Hybrids are really part-time electric cars.
They have battery packs and electric motors, like full-time electric cars – but they don’t rely on them exclusively for propulsion, as a full-time electric car does. They aren’t dependent entirely on electricity as their fuel.
Which is why they are the only electric cars that make practical – as well as economic – sense.
Which probably explains why they’re being shunted aside in favor of full-time electric cars (punchline at the end of this rant).
The combustion engine a part-time hybrid carries provides much of the motive force for propulsion; it also provides fuel-on-the-go for the electric side of the drivetrain – converting gas (via combustion) into electricity to continuously recharge the battery pack as the vehicle is driven.
What a snappy idea!
It eliminates the range problem that the pure electric car has. You can drive the part-time electric car pretty much anywhere without obsessing about the battery’s state of charge. And how far you can go – before it stops.
So long as the tank has gas, you’re good to go. . . right now.
Which brings us to the other problem the part-time electric car hasn’t got – the recharge problem.
Which is really a time problem. But only if you are driving a full-time electric car.
While some part-time electric cars can be plugged-in to recharge none of them have to be. They never force their owner to wait longer to get going again than the owner of any other car – because “recharging” is the same as refueling.
Just fill the hybrid’s gas tank up – same as you would any other car, in the same less than five minutes. The combustion engine the hybrid carries will then convert the gas into electricity, recharging the battery as you drive – as opposed to as you wait.
Part-time electric cars are not only more flexible, more-spur-of-the-moment than full-time electric cars, they are more flexible than other cars, period – being able to toggle between pump and plug, as you like.
And as you’ve got time for.
The part-time electric car’s battery pack will probably last longer – and will definitely cost you much less – than a full-time electric car’s battery.
A part-time electric car’s battery doesn’t have to work as hard as a full-time electric car’s battery, which is the only source of motive power (and power, period) in a full-time electric car. The full-time electric car’s battery runs the lights, the air conditioning, the heater – everything in the car that’s electrically powered.
Plus the car.
This requires a bigger, more powerful battery . . . a more expensive battery.
A part-time electric car like the 2020 Prius costs about $4k more than an otherwise similar combustion-only economy car like the 2020 Corolla. You may never recoup the higher buy-in cost of the Prius vs. the Corolla – but it’s not a financial sinkhole like a full-time electric car, the least expensive of which (the $30k Nissan Leaf) costs $10k more than an otherwise equivalent combustion-engine-only car.
A full-time battery also means a harder-working battery; one that never gets a break – unless the car isn’t being used.
Something else comes into play here, which isn’t much talked about – probably because of what it means for the long-term life of the full-time electric car’s batteries.
And what it’s going to cost you.
A part-time electric car has a kind of built-in battery tender system that never lets the battery get severely discharged. The combustion engine plays the role of a relief pitcher – stepping in to provide both motive power and power for the electrically powered accessories.
The battery relaxes – and recovers.
A full-time electric car does nine innings straight. Its battery never gets a rest. It is routinely subjected to deep discharging … assuming the car is driven more than a few dozen miles at a time.
The farther you drive, the less the charge.
Drive a full-time electric car to the limits of its range before plugging it in and the battery will be almost completely discharged. Pumping back all that lost electricity is hard on the battery and will reduce its service life – its ability to accept and hold a full charge.
And once that happens, the full-time electric car becomes a useless car. Or a very expensive car . . . a second time. It has to have an expensive new battery to be viable as a car again.
A part-time electric car’s battery costs less – and lasts longer. But even better, the car still works even if the battery doesn’t. You might not average 50 miles per gallon with a croaked battery. But it beats Hell out of zero miles – which is what you’ll get out of a full-time electric car with a kaput battery.
Part-time electric car batteries – and motors – are also smaller and lighter. Which makes them more efficient as well as less costly.
A full-time electric car’s larger, more powerful battery pack and bigger electric motors weigh twice as much, on average, as a part-time electric car’s battery pack and motors. Which requires more energy as well as more materials to lug around, reducing the overall efficiency of the package as well as the economy of the package.
But never mind.
Full-time electric cars have the virtue of signaling virtue better than part-time electric cars and combustion-engined cars; it’s the one thing they better than any other car. So it doesn’t matter that they’re less practical, much more expensive and far less efficient.
Because rational considerations aren’t the metrics by which full-time electric cars are measured.
. . .
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – 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 $10 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. If that fails, email me and I will send you a copy directly!
Funny thing about the Prius. It was built in response to a Government mandate.
It was a response to the California CARB standards.
I’m surprised you aren’t enraged at that.
I’m opposed to all mandates and subsidies – a point you have proved yourself unable to comprehend. Or – more – likely – one you continue to evade, as it’s hard to defend the government forcing the manufacture of products that would otherwise have no or very little market.
But that would entail openly discussing this business of using force, which poltroons such as yourself who advocate it but are too poltroonish to involve yourselves in directly will do do anything to avoid discussing. Because that would show what sort of a creature you are.
So why are you so heated up in favor of Hybrids?
You seem to view mandates as immoral, and these were created by mandate.
I do not “seem to view mandates as immoral.” They are immoral. If you weren’t illiterate, you’d have understood the point of the article was not to endorse hybrids per se but to point out how inferior EVs are in relation to hybrids.
Cars that were built 30 years ago also had to comply with government mandates.
So what’s your point? Oh, right…
It’s all about the battery price.
GM likes EVs because there are far fewer moving parts which makes the warranty cheaper.
Despite what Eric says, recharge time isn’t a big problem because people rarely drive 600 miles straight through
Battery prices are declining and that makes the EVs cheaper every year. Tesla started out at 100K+ and the
Model 3 is at 35K+
That’s all battery
GM doesn’t “like” EVs; it is building them because the government is forcing GM to build them. Justas it is forcing the entire car industry to build them.
Recharge times are the main problem, Clover – which is why the typical EV’s much shorter range is a problem. If these things weren’t problems, Clover, then it would not be necessary to mandate and subsidize EVs. But it is, Clover.
The Tesla Model 3 starts at $40k, Clover – and transacts closer to $50k. The Model S still stickers for close to $70k.
EVs will need to get “cheaper” by about 50 percent before they become cost-to-own equivalent with non-EVs, Clover – which is another way of saying EVs are very expensive.
“EVs will need to get “cheaper” by about 50 percent before they become cost-to-own equivalent with non-EVs,”
An EV has about 20 moving parts and a gas car has about 2000 moving parts.
That’s cheaper to build.
An EV is 4 cents/mile to run and a gas car is 12c/mile to run.
That means the green eye shade types will be looking hard at that.
Amazon is putting deposits on 100,000 Rivian delivery trucks for 2021.
Who is more likely right about the way to make a lot of money? Jeff Bezos or Eric Peters?
I can’t wait till you start calling Bezos names. That will be almost as much fun
as you calling Caitlyn Jenner names.
Oy vey, Clover.
More “just around the corner” from you, eh? It’s a convenient way to duck the ugly realities of right now. And for the past 100-plus years. Let’s deal with facts, Clover – not “just around the corner.”
An EV is not cheaper to build. In fact, it is much more expensive to build than an IC car. Even massively subsidized, which hides the true cost of these things. If you removed carbon credits and cost-shifting, a car like the Tesla3 would have to retail for at least $50,000 to start (it’s already $40,000 to start). For a Corolla-sized sedan – with fewer amenities – whose only objective superiority is that it’s quicker.
The battery pack is an immensely complicated and costly component. Your refusal to include the cost of the battery – and of the earlier replacement costs – and of the charging equipment needed to support the EV – in the total ownership costs is typical of EV disingenuousness and dementia.
Ditto your leg-humping of cost-per-mile. This does not factor in taxes – not paid (yet) on your kilowatt hours, which will go up – dramatically – to pay for the generating capacity which these EVs will need. And no mention of the cost in time and convenience – which you Clovers wish to impose on everyone else!
As regards Bezos: He is a Technocrat who wants to limit if not end the personally owned car for the masses. He knows EVs will further this end; you are either too dim to see it – like Lenin’s Useful Idiots – or you think you are one of the technocratic elite, who will remain serenely above the trampling cattle below.
As far as Bruce: I called him what he is, which is not “she” (or “Caitlyn”). Which deeply offends your liberal/authoritarian/SJW sensibilities, I realize. But no matter how much Bruce shaves his Adam’s apple or how much he believes he is a she, it will never be.
Poor ol’ Clover!
“An EV is not cheaper to build. In fact, it is much more expensive to build than an IC car.”
The Tesla Model S was aimed at upscale sedans.
The Model 3 was aimed at people who would buy a BMW 3 series.
Oh and they sell.
All Teslas are expensive luxury-sport cars that happen to be electric. They tout their performance and luxury because they cannot tout economy or practicality. Anyone spends $40k-plus on a Tesal3 is someone who doesn’t have to worry about the cost of gas – or electricity. Not that there’s anything wrong with that – provided the government isn’t subsidizing it.
