs quickly and needs its points adjusted regularly. I put up with it because I like the bike. Not because it makes any kind of sense.

                      It’s batty that we’re even having a discussion about the “merits” of cars that force people to stop sooner and wait longer – and which cost thousands more. It is literally demented – like making excuses for a cripple who has been force-added to the roster of a track team.

                    • Well, when you’re on the wrong side of 50 and have a weak bladder, just gassing and going isn’t an option! I have to stop every so often just to drain the vein… 🙂

                      I could live with a Tesla and its pit stops, since I do that sort of thing already. Are all my pit stops 30 minutes? No, some are only 10-15, so a Tesla would add some time even to my rare road trips.

                      For me, I simply cannot AFFORD a Tesla. They’re nice cars. They’re neat cars. But they’re EXPENSIVE cars! Yeah, they save gas, but not enough to recoup 3-4 times the purchase price of an ICEV. That decision is a no-brainer.

                      Oh, the moped I had in HS was 2 stroke. That bitch fouled plugs all the time! I got so I just carried a spare with me, so I could quickly change ’em. Then, I’d clean the dirty one when I got home, so it could be my spare for next time…

                    • Well, it only takes me about 30 seconds to pee between the passenger side open doors at one of those ubiquitous truck parking pull-offs in Wyoming!

    • I for one am NOT going to let you redefine the normal by accepting this bullshit meme, ICE.
      A car, other than your marginal tesla is a normal car , your X is the electric car. Stop qualifying mine, it’s unnecessary.
      There are 100s of millions of cars in the world and a smidgen of ALL other power train types.
      All of you, Ice is a fed department or a drug, stop using it fir normal car!

  8. Some 75 years ago, another automotive innovator, Ferdinand Porsche, whom designed the VW Beetle for HITLER (fairly much at least ‘inspired by the Tatra 97, as the chief designer at Skoda put it, “sometimes ‘Ferdy looked over my shoulder and I over his”; Tatra filed a lawsuit against VW in 1938, which Hitler “settled out of court” by the taking of the Sudetenland in 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia the next year; the Skoda works, by then under control of the Czechoslovakian Communists, filed another suit against the post-war VW in West Germany, a settlement was reached in 1965 for $1M DM), also came up with a “hybrid” design for an AFV, or “Panzerkampfwagen”…his version of the Tiger tank was to use the Maybach engine to drive a large generator, with two large electric motors turning the drive sockets. Though this was much easier to drive than Henschel’s design, which used a conventional five-speed gearbox, it required a huge amount of copper to handle the amperage…no easy feat in wartime Germany, as even by early 1942, when the two competing Tiger tank designs went through trials, salvage crews were employed to strip wiring from bombed and/or abandoned buildings for the copper wiring, such was the shortage of copper which was very strategic to the German war economy. Also, the Porsche design had a problem which was never solved: Under heavy load, like attempted to climb a hill, the drive motors tended to catch fire! Sound familiar to Tesla fans?

    Porsche was so sure that he’d win the contract that he persuaded Krupp to go ahead and manufacture 100 hulls; but these were “orphaned” when Henschel won the Tiger tank contract. Not wanting to just scrap them, Porsche improvised a “Panzerjâger” (tank hunter) design, which involved building a fixed superstructure at the rear, and shoehorning two Maybach TRM V12s in the middle of the hull (the driver and radio operator/bow gunner were up front with barely enough room), it also mounted the new 88mm L71 gun later used on the Tiger II and the Jagdpanther. Not only was this ungainly contraption, at first termed the “Ferdinand”, but later christened the “Elephant” (at least some truth in naming), slow and unreliable, it also had NO machine guns or grenade launchers to defend against stalking infantry! Needless to say, the debut of the Elephants at the 1943 Battle of Kursk was, put charitably, lackluster. Sure…IF they sighted the enemy tanks at long range, then they could pick them off with that big tank gun while the Elephant’s thick hide easily shrugged off most hits from the Soviet 76mm tank guns, BUT…once the accompanying Panzergrenadiers were picked off, these beasts were HELPLESS. The Soviets soon adapted the tactic of hitting them with mortar fire to drive away their infantry escort, then rushing them with Molotov cocktails. Most of these 68-ton beasts that weren’t written off when they broke down, which was all too frequent, and couldn’t be easily towed (it took three half-tracks which were what the Germans used as armored recovery vehicles, they simply never had enough tank chasses to spare for ARV or combat engineering work as did the Allies), were lost due to being burnt.