I appreciate your helping me expose the EV con, by the way! Keep ’em coming…
“The battery pack is an immensely complicated and costly component. ”
Not really. It’s a robot built module. Machines build the pouch cells or bandolier the 18650 cells, these are placed in trays and a robot welds them in place. A couple of controller boards are placed in and it’s closed up.
They are expensive right now but they aren’t complicated. Assuming you understand what electricity is.
They are getting cheaper. Just like computer memory
More disingenuous gabble from you… the battery and its attendant control systems are extremely complicated and thus, expensive. They are not analogous to computer memory – which has nothing to do with electric storage or control thereof.
But that assumes you understand what electricity is.
As someone who has extensive work and design experience with batteries and battery management as well internal combustion engines I will testify that battery systems are much simpler than engines. Like every relatively new technology, they are coming down in price and will probably be cheaper in 2-5 years.
Motors are simple, yes. But the system in an EV – governing the operation/management of the battery (including recharge cycling) is extremely complex. If, indeed, you have “experience” in the field you know this. So either you don’t have experience – or you are being disingenuous.
Engines – in their fundamentals – are much simpler. They have been made complex – by Clovers, like you – but don”t need to be.
EVs are necessarily complex – and expensive. Which is why they cannot compete on the merits. Which is why they have to be mandated – and subsidized.
You claim “they (batteries) are coming down in price and will probably be cheaper in 2-5 years.” I have been hearing this for the past 30 years. I was around when the first modern EVs – like the GM Impact/EV1 and Ford Ecostar – were being trotted out back in the ’90s. Batteries have gotten cheaper. But they are still ludicrously expensive – as an economically sane alternative to IC cars. One can buy a well-equipped economy sedan like a new Corolla for around $18k – vs. $30k for the least expensive EV. And that one (the Nissan Leaf) has a pathetic 150 mile range – best case. To get more range, you have to spend $35k to get the model with the more powerful battery. $35k!
As opposed to $18k for a Corolla.
In fact, you can buy a brand-new IC economy sedan or hatchback like the Nissan Versa or Hyundai Accent for less than $15k. That’s half as much for a car that goes twice as far and takes a fraction of the time to refuel – and which will probably provide reliable, largely trouble-free service for 15-20 years and 200,000-plus miles. Not speculation. Established track record. Facts.
Gas prices would have to quadruple to make up the difference (including the much shorter useful service life of the EV, due to inevitable battery degradation).
There is a reason why Saint Elon touts Ludicrous Speed – and the sex/tech appeal of his cars. It is because he cannot tout their economy or their practicality. They are indulgences – for the affluent. Which is fine – provided the affluent aren’t indulging in theft to indulge themselves.
EVs represent a 30-50 percent increase in the cost of driving. That is a fact. Your assertions about “probably be cheaper” are right up there with I promise the check’s in the mail…
“As someone who has extensive work and design experience with batteries and battery management”
The arrogance is astounding. EVERYTHING you have stated as fact here has been shown, with references and math, to be BULLSHIT. Yet you still refer to yourself as some sort of authority.
Unless you can provide references to show the accuracy of your claims, best you STFU.
Where’d Owen go? I think that this chart really simplifies it- it shows that battery technology has actually peaked, and is now declining!:
Nunz, sorta what I thought. It’s been over 20 years ago I changed everything that would take a rechargeable battery over to them. But they made almost everything NOT be able to use a rechargeable battery.
I’m still waiting for those “cheap” batteries.
Yep, 8, the chart shows ’em doing exactly that to us!
Owen is dancing in the Clover field with “LH”! (He’s posting to himself – in the Spam queue – enraged by my latest non-encomium to armed government workers. Just think: He probably has a badge and a gun…)
Ahh! He certainly seemed to be of sufficiently low IQ to qualify for the goon squad. No surprise there!
Knowing that makes me wish I would have posted that chart sooner! It’s representation is even appropriate for the porcine!
eric, how dare you!! ha ha. Stick him and Greta in a closet and let them convince each other.
non-encomium indeed. Surely you didn’t mention immorality not to mention entitled.
Owen claimed he was done here. Eric is just helping him not lie about it. 🙂
“An EV is 4 cents/mile to run and a gas car is 12c/mile to run.
That means the green eye shade types will be looking hard at that.”
So in other words, spend $10-30K more upfront for a car that takes at least 5 times as long to recover only about 80% of its already-gimped-from-the-factory range just to save about $400 every year in fuel costs? And please don’t give me the whole “Oh, but it’s new. Just give it some time” BS because EV’s have been around for quite some time now (100+ years, to be exact); yet they still remain less capable than their fossil-fueled counterparts. Batteries simply cannot match fossil fuels when it comes to energy density and storage.
But of course, that kind of logic is too simple for a thick-headed lib-turd like yourself to figure out.
“So in other words, spend $10-30K more upfront for a car that takes at least 5 times as long to recover only about 80% of its already-gimped-from-the-factory range just to save about $400 every year in fuel costs? ”
Sounds like you only drive 5,000 miles/year?
Lots of local service vehicles run 200-300 miles/day, 6 days/week.
You can make all sorts of fun of liberals and it won’t matter. The green eye shade types will make the decision to switch over.
It will be amusing watching Eric lose to grass. He’s complaining about ‘Clover’, and he’s losing to a cover crop.
EVs are not selling; they are about 1 percent of the market – and that 1 percent is almost entirely the result of government force. The “green eyeshade types” are “switching over” because they want to milk the subsidies – and comply with the mandates. The whole EV thing is a colossal fraud. Take away the mandates, eliminate the subsidies and Tesla goes out of business and the rest of the car industry gets out of the EV business. Because it’s not a business. It’s a make-work project.
You always dodge this irrefutable fact.
Even WITH the subsidies, Tesla has never turned an annual profit, and has only had a a literal handful of profitable quarters.
Okay, let’s do a little math. We’ll compare one of the cheapest EV’s you can currently buy here in America: the Nissan Leaf, with it’s closest IC counterpart, the Nissan Versa:
Nissan Leaf: $29,990
Nissan Versa: $14,730
32 MPG city/40 MPG highway = 36 MPG average
Let’s say regular gas costs about $3/gallon, to be safe. So $3.00/36 miles = 8.3 cents/mile. Now let’s say a person drives an average of 12,000 miles/yr. So that’s 12,000*0.083=$1,000/yr.
So yeah, you’re right. $400/year in fuel savings was a bit of an exaggeration. But here’s the thing: it would still take about 15 years to break even, and that’s provided gas doesn’t end up being cheaper than it is now. Oh, and you still gotta wait at least 1/2 hour for a partial charge before you can get going again.
But hey, if you wish to pay more for less convenience, then by all means, go for it. Just don’t force the rest of us to buy into your lunacy.
“Now let’s say a person drives an average of 12,000 miles/yr. So that’s 12,000*0.083=$1,000/yr”
You could say that but you would be describing 65 year old men.
the average is 16,500 and lots of people drive way above that. Lots of people have a daily
100 mile one way commute.
Once more: If EVs made such economic sense, it wouldn’t be necessary to force them onto the market – the foundational fact you always evade dealing with because it destroys all of your subjective arguments.
Well Pat The B.- I’ve been driving only about 3000 miles a year since I was 39 (Spread between two vehicles, no less). Even though my vehicles only get 10MPG, I’m “greener” than just about anyone.
So what you’re saying is that your marvelous EVs are just further encouraging people to waste their time commuting several hundred miles a day, and the congestion and impact on infrastructure, and the ENERGY it requires (Remember, the energy needed for those commutes, and the resultant emissions are still the same, whether produced at the vehicle or remotely!).
And at the economic level- since that is what is presently being discussed, the accumulation of such mileage over a short period of time in an EV would shorten the battery life even more, and accelerate the already ludicrous depreciation even moire. (And when lifespan and especially depreciation is taken into consideration, EVs become even more of an economic nightmare!)
And damn! Those commuters must be driving awfully fast to rack up that mileage, ’cause according to census data, the average commute time is under 27 minutes…..
My commute is 168 miles return trip…
You forgot to deduct the extra cost of the home electricity to charge the car at night (presumably) from the cost of gas. 😉
“You forgot to deduct the extra cost of the home electricity to charge the car at night “
That’s part of the 4 cents/mile.
My Electric bill for transit is about $1/day.
Your “electric bill for transit” is beside the point. The point being that your EV exists only because of government mandates and subsidies and as such is a creature of authoritarian collectivism, which is the thing being objected to.
There are no longer any nationwide incentives for Teslas. This ended as of the beginning of the new year. There are still major subsidies for fossil fuels.
The federal tax kickbacks have abated – thanks, Orange Man! – but EVs are still massively subsidized at the state level. And otherwise. Elon Musk, for example, extorts “carbon credit” fees from other car companies who are forced to pay him – or waste their resources building “zero emissions” EVs for which there is no market. You continue to assert that fossil fuels are subsidized. How? In fact, gas is heavily taxed – it is just about the most regressively taxed product on the market.