    Porsche actually, only about four months after the Kursk debacle, submitted yet ANOTHER hybrid tank design for the Tiger II, which was rejected before a prototype was even authorized. Hitler became frustrated with Porsche, but rather than demand his retirement and the disbandment of the Porsche company, gave him the project to develop the tank-hunting version of the Tiger II, the Jagdtiger. He took so long in tinkering with the design that Henschel more or less finished the project without him, but it took so long that only 76 of these 78-ton monsters (with a 128mm gun with performance comparable to present-day tank guns) were ever built.

    Beware of vehicles that are a result of a “Government” dictate!

    • Hi Anonymous,

      Tell you what. When I can afford one, I will. Meanwhile, it’s just me doing everything here. Let’s see you write perfect copy – several thousand words – every day – without a net.

      Pedantic critiques over typos rile me up.

      • Come, come, Herr Peters—he is just trying to help, although sadly lacking diplomacy. The content of your articles is generally of very high caliber, not just in terms of typography and syntax, but also in logic and metaphysics. The egregious nature of the errors he has pointed-out (he missed batter for battery—late night?) makes you look foolish. Some might argue, “Well, he is a fool.” I don’t think you are a fool so much as a romantic. Anyone who champions the lost cause of automobilism has to be a romantic.

      • It happens. I’ll take good content over strict correctness if it is a choice.

        Constructively, Eric, try using Word spell check and grammar check. I cut/pate your article into it and it caught some other typos too. Just a thought.

  9. Here’s another reason to push EV’s: They do not use petro-fuels, so, no fuel taxes paid, therefore a different way to fund the highways funds is needed. This will be a miles-based tax. It’s being tried already in Oregon and under consideration in other states. In order to make it possible to assess for taxation, a vehicle will need to be tracked…EVERYWHERE. The elites hate us mundanes having private travel, so they will track us, until they can eliminate private vehicle travel and replace it with “public”, “mass” transportation. (Clover says “but if you have nothing to hide…”. Go away Clover, you slaver!)

    • That “mileage tax” is already being pushed since, “oh no”, many folks, when gas shot up past $4/gallon, actually bought econo-box cars and small trucks, which greatly reduced state and federal revenues from fuel taxes. A case of the nitwits pushing “public policy” either (1) don’t think these ideas through to their logical conclusion, and/or (2) they’re part of some larger, usually hidden, at first, agenda.

  10. Elon Musk has finally outdone Malcolm Bricklin and John DeLorean as the foremost scammer of all time. Does nobody note that all electric generation has to come from somewhere, mainly coal-fired plants or (Gasp!) nuclear power. Musk has produced a $50K + electric golf cart with limited range and a long re-charge cycle. Of course owning a Tesla allows the eco-freaks who lurk among us to bask in their moral superiority while displaying their abysmal ignorance and utter stupidity

  11. >9 BILLION of taxpayer dollars already shoved up a liberal globalist RATHOLE. That is what Musk has already grabbed from us serfs…given gratuitously by slimy, liberal “politicians” who are SUPPOSED to be good stewards of OUR MONEY. OUR $$$$$!!
    Electric cars are baubles and cannot compete in the real market against IC cars, which have become ‘very clean’… Your politicians want us serfs OUT of our safe, clean IC cars and into mASS transit or short-distance, easily-controlled electric vehicles. ECs use MORE energy and pollute MORE due to depending on the grid for recharging..not to mention taking 45 minutes at least to recharge..IF you can find a “station”. Not to mention the environmental WASTE generated by 10000s of used batteries! What crap! Do we really believe these ECs are being pushed by Corps for no reason? Nobody will be able to afford them except the Uber-rich and gvt goons..and THAT is what the elite want..serfs walking or biking..serfs who are easy to control, like in Red China. Serfa who canot get away and who are disarmed. Bet on it.


    • Don’t forget the rare earth mining operations to get the materials for the batteries. There’s no way to economically mine the minerals and comply with the EPA and as such all or nearly all mines in the USA have closed up shop.

        • Not to mention the carbon credit scam. How long would Musk’s vampire company last without being able to mulct other manufacturers, thanks to the federal mob?

        • The loan payback I am speaking of is this one. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-22/tesla-pays-off-its-465-million-loser-loan

          If you are talking about tax credits for EVs, then you need to mention every car maker selling EVs in the US. It’s a law created by people who got voted in. It could be undone readily with a vote which doesn’t seem forth coming. Are you also mad about monies handed out to ICE car manufacturers for helping them with pollution reductions there as well? All of this is around making the atmosphere cleaner. Since the laws allowed it to happen, and new laws make it less allowable and more expensive, seems like someone has to foot the bill.

          You do realize that the valuation of the economy is constantly inflated by world banks to pay for these kinds of things, and that’s why the price of things is mostly measured in dollars, instead of the pennies and dimes of a century ago right?

          • Grrwwwww,

            The mandates which have created a “market” (in quotes for reasons that ought to be obvious) were issued by regulatory bureaucracies peopled by bureaucrats no one voted for.

            The rest of the car industry is being forced to produce EVs in order to “achieve compliance” with “zero emissions” and CAFE regs. Take those regs away and there is no “incentive” to manufacture EVs except perhaps as specialty cars.

            These are facts – but I realize you prefer to deal in feelings.

          • Grwwww,

            I am opposed to all subsidies, period. They, along with regulations, are a crony capitalist scam that benefit large, politically powerful companies. Research rent seeking and regulatory capture. Also, subsidies distort market signals, direct resources along politically favored lines and retard innovation. Any business that needs subsidies is unsustainable, aren’t you greens suppose to care about that?

            “All of this is around making the atmosphere cleaner.”

            CO2 is not a pollutant, IC engines are clean and have been for more than two decade. You mention the Dunning-Kruger effect which is interesting, as you’ve yet to display any knowledge of the climate issue outside of the moronic talking points we hear so often.

            BTW, inflating the currency does not increase the “valuation of the economy”.


    • If you feel like a serf, work on that. Go get a different or better education/job. If you can’t do that, than who’s responsibility is it for you to not be able to afford something? Do you want the money system to go away? Do you want something magical to happen so that you can get your own Bugatti?

      This is an economical problem that consumers can solve with their own money habits. Keep money in your local economy and then create a product or service your community can sell to bring more money in.

      Setting here and griping about how the govt and economy work and blaming it all on a new product line is rather silly.

  12. VW has already announced that the last generation of it’s IC engines will be 2026. I think they are the first major automaker to say a time for the end of their ICE. That’s only six models years from now. Whether or not reality sets in before that date and they backtrack, we will see. But VW may find itself with nothing to sell. Well, nothing people will want to buy. I doubt they even sell 1% electric at this time (January 2019).

    Unfortunately VW won’t be alone. GM seems poised to do the same shortly. If reality doesn’t set in, I think by 2030 it will be hard to even find a new ICE vehicle.

    Seems the plan is to simply just stop making gas and diesel. Whether or not people start buying electric or not. Doesn’t seem much of a business plan.

    Seems like Chrysler, Toyota, Mazda and Hyundai are drinking the kool aid a bit slower. Wonder how long they can hold out.

  13. Interestingly, over 40 years ago at least one auto executive (GM president Pete Estes) loved the idea of electric cars because it shoved the emissions problem into somebody else’s lap – the power companies. He actually saw it as a great way to power cars with coal, using electricity as an intermediary. (Source: Car & Driver, January 1978, Patrick Bedard’s column entitled “Reddy Kilowatt was my co-pilot”.) Of course at that time electric cars were just glorified golf carts that were even less viable than they are today so it was likely just musing on Estes’ part.

    That may be an insight though into why car manufacturers are so gung-ho on this. Once their fleet is electrified that relieves them from the burden of Uncle’s emissions and efficiency fatwas and places those problems squarely on the shoulders of the power companies, battery manufacturers, and of course the buying public which will have to put up with the inconvenience, limitations, poor service life, and expense of electric vehicles.