EV apologists such as yourself oleaginously argue that oil is “subsidized” because of the tax dollars which support U.S. military and other related interventions in the Middle East. But this has nothing to do with subsidizing oil, per se – which the U.S. is now the world’s main producer of. It has to do with maintaining political hegemony (and propping up the price of oil).
The fundamental point, though, is that standard cars can stand on their own – without any subsidies and without mandates. EVs cannot.
Like GM could stand on their own…
I was not counting wars, health etc. as part of the fossil fuel subsidies although they do play a role. I was only counting the direct subsidies.
” Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. European Union subsidies are estimated to total 55 billion euros”
Just one of many sources.
With this, I bid you goodbye.
(And incidentally, I have no idea where the clover came from. I did not insert it.)
Also, I do not hide behind” anonymous” when I post.
As a parting through I will applaud this site for at least allowing debate on this topic. It has been my experience over several years that the sites and articles that are against a new technology do usually not have a comments section at all.
Either your brain is faulty – or you’re just dishonest. Whether GM – or any other car company – fails or succeeds is beside the point. We are talking about cars (IC cars). Not car companies.
IC cars as such – do not need subsidies or mandates. EVs do.
No one here is “against new technology,” Clover. We are against “new technology” being forced down our throats by people with their hands in our pockets.
“Health” subsidies for fossil fuels? “Societal costs”? Oy Vey.
It’s all so tedious. Your talking points are almost verbatim the same as every other EV apologist. None of you deal squarely with the facts; all of you practice sleight-of-hand/apples-oranges argumentation.
As Daffy Duck used to say… you’re deshspicable!
Was it something I said?
“Also, I do not hide behind” anonymous” when I post.”
AH, yes. Brave enough to post your name. Wow. Cling to that because everything else was BS. Not that there is anything to prove you are who you say you are and since everything else was BS, one must question if you are even capable of being truthful about that.
My name is Dave Allen. Better? What difference is there in knowing? Does it make your outright lies true?
That post was directed at a persistent troll- “LW” – who accused me of poltroonery; it was not meant for you!
***” Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. “***
Eh-hemmmm…errr…tell me again, what powers those generators which produce that electricity on which those EVs run?
(Although- and I think I speak for all here when I say- I am against ALL subsidies/taxation/redistribution of wealth/interference with the free market)
***”I will applaud this site for at least allowing debate on this topic.”****
Yes! If freedom of inquiry, debate, free speech and freedom of opinion did not exist here….it would be hard to say that this is a Libertarian site! One who does not believe in free speech for their enemies…does not believe in free speech.
Censorship and restriction of opposing views/exposition of facts/ etc. are not limited to sites and articies which “oppose technology”. Such is rather practiced by those who oppose truth.
And no one here opposes technology- but when technology is lauded for technology’s sake, even when that technology is inferior to existing technology, it is perfectly natural to point out it’s flaws- I mean, why would one not, unless belief in that technology were indeed based on a false premise?
People who are afraid of facts are practicing a blind faith not based on reality. When faced with incontrovertible facts, a sane person accepts those facts and changes their opinion so as to be in line with the facts.
There are many people who will not change, even when presented with irrefutable fact- but who seem to prefer to be self-deceived, especially if being so keeps one in sync with the majority around them- which is often the case, because in a world of mass media and “education’ which is more often just indoctrination of various political ideas and agendas, the actual facts can be quite difficult to uncover.
Did not think you were.
I was responding to OHM.
Just no reply button left below OHM so I had to use yours.
Nunz, I saw a good comment yesterday.
The US is an oil corporation with the largest military in the world.
This isn’t a stretch of the truth. In the 1943 Tehran conference with T. Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill, Teddy said “We(US)are pledged to protect the middle east from now on……or similar words. He wasn’t lying and I didn’t even know he had a crystal ball. He did though, TPTB told him so.
Ha! “Protect the Middle East”- pfffft, yeah….from what, pray tell?
(From the nations [other than Israel] who happen to reside there- so wse can claim their resources as our own?)
Funny too, how they all work together to rob the Mid-east….and yet maintain the appearance of being each others “enemies” when it comes to putting on the show for the dumb voters, so that no one will complain about having the fruit of their labor confiscated to support the military-industrial complex, ’cause, after all “Gotta protect us from the Rooskies!”.
But so true- an erl and drug corporation. What country do we invade that doesn’t have either plentiful erl…a route for a pipeline…or poppy fields?
And Trump casually even admits that he’s stealing Syria’s erl- and no one in the world gives a rat’s ass? -Or how the “democratic government” which we installed in Iraq to replace the “dictator” is not wanted by the citizens of that nation…so they are told “TS- vote all you want; we’re staying!”. Nice people we Americans, eh?
Funny how they are now so brazen; so unafraid of their power being challenged, thas they are no longer even maintaining the facade of “benevolence” and “democracy” (as if that were even anything to boast of). Just as within- their armed goons can murder and molest and rob…without consequence……
Nunz, WW11 was the defining moment so to speak for the change from coal to petroleum.
The US didn’t and hasn’t, given up a drop of middle east oil without a fight.
It will be the same for S. American countries since one of them (I forget)has the largest known oil reserves on earth.
I think that’s Venezuela where they have all that erl, 8- surprise, surprise!
What a co-inky-dink….it’s also the country which president Kushner has deemed in need of a “democratic government”. Knock me over with a feather, eh?!
Of course most of what he’s calling “subsidies” are in fact tax breaks. A FAR different animal than what is implied by “subsidy.”
Even in his link, EVERY so called direct subsidy was a tax deduction of some sort, and most of the indirect as well.
What he’s doesn’t mention, naturally, is that his precious EV also benefit from the fossil fuel “subsidies” that he decries, along with the subsidies that EV get alone.
And increasingly so, as natural gas plants are replacing nuclear capacity, as well as other types of generation.
The average model “S” sells for $108,000. The average buyer has a household income of $500,000. Tesla makes expensive toys for rich jerks with self-esteem issues.
I know a few such. These Teslians are very wealthy – and they all have a non-EV luxury car as backup. They make me sick.
“These Teslians are very wealthy “
Joining the class war?
What’s objected to is not wealth but wealth transfer via the government. Your EV is forced into existence by wealth transfers (e.g., carbon credits) and kept on life support by wealth transfers (e.g., subsidies and tax-kickbacks, paid for by other taxpayers).
Wealth transferring via the violence of the state is always morally loathsome but when it is done to “help” affluent virtue-signalers such as Tesla people it is unspeakably obnoxious.
“What’s objected to is not wealth but wealth transfer via the government”
Lots of government policy is wealth transfer,
wether it’s sole-source contracts to Lockheed,
Trillions in bailouts to Wall Street or even the mortgage interest deduction. Why should the mortgage interest deduction exist for vacation homes
or mansions? How about business jets?
All those special deductions for corporations are just wealth transfer from working people to corporations.
“Lots of government policy is wealth transfer…” as if that were an argument. The fact that “lots of government policy is wealth transfer” (Clover means theft) doesn’t make this or that “wealth transfer” ok.
Your argument, Clover, is that of the rapist who rapes serially.
Gotta love these “people” Eric!
Instead of staunching the theft, they use it to justify even more!
It ‘d be like them buying a stereo that they knew was stolen from their neighbor, and saying “It’s O-K because I was robbed last year” [cymbal crash]… 😮
Incredible, isn’t it? And it is a characteristic of all Clovers – which is why I refer to them generically as Clovers.
Because they’re all the same. Rote-reflex. Programmed to such a degree that they can’t or won’t discern principles in anything. It’s all a piece-by-piece jumble of non sequiturs and subjectivism. Their morality amounts to “what works” (as they define “works”) and no matter whose rights are abused to further what “works.”
I have no problem cutting down Government spending.
Let’s terminate the VDoT budget for Route 221.
Also let’s end Rural phone service subsidies
It’s interesting that you argue against what I have not endorsed. Have I defended “the VDOT budget for Route 221”? Or “rural phone service subsidies”?
No, I have not.
Yet you imply I support such things as an “argument” in defense of subsidizing the electric car.
Yes, Pat, let’s eliminate the VDOT budget and rural phone subsidies….and every other subsidy as well, and the government which robs us to pay for all this crap.
That is why we are Libertarians/Anarchists- we don’t thinki that the government should subsidize anything, because the government doesn’t have any money of it’s own; it only has what it takes from it’s subjects.
We do not advocate the government funding of anything- whether it be something that we like/need/desire or not. We believe in a truly free market, where YOU pay directly for the products and services that you voluntarily choose to use, and which are provided by others on a purely free-market basis at whatever price the market will bear- just as is the case when you go to the hardware store or dry cleaners.
You liberal collectivists are always screaming against “inequality”; well, no greater inequalities exist than the ones created by the perversion of markets by government interference, and by the redistribution of wealth.
Thanks, Nunz, for the back-up!
Happy New Year -from the land of the Coonman!
Top O’The Mornin’ To Ya, Eric!