    • With natural gas becoming the fuel of choice for power plants, they won’t have issues either, thanks to clean burning natural gas. Even with POTUS easing things up on the coal companies; even with him aggressively promoting coal; coal use is declining as the utilities are switching to natural gas. Why wouldn’t they? It’s cheaper, easier to transport, burns cleaner, and leaves NO waste. Best part is the switch happened WITHOUT gov’t intervention! It was simply the invisible hand of the market at work… 🙂

      • Hi Mark,

        Yup; I’ve been touting the virtues of natural gas for years. But – its use also produces C02, the bane of “climate change.” Thus, this eminently clean and abundant – right here – fuel will be gimped in its turn. Already has been. Note that CNG-powered cars have disappeared – even though they are “zero emissions” in every meaningful sense.

        But they work too well – and don’t cost too much – which is a real problem.

      • Except for the CO2 caused by burning it. Still injecting carbon into the atmosphere and creating the same problems. It’s not about the particulate pollution, it’s about the CO2.

        Look up Dunning-Kruger effect. This is the bigger problem with understanding the problem. Most don’t know what they don’t know…

        • It is not a “problem” because CO2 is not pollution. To properly understand it you have to follow the flow of money and power.

          • CO2 levels were much higher in the past. We are far closer to plant starvation than to anything approaching catastrophically high levels.

            It’s not about “saving the planet”, it’s about money and power. The planet does not need to be saved. If it did, you can bet your sweet bippy that electric cars and LED light bulbs would not make a damned bit of difference. (In fact if there were a real danger of any kind of planetary catastrophe we’d be hard pressed to do anything about it.)

          • That’s because for plants, CO2 is for them what O2 is for us: the breath of life. Thanks to photosynthesis, we breathe out CO2, which plants breathe in; they, in turn, ‘exhale’ O2, which we need. It’s a beneficial, symbiotic relationship. More CO2=more O2…

        • “It’s not about the particulate pollution, it’s about the CO2.”

          My how the goal posts have changed.

          I wonder if this communist NPC realizes how many will be killed because of this philosophy he has been programmed to worship and fight for. Why doesn’t he start with himself to reduce CO2 levels?

        • Grrwwww,

          Don’t you find it even incidentally curious that at just the point in time that vehicle exhaust emissions as traditionally defined (for the past 50 years) were no longer a meaningful problem in terms of air quality/health, the definition was altered to include carbon dioxide?

          Isn’t that just a bit… coincidental?

          And if carbon dioxide “emissions” produced by cars are the catastrophic threat you seem to believe they represent, then how do electric cars powered by carbon dioxide-emitting utility plants help to avoid this pending catastrophe? You can non sequitur all day about solar and wind but the inconvenient (for you) truth is that almost all of the electrical generation done in this country is powered by fossil fuels, the combustion of which produces the dread inert gas C02.

          In the aggregate, driving electric cars causes as much or even more C02 to be “emitted.” Just at different outlets.

          At the very least, shouldn’t needlessly powerful EVs which cause “excessive” C02 to be “emitted” be banned forthwith?

          Notice that “green” people never express “concern” for this. Yet, if they were really “concerned” about C02 “emissions,” they would be.

          There would be “calls” for highly efficient EVs that did not tout Ludicrous Speed – which takes Ludicrous Energy, produced by the gratuitous burning of fuel.

          Instead, crickets.

          This ought to interest you.

          • Anyone concerned about the environment would not even look at the western nations. All that’s left in the western nations is a mopping up operation. The problems are largely solved. Clean up old sites and such.

            Where to look? China, India, Brazil, and more. The amount of environmental damage that could be prevented or fixed per dollar is very high in those places. But we aren’t even supposed to look at what’s happening in these places. Not even consider it.

            If we are concerned about the planet then we should put effort to where it will do the most good.

            • China’s on a huge push to clean up their emissions; given the pollution in their cities, they had no CHOICE! I don’t know about Brazil & India, but China’s stopped all coal power plant construction and is pushing hard for cleaner energy. They’re particularly big in renewables. For example, Shanghai based Envision is a major player in wind turbines. You can find out more about them here: http://www.envision-group.com/en/index.html

              • Hi Mark,

                China’s air quality problems are the result of communist policies that enabled mass-scale industrial pollution. Electrification is just the means by which the Chinese people are to be controlled. They are to be denied the golden era of mobility Americans enjoyed.