Awww, thanks, and same to you, buddy.
Hey, ya know, I was thinking about this, this mornin’ in bed (Yeah, I’m a really exciting guy! 😉 )
Look’at the parallel: These libtards [rather, all authoritarian-collectivists/statists] instead of wanting to eliminate an evil- such as subsidies whose funding comes via money extorted by force by the government, instead merely use the existence of those subsidies to justify even more subsidies!
Instead of them thinking “Maybe we should just stop all of this shit, and just be free to do what we want with the fruit of our labor/endeavors/investments”, they say “Let’s have even more of this, so I can get a cut of the action too!”.
Just as when it comes to the “equality” they are always demanding. Gee, I’ll never be economically equal to Bill Gates, and my sister who’s gone through life doing nothing but popping out babies from various men will never be equal to me….but these libtards think that by punishing the responsible/capable/lucky/ambitious and making them less equal, that that somehow is “equality”. Instead of improving the lower person, they want to destroy and rob the higher person. Perish the thought that we should all just live our lives and reap the consequences and rewards of our actions, choices, and situations! No! They want to unnaturally interfere by force (same as organized crime) to give special benefits to some at the cost of others- which is the very definition of inequality!
So just like the subsidies…they don’t want to eliminate the true evil; the unnatural interference….they instead want even more of it, just so long as it used in a manner which benefits those whom they champion, and punishes those whom they envy.
Obvious…I know…but here’s the kicker:
All that they desire to achieve, they advocate doing via government, by force and coercion amd violence.
And what is government? It is the bestowing of special rights/privileges/status/immunities to a certain group of men, to give them power over the lives and properties of other men who are no different [but usually of far superior character] than they- which is in itself the ULTIMATE inequality!
Thus, by very definition, these people are mentally ill, because as a so-called remedy to things which they perceive as evil, they in fact propose things which are the very embodiments of the thing they claim to oppose, and which constitute TRUE evil!
tl;dr: All statists are missing a few cards from their decks!
If subsidies were ended we would all be able to pay more for what we WANTED, instead of having money stolen from us to pay for everything. Sounds like a win to me!
Tax deductions are not wealth transfers. It’s literally the lack of a transfer.
The idea that tax deductions are a subsidy/transfer relies on the premise that all income is fundamentally government property, and so tax breaks are equivalent to government giving money.
Targeted tax deductions, designed to encourage/reward behavior desired by GovCo, create perverse incentives that distort the market, just like direct subsidies.
Spending is the ultimate measure of taxation. Unless Govco reduces spending by the taxable amount of the deduction, the deduction amounts to a subsidy of that amount.
Tax credits are direct subsidies. There is no difference, other than inefficiency, between reducing one’s tax bill by $7500.00 or requiring payment in full and then sending a check for $7500.00 to the purchaser of an EV.
I don’t believe that government can legitimately own anything, as everything it has, it has stolen. My objection is not based “on the (false) premise that all income is fundamentally government property”, but on the fact that tax deductions, like subsidies, distort the market, create perverse outcomes and increase the power and control of GovCo.
I disagree. The tax is what distorts the market, because all else equal, the company/individual would have made a different choice with that money.
Would it have been the same choice as the object of the tax break? Probably not.
But EVERY given choice would certainly outweigh paying the tax.
So EVERY tax break, fundamentally, is preferable from an economic perspective to how govt would have spent that money.
Aside from the economic argument, philosophically, I support utilizing ANY and EVERY means to keep your own property.
A deduction (of taxable income) or credit (a dollar for dollar reduction in tax paid) is not in any way a subsidy. It’s YOUR money. It does NOT take from anybody else.
The only caveat, for tax credits, is that it not exceed the tax paid originally. That, of course, would be a subsidy.
I agree, of course, that the tax distorts the market, but so do tax deductions. Ideally, income tax would be zero, and the issue would be irrelevant. Tax deductions have radically distorted the market for health insurance, home ownership and college tuition, to name a few.
Absent the tax incentives for purchasing low deductible health insurance, it is likely that most people would purchase catastrophic, high deductible insurance and pay for routine medical needs out of pocket. This would create competition in the health care market, which would dramatically lower costs (high cost being the real health care crisis).
Absent the tax incentives for home ownership, it is likely that more people would buy within their means, putting downward pressure on home prices.
Absent the tax incentives for college tuition, guaranteed government loans and direct subsidies to colleges, it is likely that colleges would be forced to compete on value. Or, better yet, would help break the ludicrous cultural stranglehold that a college degree still maintains.
A dollar for dollar tax credit is indistinguishable from a direct subsidy. I assume that you would consider GovCo cutting a check for $7500.00 to the purchaser of an EV to be a direct subsidy. How does this differ from knocking $7500.00 from the tax bill (assuming the total tax bill exceeds $7500.00)? Economically it produces the same result.
As I said earlier, spending is the ultimate measure of taxation. Tax deductions, without offsetting spending cuts, do amount to a transfer of wealth to the recipient of the deduction from those who do not behave properly according to GovCo. “Financing” the deduction through any means other than offsets in spending require either higher overall taxation, an increased debt burden or the devaluation of money through inflation (in reality, a combination of all three).
I am sympathetic to your argument as I believe that one has a moral duty to “give” as little money as possible to GovCo. If I were in the market for an EV, I would take the tax credit without guilt or conflict. But, that doesn’t mean I have to ignore the broader economic consequences of social engineering through tax policy.
I don’t disagree with your arguments as to the effect of a tax break. Certainly, it affects choices.
My point is that it is LESS of a distortion than anything the govt would have done with that money. And in some cases, minimally so.
For example, would somebody buy an EV absent the tax credit?
Probably not. But while they may not buy THAT car, presumably they might buy A car. But even if they spent the tax credit elsewhere, it’s less of a distortion because they’re still demonstrating a preference in the market. Under any given range of choices, that will produce better outcomes than govt spending.
This is the essential point of Mises’s calculation problem. He argues that Socialism always fails, because absent prices and profit/loss, there is no way to economically calculate.
For a given amount of steel, for example, socialist govts have no non arbitrary way of allocating it to the millions of possible uses. And so mistakes will be made, resources wasted, and everyone becomes poorer. Ie the Soviets made tanks instead of tractors, while people starved.
Markets, by comparison, allocate resources based upon the demonstrated preferences of consumers, which are proven by profit/loss.
More broadly, the calculation problem applies to ALL govt spending. Therefore ANY govt spending will result in worse outcomes than private spending, EVEN in a market distorted by tax policy.
That I might choose something else were it not for the initial tax, and subsequent credit, is irrelevant. I still prefer the object of the credit, and thus signal the market as to the appropriate allocation of resources given these circumstances.
Tl:dr Tax free; free markets > tax and tax credits > govt spending
To your point about a tax credit being indistinguishable from direct subsidy, I simply don’t agree.
Money is fungible, so in that sense it matters not whether the dollar received is the dollar paid.
But the distinguishing characteristic between a tax credit and subsidy is the source of the money.
A tax credit is deducts from the tax paid. A subsidy comes from elsewhere irrespective of the tax paid.
I pay $7500 in taxes. I receive a $7500 tax credit.
You pay $0 in taxes. You receive a $7500 subsidy.
Are you really suggesting that these are no different? A distinction without a difference?
The economic effect is absolutely not the same. The particular arrangement of goods in the market would be different in each situation. All spending is not equal.
Again, the idea that tax credits are a subsidy presupposes govt ownership of the income, because in that instance you never truly “paid” a tax. It’s merely accounting.
But if indeed it’s my property, a dollar is a dollar, and it matters not why I get it back.
Again, this does not apply to credits which exceed taxes paid. I fume at those who get more back in their “refund” than was paid. That’s absolutely a subsidy (or at least the difference).
Lastly, I care not what you view as the “broader” consequences. It’s my fucking money (pardon the language), and quite frankly, my rights are not subject to your opinions.
“Under any given range of choices, that will produce better outcomes than govt spending”.
But government spending is not replaced by this private spending, GovCo spends the money anyway. That is why I was so careful to point out that your view of a tax deduction/credit is economically valid only if GovCo reduces spending to offset it, which it does not.
“For example, would somebody buy an EV absent the tax credit…Probably not?”
So, this is a distortion created by a tax credit. But, that’s just a small part. Manufacturers are entering the EV market due to distorted “demand”. This fake demand for EV’s is/will be used to create tax supported infrastructure which will be enormously expensive. Electricity rates will go up due to new, artificial demand. There are a whole slew of additional distortions that will follow if GovCo succeeds in “pushing” us toward EV’s.
“This is the essential point of Mises’s calculation problem. He argues that Socialism always fails, because absent prices and profit/loss, there is no way to economically calculate”.
I’m well aware of the calculation problem and I agree with Mises. However, tax deductions and credits do not take money away from GovCo. Thus, the spending distortion exists despite the tax break. Walter Block makes the same argument about accepting government money; better “we” spend it than GovCo. But, that’s not what happens, thus his argument fails.
“I pay $7500 in taxes. I receive a $7500 tax credit. You pay $0 in taxes. You receive a $7500 subsidy. Are you really suggesting that these are no different? A distinction without a difference”.
Of course not, which I tried to make clear. Note my sentence in parentheses (assuming the total tax bill exceeds $7500.00). If this condition is met, there is no economic difference between reducing the bill, or cutting a check.
“Lastly, I care not what you view as the “broader” consequences. It’s my fucking money (pardon the language), and quite frankly, my rights are not subject to your opinions”.
First, I agree that it’s your money. Second, it is not immoral to do anything you can to “give” as little money as possible to the thieving bastards. However, this doesn’t change the fact that tax deductions and credits create market distortions and, without an offsetting reduction in spending, continues the overall distortions created by government spending. “Starving the Beast” does not work. GovCo does not reduce its spending. Spending is taxation. Tax credits and deductions do not reduce spending and, therefore, do not reduce taxation. They simply alter who pays what, and when.
I don’t object to any individual taking advantage of tax breaks/credits. I object to the claim that these reduce taxation, they do not. They provide another tool for increasing the power and control of GovCo.
Well, therein lies the problem… nobody made the argument that it reduces taxation.
I made the argument that deductions and tax credits are not wealth transfers, let alone a subsidy.
In a deduction, it’s the absence of a transfer…ie govt taking less in taxes.
In a credit, it’s giving back that which was paid.
That the govt will incur debt regardless of whether I reclaim my property, does not change the fundamental nature of a tax credit. Tax revenue is returned to the victim. Your argument is such that ANY tax refund is a subsidy in the absence of a surplus or cuts to match revenue.
Once again, this presumes govt ownership of all income. Recovering property from a thief is not at the expense of other victims, nor have you been subsidized.
Also, I’m not merely making Block’s argument, which is about denying the thief the stolen money.
I’m making the economic argument that even in a distorted market from tax policy, the outcome will be better than if left to the govt. Yes, even with govt deficit spending. Precisely because it brings production more in line with what consumers want in the given circumstances.
When the government gives X a “rebate” or a “credit” – as in the case of electric cars – it artificially advantages the EV manufacturer; arguably, this is a form of wealth transfer since the non-EV is essentially made more expensive by the amount of the “credit” or subsidy” which the EV buyer receives.
The government, if such a thing has any legitimate business at all, should be in the business of protecting property – not transferring it from X to Y.
I understand that the EV manufacturer recieved a sale it otherwise MIGHT not have received. This is a market distortion, no question.
But the credit comes off the consumer’s tax bill. It’s their money that was stolen.
The consumer is deciding where to spend THEIR money (or more likely, incur debt), and make those decisions according any number of criteria. Including tax benefits.
Sorry, but in no way is that a wealth TRANSFER.
You guys are arbitrarily placing too much emphasis on the sale that otherwise may not have occurred, at the expense of the taxpayer who reclaims his property.
I get not wanting the govt to interfere in the market, but there is literally no transfer from X to Y occurring.
“I’m making the economic argument that even in a distorted market from tax policy, the outcome will be better than if left to the govt. Yes, even with govt deficit spending. Precisely because it brings production more in line with what consumers want in the given circumstances”.
Your argument is predicated on the idea that the tax credit is essentially a transfer of some government spending to private spending (resulting in a net reduction of distortion). This is not what happens, the government spending remains, and the targeted private spending/behavior is directed toward a political end (otherwise you don’t get the credit or deduction). We cannot know that this brings production more in line with what consumers want.
My argument is not based on the presumption that government owns all income. Nor am I arguing that individuals should not pursue whatever tax breaks and deductions that they can. It is that the supposed bright line distinction between tax credits/deductions and subsidies put forth by you and many others is not valid. The tax credit scenario I describe is economically indistinguishable from a direct subsidy.
Tax credits and deductions, without spending cuts, do not decrease government distortion of the market. In many cases, they increase it (I provided four examples).
Anyway, I’ve enjoyed the discussion.
I’ve enjoyed the discussion too.
But to close, my argument is NOT predicated on tax credit replacing govt spending. I explicitly argued otherwise. I said that the consumer making a market choice, even in the instance of govt deficit spending, will result in a preferential arrangement of goods/ services in the market than otherwise.
We know this because of the fact that the consumer made the choice, according to market prices, which shows that they prefer it to any other possible choice available to them. This is certainly a distortion, but that is a separate question than whether it results in a market best aligned with consumer wants/needs… given the circumstances. Nobody is arguing that it would be preferable to the situation of no taxation.
I reject that the credit/subsidy are economically indistinguishable. Again, while money is fungible, the source of the money matters. Someone was robbed. They do not take from others by reclaiming their property.
At best, one might say that govt deficit spending transfers wealth, in that real resources are redirected as a result. But that’s a separate question from the tax credit, which originates with, and returns to the taxpayer.
I’ve enjoyed the conversation, and take care.
GM is not building EVs because the government is forcing them, it is building them because the market is forcing them. GM dealers do not like EVs because they will not make any money on service.
The last week, my wife’s car has been out of action, so she has been driving mine. I have been driving my mother in law’s RAV4. I know there’s nothing wrong with it, but it feels like it’s faulty every time I press the accelerator.
For a 68 mile commute, the wallet hurts every time I have to put gas in it. The fuel costs are several times what it costs to drive my car, but the main pain comes from having to visit gas stations every other day instead of leaving the garage with a full charge every morning. After a 10 hour work day plus a total of three hours driving, I’d much rather just go home!
I can’t wait to get my car back!
“68 mile commute”
“having to visit gas stations every other day”
My, either that is a mighty small tank on that Rav or you should probably release the parking brake when driving.
68 miles each way and the gas tank on the RAV4 is only 14 gallons. That’s 272 miles. I didn’t use up all 14 gallons in two days, but there wasn’t enough left to make it to work on the third day. The warning light comes on with 2 gallons left in the tank.
So glad to have my car back!!! Much smoother, quieter and more comfortable too.
So you normally commute in a 2013 Volt?
I have had it for 18 months. From my experience with this car, my next car will be a full EV. I would encourage any doubters out there to simply try an electric vehicle. All the environmental stuff is a nice bonus, but the simple fact is: once you’ve driven electric you will not want to go back. It’s such a much better driving experience, and I the sum of my car loan and running expenses is less than what I used in gas in our ’04 Acura TL.
You can have a test drive at most Tesla locations. The Jaguar I-Pace is nice too, but too expensive compared to a Tesla. The Kia Niro is very nice if you can get your hands on one, but they are always sold out. We haven’t tested a Tesla yet because my wife says once she drives one she will not be willing to give it back, and it’s not in the budget yet… That’s the same lady that was very skeptical when I bought the Volt and is now a total convert after driving it.
GM does not care about their dealers making money on service or not. Tesla Motors has also shown that the battery EV business model is not to service the vehicle. It is to make it absurdly expensive to service like many other consumer items so people throw it away and buy a new one.
People cannot afford the battery EV. That’s the point. Let’s say I magically came up with a battery EV in some common well liked form factor like a Honda Accord and it cost the buyer exactly the same out the door as the present gasoline version. Also my magic battery EV would not find capacity degrading over time. That is no battery pack replacement. Then there would be a chance of selling to more than a niche market. Until then the battery EV is for people who want battery EVs enough to pay the premium.
Except for the badly designed Nissan Leaf, EV’s do not have a history of batteries degrading. My 2013 Volt with 85000 miles runs exactly like it did the day it was new with the same range and has never had a problem. It still has the original brakes and I expect to get at least 60000 more out of those brakes.
Tesla cars presently run 3-500000 on the original batteries. Most ICE vehicles never last that long. A 2 year old Tesla Model 3 sells for 85% of the original sales price. No ICE car can compete with that, and no ICE car has anywhere near as low TCO even without factoring in the insanely high resale value.
The batteries degrade, it is their nature to. And yes, Tesla Motors has battery pack problems. They aren’t horrific like the leaf, but problems none the less. There’s a guy who has a business salvaging the modules from the TM packs then reusing the good ones in other applications. I’ve encountered the problem professionally with Li-Ion cells as well.
The Volt will have the best battery pack life. Why? Because it has a gasoline engine powering a generator to optimize conditions for a battery pack’s life. GM corporately sucks but GM engineers aren’t dumb. They simply have to work under unreasonable conditions much of the time. They know better than I do how to make that car’s battery pack live a nice long life for almost zero additional cost. I know it can be done so they certainly do.
Tesla Motors vehicles have so many problems its absurd. Like all fanboi vehicles you have to take it with a grain of salt. As to ICE vehicles, my fleet average age is almost 25 years now. Many people don’t take care of their vehicles. As to TM resale, you do know TM controls much of the used market for their products? Anyway nobody is paying an owner of used TM vehicle 85% of sticker for it in trade. It would have to sell for over sticker of a new one on the used car lot at that rate.