                • Don’t forget their social credit score. Unfortunately, Big Tech is doing their damndest to bring it here too.

                  China is pushing EVs, and we may see something similar here. If you buy an ICEV (which you are free to do), you’ll pay over $14K for the plates-ouch! OTOH, if you get an EV, the plates, AKAIK, are free. So, the price of an ICEV basically equals the price of an EV.

          • From an efficiency perspective, by the mile, EVs result in less CO2 into the air and pollutants overall because of the efficiency of scale at commercial power stations. If that wasn’t true, we’d all have generators at our homes and businesses pumping out our needed electricity.

            Regarding C02, grab ahold of whatever noise you feel is the truth. Scientist tell us we are in a bad position. Plants are necessary to convert CO2 to O2 and need water for that process. It’s a balanced system that is heading away from balance.

            In the 1930’s when the dust bowl occurred, it was driven by the explosion of pollution from the Industrial Age. If we hadn’t implemented controls, how breathable would our air be now? Do you really believe that there is no problem with dumping exhaust with CO and CO2 into the air you breathe? Do you leave you car running in the garage overnight to keep it warm in the winter? Hell no, cause you’d die. It’s polluting the air, and just like second hand smoke, your pollution is impacting others on the planet from marine life to friends and family.

            Make it a non-issue all you want. Go on and on about how it’s a money game (money and profit and misuse and gaming is everywhere). That doesn’t make it a non-issue.

            Have you traveled to China to see how polluted the atmosphere is there? They will be switched to 100% EV production in 5-years time to combat that pollution.

            Giving in to the perspective of the “it can’t be that bad” crowd just shows how convenient it has become to roll the story you can more easily accept without feeling like you were sucked into participating as one of the trouble causers.

              • It’s junk science. Really a kind of religion. There is no empirical evidence that human activity is causing global warming. There is no scientific consensus that human activity is causing global warming. What one finds on close examination of such claims is falsified data, lies, and distortions. The process has been so corrupted by politics that referring to any of it it as “science” is laughable.

                One of the participants here, Jeremy, gave an excellent summation of the issue:


                Although Jeremy advises to avoid using words such as “fraud”, that exactly what the entire “science” of human-caused global warmingis – a mammoth fraud and a scam being purveyed by charlatans and control freaks with a political agenda. They are frauds. You, Sir, are a fraud.

                Climate change is a natural, ongoing process. There is nothing we can do to stop it.

            • CO2 IS a non-issue.

              China’s pollution problems have nothing to do with CO2. Your attempt at making it appear to related is fraudulent.

            • Grwww,

              “Scientist tell us we are in a bad position”.

              Some scientists do, others do not. Despite the mainstream narrative that you regurgitate dutifully, the “science is not settled”, there is not a meaningful consensus on the issue and the central question is rarely discussed. That question is the likely climate sensitivity due to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration (which is still very low compared to historical standards).

              In a controlled environment, the radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2 is well understood and not denied by any credible scientists. However, we do not live in a controlled environment and the actual effect on temperature due to increased CO2 is not well understood. The alarmists postulate that mostly positive feedback mechanisms will increase the base ECS from approximately 1 degree C to 1.5 – 4.5 degrees C. However, the observational record does not support this belief. All models run hot because the embedded assumption of ECS are too high. Now, you’ve undoubtedly heard the hottest years on record claims endlessly parroted by the media, what you rarely hear is that all of the claimed warming is due to numerous adjustments in the temperature record.

              The skeptics believe that the actual ECS is likely to be closer to one as both positive and negative feedback mechanisms will mostly cancel each other out. Absent the temperature adjustments, the 1930’s are the hottest years in the modern record and the evidence supports the skeptics.

              Now, I am not claiming that these adjustments are necessarily fraudulent. But, three things should give an open minded person pause. First, the adjustments always lower past temperatures and increase current temperatures. Second, the adjustments are always made so as to conform with a preexisting hypothesis. Third, these numerous adjustments reveal, at the least, that the claimed level of certainty is not justifiable. These three facts indicate a strong level of confirmation bias which leads to practices that violate basic scientific procedure.


                • Hey Eric,

                  You’re welcome, though I often believe that with people like Grwww, it is pointless. Many on this site obviously have much more knowledge of the subject than he, but he clings to the mainstream narrative.

                  What you mentioned in an earlier post, that many of the true believers are emotionally attached to the certainty of looming catastrophe, is very interesting. I often meet a college friend at my local pub; we are very different but he is smart, open to honestly discussing ideas that he does not espouse and rarely prone to emotional reactions. A few weeks ago, he mentioned that his teenage son was very concerned and depressed about the coming climate catastrophe. I suggested that the outcome was likely far less dire than he thinks and that there is probably little to worry about. He asked me why I thought so and I tried to have a calm, rational conversation with him. He became increasingly angry and would not let me finish any thoughts or present a case. Unfortunately, I eventually lost my cool as well and the conversation became decidedly unpleasant.

                  I understand why those financially and politically invested in the narrative react so strongly, but why would he? He has nothing invested in it, why would the suggestion of a rosier picture be greeted with such anger?


                  • Because they are still convinced that 1. catastrophe is coming and 2. catastrophe can be averted but only by drastic human action. If you don’t believe #1, then you probably won’t participate in #2, and if enough people don’t participate in #2 then catastrophe won’t be averted, which will lead to sooner and greater suffering for him & his. Unfortunately, with #1 being the base assumption that drives all this, there isn’t much of a way to get through to someone like that. I wouldn’t know it personally, but the Socratic Method might be of help: ask them probing questions and try to get them to explain to you why they think catastrophe is coming. Maybe they’ll realize they don’t really know much about it, or maybe they will have some data at which point you can present counter-data of your own.

              • The last glacial period ended due to CO2 induced warming and warming escalated as more CO2 trapped in soil and ice was released. Warming and CO2 are related and believing that they are not is silly.

                Believing that the collective total CO2 we are creating from ICE engines is insignificant to the quality of the atmosphere and that the related temperature impact is insignificant poses risk to all of us.

                Clearly there are lots of people willing to hold onto the coattails of others and believe what they hear rather than try and truly understand the complexities of the science.

                Ignorance is the single largest contributor to bad decisions. Bad data is second place in my view. We have all kinds of detail which says as you say above that there are complex interactions. The problem is that we feel like we can just ride the line, staying close dnd not running across it. However the details we do know and the uncertainty of what moment the line might move beneath us, because of factors we can’t foresee nor potentially close, for me, says we need to get away from the line, and stop acting like we know when or how this can become a bigger problem.

                It’s really simple. ICE vehicles are worthless compared to EVs. They are more expensive to operate due to failure modes. You have to spend lots of money and time to get your fuel out of the ground. The pollution from operating the engines is a terrible side effect to have to deal with, so why do we insist on doing it.

                People who have used electric, battery powered tools, will often say I need one that plugs into the wall for enough power. The battery size/capacity is the problem, not just that it’s on a battery. Are there limits, why yes, just like the size of your tank of gas. You’ve figured out how to make that work for you.

                With the right sized battery in the right efficiency vehicle, you can get where you need to go. Everyone is so worried about time to charge. That can be a factor, but is not going to be so for long. Supercaps and other storage solutions will push out batteries when batteries are less viable. Tesla is evolving battery science and looking at supercaps seriously with their purchase of Maxwell.

                Sit in your corners and keep on naysaying and holding onto the coattails of the person reciting the story you want to believe in your ignorance.

                You are going to have a hard time…

                • Grwww,

                  There is a lot of evidence to suggest that CO2 lags temperature, which makes sense as the oceans are a great store of CO2 and warming of the oceans will release CO2 into the atmosphere. Everything else equal, the additional CO2 will produce some warming which will produce some additional release of CO2.

                  This is the basis of the runaway global warming hypothesis and, on the surface, it has some plausibility. But, historically it doesn’t hold up. There have been times of much greater CO2 concentration than today and periods that were warmer than today. If the simple runaway effect is accurate, why are we still here? In short, a system subject to only positive feedback is unstable.

                  I never said that warming is unrelated to CO2, claiming I did is intentionally disingenuous. Despite your belief, I am not ignorant on the subject, nor am I holding onto to the coattails of the person reciting the story. In fact, your position, that any disagreement with the narrative can be explained only by ignorance, is profoundly irrational.