Very few people are paying that price because at present there are only about 100 2018 model 3″s for sale in the US. People who have them don’t want to sell. There are about 1000 2018 BMW 3 series for sale even though they only sold half as many.
There are 87 2018 Model 3’s on Auto-Trader alone!
Dude, you are either delusional or on some serious drugs…..
Fanbois like to overpay for things to be unique. When I worked in consumer electronics some employees would steal pilot production units and sell them for big money online. They usually got caught.
But it’s not difficult to find TM model 3s for sale. And opinions on them vary widely.
Furthermore the number of a car for sale at any given moment means nothing. Also BMWs are 1) typically leased. 2) produced in much greater volume. The idea that there were only half as many BMW 3 series sold in 2018 than TM model 3s is absurd. It’s BS on the face of it. They passed the 10,000,000 mark on 3 series production back in 2015 at the Munich plant alone. So even more from other factories. Sure that’s all time from one facility, but what that comes out to per year globally dwarfs what TM does.
*****”V’s do not have a history of batteries degrading. My 2013 Volt with 85000 miles runs exactly like it did the day it was new with the same range and has never had a problem.”*****
THAT is why EVs depreciate so fast/severely. There is no battery on earth that does not degrade as charging cycles increase; and there are no sealed batteries that do not degrade just from time- even if not used.
And more so i nhot climates; cold climates; uinder heavy usage…..
Batteries degrade. PERIOD.
Battery degradation is a fact of life – of chemistry. It is not arguable. And 2013 is only six years ago. Wait. EVs haven’t been out in numbers – and out long enough – for the battery degradation issue to become so obvious it can no longer be evaded.
This is simply not the experience of the people who actually drive electric cars. This is also part of the reason for the extremely high value of even totaled Tesla’s. People are lining up to buy the batteries for conversions and storage use.
Most EV’s have a 10 year battery warranty because the manufacturers have very high confidence in their batteries. For the Volt, it’s 10 years (15 in CARB states) and 100000 miles, whichever comes first. For a Tesla it’s unlimited mileage.
“This is simply not the experience of the people who actually drive electric cars.”
Assertion without backing.
“This is also part of the reason for the extremely high value of even totaled Tesla’s.”
Um, more likely because getting replacement parts from Tesla is nigh on impossible so scavenging the wrecks is the only practical way to fix a broken Tesla.
“Most EV’s have a 10 year battery warranty…”
Most? Which ones constitute most? Where? Certainly not in Canada where the warranties are much less than in the US for ‘most’ EVs. VOLT/BOLT only get a 5y/60,000mile warranty. Wonder why, Brrrrr..
“For a Tesla it’s unlimited mileage.”
There is this thing called the internet that makes checking bullshit from clovers very easy.
People actually drive electric cars ???
I thought they spent most of their time waiting for them to charge.
“For a Tesla it’s unlimited mileage.”
There is this thing called the internet that makes checking bullshit from clovers very easy.
“This is simply not the experience of the people who actually drive electric cars.”
Assertion without backing.
“This is also part of the reason for the extremely high value of even totaled Tesla’s.”
Um, more likely because getting replacement parts from Tesla is nigh on impossible so scavenging the wrecks is the only practical way to fix a broken Tesla.
“Most EV’s have a 10 year battery warranty…”
Most? Which ones constitute most? Where? Certainly not in Canada where the warranties are much less than in the US for ‘most’ EVs. VOLT/BOLT only get a 5y/60,000mile warranty. Wonder why, Brrrrr..
Yes, the price of salvage TM cars is very high because TM squeezes the supply on replacement parts and when something is available to the public it’s priced absurdly high. TM wants customers to throw their old car away and buy a new one or at the very least be locked to TM service centers and approved body shops.
TM does not want a DITY market or right to repair judging by its actions. Therefore salvage cars get bid up. Also if you want a fancy EV and don’t want it connected to the hive mind of TM salvage and rebuild is the way to achieve that. These cars end up in a sort of limbo but also risk getting ‘bricked’ from corporate.
“For a Tesla it’s unlimited mileage.”
“For a Tesla it’s unlimited mileage.”
That is a straight up lie.
That’s not how warranties work.
Warranties are about increasing buyer confidence. Every (money-making) product with a warranty has the warranty in the price. You can sell a crappy product with a long generous warranty, but the cost of that warranty has to be in the price. It’s all about the math of how much the warranty will cost per unit.
Battery EV’s at present are not intended to make money. Thus the warranty can reflect what ever the manufacturer is willing to spend to achieve regulatory compliance and virtue.
“People are lining up to buy the batteries for conversions and storage use.”
Now here is a man who’s got this shit figured out. He GETS IT. The batteries are FLYING off the shelves. They can’t keep them in stock. I haven’t seen any of you LOSER ICE fanbois address this point. Because you CAN’T. It is an UNDENIABLE FACT. Just look around you. You can’t leave the house without seeing all these batteries and lines.
You morons just can’t get with the times. Stop standing in the way of OUR utopia. We’re trying to make the world a better place. That’s why I support carbon taxes and reparations. Carbon Dioxide shouldn’t even be legal, and anyone producing such a toxin should be fined. The money can then be used to fund my department’s research into alternative green energy.
I’m doing my part. My plug-in gets more MPGe’s (Miles per gallon electrical) than all of your dated clunkers, COMBINED. I’m so FUCKING EFFICIENT. You peasants WISH you were as carbon neutral as I am.
The only argument you uncivilized savages have is “what if I need to travel more than 200 miles?”
LOL!!! Just rent an S-class or fly like normal people. Quit making excuses for your destructive behaviors.
Don’t ask me to “support my claims with evidence”. I’m so fucking sick of that talking point. I’ve done my research. I know I’m right. I did a project on this shit when I was in 8th grade, and got a 100%.
The only reason we’re not all in self-driving, environmentally friendly electric vehicles right now, is because everyone is against them. The media, the auto manufacturers, even the government, they’re all trying to suppress electric cars. Doesn’t help that people like you keep buying SUVs and trucks. Those should be illegal too, obviously. Nobody needs that much vehicle.
Don’t even bother trying to argue with me. I’m on a level that is so beyond you idiots that I’m not going to even waste my time. As soon as my car is done charging, I’ll be on my way to the local “common sense gun control” rally (I really want them banned, but gotta start somewhere I guess).
Hey! I’m doing my part to support renewable brown…errr….green energy! I make my own methane!
If I could meet this Owen character IRL, I’d be more than happy to release some in his face, for him to sample. (Maybe I shouldn’t today though- ppm.s of eggs might be a little high; better to try on a day when the exhaust might be a little cleaner)
Brandon! You just made my day, hombre…thank you!
Right, Eric?! That was PURE GOLD!
Thank you Nunz for the hilarious comment and thank you Eric. See, the clovers do have some use.
If you were wondering about OHM being , well, a lying sack of shit,
From above “My 2013 Volt with 85000 miles runs exactly like it did” January 17,2020.
Owen Harald Morgan January 7, 2020 at 4:00 pm #
Another important difference is that even though electric vehicles sone times run on electricity generated from fossil fuels, a large generator running at constant RPM pollutes far less for the same amount of energy than thousands of ICEs running at varying RPM and that the pollution is not local to where our children breathe.
And, my electric vehicle now has 76000 miles on it and still drives like new. More than one owner has well over 150000 on the original brakes…
Apparently he managed to put 9000 miles on it in 10 days. Yeah.
Man, those Volts are really amazing……………..
Sometimes my memory is not perfect, but I’m sitting in the car right now and the odometer shows 79645 miles. It’s not something I pay attention to on a daily basis.
It still drives like new.
Any modern car “still drives like new” with 79k on the odometer. The difference, Clover, will manifest after the passage of another 79k miles. You are approaching the Event Horizon of your EV battery pack’s useful service life. Long before an IC car needs a new engine or transmission, your EV will need a new battery pack. Which will cost you thousands of dollars. This is inevitable. Whereas an IC car may never need a new engine or transmission.
Have you figured that into your “TOC”?
Of course not.
“Sometimes my memory is not perfect”
So far your memory is perfect. Perfectly wrong, every time.
Seems every “fact” you have stated was WRONG. So not only do you regularly lie to everyone else , you are constantly BSing yourself. In an era when checking your BS is as easy as a few keystrokes and mouse clicks, that is pathetic.
Just go read the posts you have made here. Arrogantly and totally wrong.
Here is a challenge for you. Go reply to each of your wrong posts correcting the inaccurate information. Show that you have the capacity to learn from you mistakes.
Maybe do the math to show what your claims are based on, like I have to sow they are BULLSHIT.
***”So far your memory is perfect. Perfectly wrong, every time.”***
Now Anon is channeling Vonu Bill!
OHM has been wrong every time. I don’t understand the reference.
LOL! I know, Anon! I meant your wording- the contradst of Owens “My memory is not always perfect”, and your “It’s been perfectly wrong every time” [so true!]- sounds just like one of Vonu’s witty comebacks!
***”the odometer shows 79645 miles.”***
Odometer must be a tad off, since you said you commute 168 miles a day…..