                  I notice that you say nothing about the numerous adjustments to the temperature record, always in alignment with the preexisting hypothesis, and which accounts for all of the claimed warming since around 1998. Unlike many here, I am not claiming that this is necessarily evidence of fraud, but it does indicate confirmation bias.

                  Does this give you no pause? You’re certain they got it right this time, but all the alarmists were certain they got it right last time, and the time before that. But, the next time they adjust it, surely it’ll be right then. This fact alone shows that the claim of 95% certainty is absurd.

                  Look, there is a lot of valid debate by credible scientists about the science, the temperature record, the likely ECS, the likely effect of CO2 reduction efforts, etc… There is also a lot of debate among economists about the cost to the economy of the different projected scenarios, the cost of attempts to alter those scenarios, etc…

                  It is those who insist otherwise and dismiss their critics as ignorant, or paid hacks, or employ the morally despicable slur “denier” that are anti science.


                  • Jeremy, the reason I call it a fraud is due to my familiarity with the type of people pushing this junk science, and their real agenda – that and the overwhelming evidence for falsification of data and corruption of the scientific method.

                    Many environmentalists see the human race as a plague to be greatly restricted “for the good of the planet.” They see prosperity and freedom as destructive.

                    Globalist elites and the UN want it because they need a “global problem” requiring “global governance” as the solution. (The U.N. was created to ultimately become the seat of global government.)

                    Governments love the idea because it gives them carte blanche for regulation and taxation.

                    It is unlikely that Grwww is a member of those elites. He sounds more like one of their vast legions of useful idiots that swallow this dogma and regurgitate it. Orwell referred to this kind of thing as “duckspeak” – unthinking noise devoid of real content, like the quacking of a duck.

                    • Hi Jason,;

                      I agree with all you say. However, the proportion of those who knowingly propagate fraud vs those who are genuinely concerned about the issue is small. I still try to reach the latter group.


                  • What gives me pause is accepting that incomplete, demonstrative proof causes people to give up full stop. The complexity of all the systems involved, and our inability to control any of them with short term efforts means we need to look at the most visible cause and effects with due diligence.

                    I am speaking generally of responses here, not your polite conversation Jeremy regarding ignorance.

                    I am sure that fossil fuel burning is polluting our atmosphere. I am sure that CO2 is the most relevant cause based on the science I’ve seen and read.

                    The science shows indicators that some of the heat ejected is going out of the atmosphere not just back toward the earth.

                    Some of the various adjustments happen as we learn more about the effects of cloud cover and water density in clouds related to heat retention and reflection.

                    Large storm systems increase in severity as the approach warmer surface regions such as cities, open planesnand other place where infrared spectrum is reflected instead of absorbed. Heat rises through these storm systems, stretching them vertically tightening circulations.

                    The heat is causing evaporation which creates cloud cover and rain which can cool the ground. The question is really how much balance is there?

                    If high winds and tornadoes rip apart and destroy vegetation, we lose some CO2 consumption. The imbalance can hit extremes rather readily as we’ve seen with historical events in the distant past and the more recent increase in severe weather and climate changes which affect the animal migration food cycles due to huge time shifts in spring blooms.

                    In the Midwest, rains were so severe and so prolonged that planting could not occur to get crops in the ground and grown before peak summer heat.

                    Call it cyclical, or one off anomalies if that makes you comfortable folks. The changes are real and each of us is responsible for our continued contributions to the problems.

                    When I see people only stating that the science doesn’t show CO2 is a part of the problem, I can only assume that they haven’t actually studied this and instead are riding coattails of the storytellers that allow them to feel good about their position.

                • It’s possible I may have heard an even crazier load of bullshit in my time but I’m hard pressed to remember any. That, Sir, is a pantload, generated by palpable ignorance and blind adherence to dogma.

                  As far as electric cars are concerned, in their current state of development are inferior to far less expensive gasoline-powered in practically every way that is actually meaningful. That may change in the future but at the preset time that is just a fact that all of your smoke and mirrors cannot change.

                • Grwwww, I like how you seem to continually mistake your opinion for fact.

                  “It’s really simple. ICE vehicles are worthless compared to EVs.”