Worthless BS every time, obviously. Rationalizations and more BS instead of acknowledgement when caught.
Search the name next month and I guarantee you, you will find the exact same lies will be repeated as truth by him. There are thousands like him that simply have no honor, shame or the ability to not BS with every statement.
I think Greta has “transitioned”……
Wrangler would like a word with ya. It has the highest resale value after 5 years, at just over 30% depreciation.
The CHEAPEST 4 door, 2018 Wrangler within 100 miles of me is priced at 80% of it’s original MSRP, and that’s a vehicle with MANUAL windows and locks.
The higher trims hold even better value.
I wonder if people are actually paying that much for used Jyps…errr…Jeeps, though? Asking prices and over-inflated blue-book prices are one thing…..
If people are actually paying that, it’s insanity! These newer Fiat Jeeps are crap. People buy’em for image. Actually, that you see so many late-model vehicles (of all varieties) on the used market these days says a lot. There’s a glut of (especially) expensive used vehicles, ’cause credit for new’uns is so easy to get- and the deals on new are often advantageous, often making late-model used ones as expensive or even more expensive than brand new- which is likely why FCA had to temporarily suspend making Cherokees last month…..there’s just a glut of new and late-model vehicles. How many can afford them and or are stupid enough to buy ’em? (And sellin’ ’em to people what can’t afford them is making things worse, creating the glut of late-model used ones when they get repoed after a year)
On the used market, Jeeps go for closer to asking price. That’s why it’s arguably better to buy new rather than late model. Is saving 6-8% in depreciation worth 40k miles and unknown maintenance and/or off road abuse?
New, if you pay msrp or higher, you’re a terrible shopper.
The Tread Lightly program basically guarantees you at least 1% below invoice. There are certain high volume dealers, if you’re willing to travel, where it’s common to get 5-6% below invoice. Even average dealers will give bigger discounts, particularly if you order rather than buy off lot.
Jeep miscalculated a bit by continuing JK production concurrently with the first year JL. And the big price increases since launch haven’t helped. Wrangler (and Gladiator) is starting to see discounts unimaginable over the past 10-15 years.
I don’t know who the hell these people in “the market” are that you claim are “forcing” GM to build electric vehicles. I certainly don’t know anyone who gives electric cars a second thought when looking at buying a car, and most don’t even give them a first thought. Sounds like another fanboi fantasy.
We drive a 700 mile day, straight through in 10-11 hours several times per year.
Now what ????
This Pat Clover creatures doesn’t care about the costs – in money, convenience or time – it seeks to impose on others. And that is the key to this business. We do not object to Clovers such as Pat buying whatever type of vehicle meets her needs, which she buys with her own money. We merely object to being ordered by Clovers such as Pat to buy the type of vehicle she demands we drive – and to being forced to “help” her buy the type of vehicle she desires.
Exactly! Just another SJW feminist that runs on emotions rather than logic or common sense.
How often do you make that trip? If it’s several times a month, you have my sympathy. That’s a brutal drive! If it’s only a couple of times a year, you could rent something fun.
You really should stop, eat and stretch your legs a couple of times, in which case you might as well charge at the same time. Heck, my bladder only has a 2-300 mile range… Remember, unlike an ICE, you don’t have to stay by the “pump” while the car is getting charged. Two 15-20 minute stops while emptying your bladder and getting some coffee or a snack is all it takes, then charge overnight at your destination before you head back.
If it really is not possible to stop, you may be one of the very few people that an EV won’t work for. You just go right on paying four times as much as me to refuel your car.
Also remember, you will save far more time not having to go to a gas station on all those days you drive less than 250 miles and can leave your garage with a full charge every morning, than you would spend charging on the few occasions you do take long road trips.
“Two 15-20 minute stops”? That seems very optimistic and bordering on BS.
“You just go right on paying four times as much as me to refuel your car.” Your car being the one you probably paid 2-3x as much for?
I paid $13000. Did you pay 4250?
Last one was $1000 Canadian dollars.
So $13,000 eh? And your $13,000 EV goes 250 miles on a full charge? Really? That seems, questionable.
OHM, Since it looks like you are dodging this one,
136 mile round trip. (really?)
2013 Volt with magic, no degradation battery.
38 pure EV mode miles on a full charge. 37mpg after.
Assuming 8 hours at work, plugged in at 120v, 28 miles regained.
So 70 miles on gas. Roughly 2(and a bit) gallons. Or 4 days between fill ups leaving a safety margin in the tank.
Your Volt needs to be filled half as often as the RAV4.
Note I have used best case numbers and no degradation values here.
A trip that would have taken 2.6 gallons in my previous Golf MK2 diesel. A $2000 car. So about $2/day more. $500 more fuel per year.
OR – If filling less is the issue, a 2013 TDI Jetta would match the “days between fills” of your Volt, for half the price.
Wait. From the other thread, are you talking about your Volt or some other EV?
Either you paid WAY more, or you have ZERO idea how that Volt was when new, because nobody got a brand new Volt for $13k.
It must be hard trying to keep all of these lies straight.
Any more stops making it longer than 11 hours makes it a two day trip because of the traffic window. Either that or drive 40-50 mph all night looking for deer to jump out in front of you.
OK, so you are one of the very few people who can not use an EV… yet. Very few people make regular 700+ mile road trips.
So that’s your argument “very few people” ????
You must be very high minded and think you know everything about everyone, or you expect everyone to just jump on an airplane to go to the next town. Our kids live 1500+ miles in opposite directions from us. If we want to actually get somewhere, we can’t just drive a 100 or 200 miles and then lollygag for an hour or two.
Just a monthly shopping trip is 130-150 miles round trip, most of the range of an electric car. And a “car” can’t even get in and out of where we live in the winter/spring. Our car has been parked since September and we’re driving the 4×4’s instead. My trees love the CO2 – LOL
In fact, my wife’s car may be perfect for you if the form factor works. She drives a ’17 Accord Hybrid. That thing will go almost 800 miles on a tank. Lifetime average MPG is 46 which includes two Michigan winters.
It baffles me that people such as yourself can say – with a straight face – that “two 15-20 minute stops” on a trip isn’t a hassle. Maybe for you; maybe for someone with time to waste. I prefer not to waste mine. Your “Two 15-20 minute stops” adds half an hour to 40 minutes to your trip, at the least. Assuming you don’t have to wait for someone else’s EV to recharge ahead of you. Versus a 5 minute stop, once.
Do you also think Soviets waiting in bread lines consoled themselves with the fresh spring air?
He does not specify what EV or the cost to buy it either. But to achieve anything like his claim it would have to be an extremely expensive unit, hitting (empty and unshared) superchargers at EXACTLY the last couple of miles of range. Still only getting an 80% full charge at best in 20-30 minutes. Also would have to be under perfect conditions, getting nearly maximum range claimed for any of the ridiculously expensive-EVs. Won’t be a Leaf or Bolt which are just silly expensive.
Conditions above make riding a Unicorn a more likely scenario.
If he owns a Volt (good choice) the point is moot anyway. Pure EVs are gimped.
Or a cheap TDI (2013s are about half price of used Volts) will just drive and drive and drive, 5 minute fill anywhere. $6500 of diesel goes a long way. Something like 130,000 miles of no range anxiety driving.
Forgot to mention the obvious.
My old MK2 Golf got about 50mpg. When crossing the middle of Canada there are huge stretches where there simply are no services at all, never mind superchargers. I carried 10 extra gallons in the back of the car. 500 miles added on the side of the road, anywhere. Maybe 15 minutes to pull the jugs, fiddle with the filler and pour.
Tesla Superchargers have recently been opened to cover the trip across Canada. I don’t know where any of the other charging networks are there yet.
Completely missing the point.
Do you even know you are full of shit?
Ah, the old “just rent something,” or it’s sibling “get a second car for looking trips” bs.
It never occurs to them that I could just have one car that does everything I need.
Oh, and the “get a snack and stretch your legs.”
These EV people must be massive, snacking every time they stop to charge.
I had a 1980 VW Rabbit diesel with 5speed trans . Got 55mpg.
Simple easy to work on and maintain.
They don’t build them like they did back then.
I had an ’81. Great car. I sold it it when I became a Realtor, for something bigger and newer. About 5 years later, I had my car in the shop, and I was offered a free loaner. It was my old 1981 VW Diesel! It just wouldn’t die. I regret ever selling that vehicle.
Great article on the failure of electric cars on up police forces. ABD link. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7822791/Police-waste-1-5million-electric-cars-useless-catching-criminals.html
A few police departments have in fact bought Tesla”a and are very happy with them. Usually, the Tesla is the fastest vehicle the have and they normally only use half the charge in a 11 hour shift.
Of course they are happy with them – someone else is paying for them! Free – why that’s my favorite price! When economic considerations are irrelevant, one overlooks much. And then there are the functional considerations. The urban stop-and-go type of environment is ideal for EVs. But let’s see how one does as a highway patrol car…
No, police departments pay for their own vehicles out of their budget. Some of the comments heard are that they can now afford to hire more officers because of the savings.