                  Your ignorant arrogance is astounding. You act as if your ridiculous claims in your recent posts have been accepted as fact despite numerous posters showing that you really don’t understand well enough to know. Plus, your continued use of ‘soon the tech will exist’ type arguments is laughable.

                  • I’ve been hearing the mantra of ‘soon the tech will exist’ to make electric cars practical reality for us all for at least 50 years. All this time the breakthrough has been just around the corner, wait and see by golly. Perhaps it is this time but I’m not holding my breath waiting for it.

                    Similarly, we’ve been 10 years away from practical fusion power for the last 60 years or more.

                    One of the few advantages of being old is having lived through past iterations of this garbage. It helps fine-tune the bullshit detector.

                    • You sound like you’ve been completely out of touch with what has actually been happening with EVs. Can you share which EVs you’ve owned and which you have test driven? I’m curious about your experiences.

                    • @Jason Flinders: I’m not even old – born 1995 – and even I am well used to this sort of rhetoric by now. There’s always some New Thing that will be ready “very soon!” or “right around the corner!” or “within 5 years!” or “by 2020!” or, or, or… that will cause electric propulsion to ascend to the next level and blow liquid power out of the water, and somehow that renders all the readily-apparent faults of current EVs irrelevant. Meanwhile, in the present tense, EVs continue to be utterly worthless, and the promised massive tech upgrade never actually seems to arrive. Teslas just keep on embarassing the EV concept with cruddy build quality, atrocious reliability, battery fires, horrid customer service, and lip-flappingly insane service costs but manage to sell anyway somehow, while EVs made by companies that actually know how to build cars just sit unloved and forgotten on dealer lots because Tesla already cornered the market on smug.

                      @Grwwww: How about you first? Enlighten us on “what has actually been happening with EVs”. Please provide release dates, if at all possible.

                      Hey, speaking of 2020, wasn’t Elon supposed to be building a new Roadster with a 250MPH top speed and 600 miles of range by then? Time is getting short, and I’ve heard precious little about that.

  14. Fuel mileage is also considerably worse with this shitty gasahol. Even my motorcycle fuel mileage drops 8-10 mpg when I am forced to use it to get back home to a Non-Ethanol fuel source. Think about folks, the Govt. subsidizes production and sale of CornHolio-Gasahol, gives us shitty fuel economy, then demands automalkers increase the IC Engine fuel mileage on top of that, all the while subsidizing the castrated alternative of the dickless EV! Your butt-holes hurtin’ yet???

  15. I did not realize EV batteries have such a short life span. Many people, so I am told, have gone over 150k miles on the Prius battery. I am also told that the battery can now be “reconditioned” for around $1000, rather than replaced. But I am also told that the Prius transmission fluid never needs replaced, which sounds ridiculous to me…

    • Hi Matt,

      Got any reference for “I am also told that the battery can now be ‘reconditioned’ for around $1000”?

      Curious to see what ‘reconditioning’ is. Does it include labor? Some EV squeeze batteries into very inaccessible places.

      • Reconditioning would require dropping the pack, disassembling to the point where each cell can be checked, replacing the questionable and degraded ones, putting it all back together. It would be rather expensive and the resulting pack is likely to have remaining original cells fail in short order or sketchy quality of the replacement cells. Of course all cells may also be replaced in a reconditioning. The quality of the work is also important.

        The cost all depends on how easy toyota made it by the design of their packs. If it’s easy and cheap cells are used I can see it getting down to $1K at a shop trying for volume business.

        Of course it could all be scam where the pack is plugged into a load/charging gizmo that conditions and cycles the pack to bring some temporary life back. Not sure how well it works with LiIon though. I think it’s not supposed to work with it, but there could be a similar trick that does. It’s all temporary though.

  16. And think of the fees to pay to compensate for loss of fuel taxes. The car will keep up with the kilowatts used during the year which the state will upload when you renew the registration. So much per kilowatt will be added and your screwed again!
    As an avid motorcycle rider the new Livewire from HD at $30,000, gets a whopping 119 miles per 4 hour charge shows the uselessness of EV’s. Jay Leno seems to like it but then he can afford it!
    The EV has to be one of the largest scams in world history,,, only second to GW and you Eric are alone trying to inform people of this.