The budget does not change based on the vehicle.
Just looked at the article. Whatever idiot thought a BMW i3 was a good idea for police work? The GAS equivalent would be something like a Fiat 500! LOL!
Or……just buy a conventional gas powered car and cut out the “middle-man” altogether. Seriously, why do folks crave vehicles (or anything for that matter) that are so bogged down with unnecessary crap that offers little to no meaningful advantages? What, so they can brag about how “clean” or “efficient” or “trendy” they are? For me, an efficient car is one that starts the first time, is fairly easy to maintain, is quick to refuel, and gets me to wherever I want or need to go on a reasonable amount of fuel without stalling. So in other words, 99% of IC-powered cars made within the last 30 years or so (albeit, maintenance is damn near impossible with these late-model cars, but I digress). Virtually all of today’s IC vehicles are so fuel-efficient and emit so little byproducts that even the EPA itself labels them as partially-zero emissions vehicles (PZEV’s); so there’s really no excuse for such strict emissions or fuel economy regulations.
But of course we all know the real reason why IC vehicles are being done away with.
Logic, rationality, efficiency, cost effectiveness, productivity and practicality never enter the thinking process of liberals and Marxists. They are brainwashed with an agenda, steeped in an emotional context that knows no other way to survive. It’s their way or no way, with no objections allowed and no compromises will be considered. This is why so little of the liberal agenda makes any rational sense, man caused global warming and EV’s being an example.. It is all about destroying capitalism, free markets, freedom and free thinking. This is what happens to an industry when the control freaks take over. In the history of the world, 100’s of millions have died fighting Marxism. Millions will be sacrificed here also as the country will split apart into the various factions and there might not well be any electricity or fuel for any type of vehicle available. The leftist liberals will push too far….they always do.
” In the history of the world, 100’s of millions have died fighting Marxism.”
But…but…we can make it work this time.
EV’s do not need any environmental agenda. It’s simply a better vehicle with much lower TCO and I can make my own fuel on my roof without fighting any wars in the middle east. Those idiots can safely be left to kill each other off without me caring about their oil.
When the government comes to tax EVs the cost of using them will no longer be a bargain. As to total cost the premium on a battery EV buys a lot of fuel. And while I am sure your next line will be that XXX battery EV is priced the same as YYY gasoline car, here’s the difference, the automaker makes a significant margin on the gasoline car while the battery is EV has slim to negative profit at that pricing. Thus a lot of actual cost can be hidden when aiming for the higher priced end of the market. Some day the automakers will want the old profit margins back. That someday is when we are legislated into battery EVs or when ICE vehicles are punitively taxed.
As to wars for oil, the wars in oil rich nations are to keep oil off the market. Keep it right hands or off the market entirely. This way it can never create an over supply and drive down prices too far. The shale boom was something the powers that be did not consider happening. They didn’t think they would lose the high prices when the newly created currency units went looking for return and found it in shale oil.
“It’s simply a better vehicle with much lower TCO and I can make my own fuel on my roof without fighting any wars in the middle east.”
I have already provided the (estimated) calculations that show you still need 2gal/day for your Volt commute.
But you are going to switch to a Tesla I believe? So then you can drive on “free” sunshine. “Free” requiring a $40,000+ car and a ~$50,000 solar installation. The battery storage you will require is at least 150% the capacity of the car since you will be collecting during the day, storing, then pumping from home batteries to car batteries. Even then, those home batteries are going to be worked hard and their life will be short, probably on the order of less than 1500 cycles. For three times the price there are some pretty good batteries that will last twice as long….. That is some TCO before even driving the first mile. You could save probably $30k on batteries if you use grid tie. Of course, then driving is tied to the grid. No power, like in a natural disaster, no car to flee the disaster.
I like the Volt – vs. other electric cars, at least. You don’t have to worry about range – or waiting for the thing to recharge.
But for this Owen character to claim he’s “saving money” (TCO) is evidence of financial dementia. The Volt’s price new was about $34k. For this you got a car very similar – other than being a plug-in hybrid – to something like the Chevy Cruze, which you could buy for about $18k, or a bit less than half the price.
You would have saved $16,000 by buying the Cruze rather than the Volt. How much gas does $16,000 buy? About 6,500 gallons at current prices. If the Cruze averages 30 MPG and has a 12 gallon tank, it goes about 360 miles on a tank. $6,500 buys 541 or so full tanks of gas. That’s enough gas to drive 194,760 miles.
Yeah. The Volt “saves money.”
I have posted links to refute most if not all of Owens claims. He clearly just repeats what he has heard, or thinks he has heard, without ever bothering to check if it is true.
It takes two minutes on the official Tesla website to find that what he states is BS. Even on the Tesla website the Model S claim is “up to” 211km/15minutes at a supercharger. Model 3 270km/30minutes.
The Tesla superchager map shows the complete across Canada locations. Of course it is a single route only and useless unless you happen to be going on that road. Some questionable distances between too, especially when it is -30c. The other map I linked to shows most of the ones Tesla shows as active are “proposed locations”. Maybe they are already active but since most of the updates are from the last month or so, questionable.
Has Musk even gotten around to the solar powered ones that were to be ‘done in the next couple of weeks’ for California when the threat of fire had big chunks of the grid shut down?
Yup! People like Owen are religious people – and you cannot gainsay their faith. It is like trying to reason with a Torquemada….
Eric, I think this Owen character is a troll- either that, or some 8 year-old who believes the fairy tales they are taught in skools, ’cause no adult could possibly be so dumb as to say and believe the things which Owen has asserted here……
This seems the best way to visualize,
I’m also wondering if a part time EV powered by gasoline has benefits in terms of fuel consumption, would one powered by diesel and/or CNG be more beneficial in terms of even less fuel/even cleaner fuel being used? But wouldn’t that make too much sense…
I have always wondered why GM didn’t put diesel in the Volt.
Ask the VW executives.
Doesn’t matter what is or is not practical, affordable, or desirable. The Sociopaths In Charge are by definition insane, and will kill you if you don’t participate in their madness.
they have to be killed first
That’s provided the brain-dead/washed worshipers don’t try and take you out first. The last thing they want is for us sane folks to disrupt the “free-for-them-paid-for-by-everyone-else” system (aka socialism).
There are parallel hybrids, and there are series hybrids. An example of a parallel hybrid is the ubiquitous Toyota Prius. An example of a series hybrid is the Chevy Volt.
In a series hybrid, the ICE provides most of the motive power, with the electric motor assisting as needed; both are connected to the drivetrain. The ICE and electric motor are both connected to the drive wheels of the Prius.
OTOH, the Chevy Volt, a series hybrid, is exclusively propelled by electric motors; i.e. only electric motors are connected to the drive wheels. The batteries can provide 50 miles of electric only range. The ICE is there to take over once the batteries discharg, so it can turn a generator; the generator, in turn, provides power to the electric motors; the electric motors power the drive wheels. Think of a diesel electric locomotive miniaturized, and you have the idea of a series hybrid.
Though hybrids, or part time electric cars as Eric likes to call them, don’t have the downsides that a full EV has, they do have a serious downside: increased complexity. Why? You have two powerplants instead of one! You have the ICE, and you have the electric motors. There’s simply more to go wrong. There’s more to break. There’s more to fix, which means more $$$.
Why couldn’t we have access to the stillborn VW L-1? Why couldn’t we have access to the Elio? Why couldn’t we even have access to good, cheap, economical cars like the Chevy Sail? We all know the answer to that one: Uncle…
Oops! I meant to say that, in a PARALLEL hybrid, the ICE provides most of the motive power.
Hybrid’s: The reason that I predict Toyota may be the only car company selling viable vehicles 5 years from now.
As more people buy electrics, lines build up and all of the infrastructure deficits are plainly visible to even the most idiotic of people, they will see hybrid Toyota’s not waiting in lines. It will be a boon for their business.
Not that I’m a fan. I’d take plain ICE engined vehicles every day. They offer the most simplistic, affordable and FIXABLE–by me–option.
One has to wonder why the hate for plug-in hybrids? My guess is because the assumption from Uncle’s bureaucracy is that people won’t bother to “plug in” and instead just run them like normal ICEs. But a plug-in has several advantages either way. In the case of the Volt, because the battery pack is only going to go about 40 miles or so, it will recharge relatively quickly. Even using a 20A 110V circuit you’ll probably get a full charge if you plug in after work and leave it overnight. That’s also true for a full electric if you only drive about 40 miles or so between charges, but those times you drain the battery down mean you might not ever get it back to full until you let it sit (or use one of the fast(er) charger stations you pay for). And there’s a pretty big financial incentive to remember to plug in the Volt when you get home, in that the electricity cost is not yet taxed like gasoline. And most places you’ll get access to the carpool lanes.
The bigger question is why did GM kill the Volt? Did they really not learn anything from the EV-1 and customers begging GM to buy the vehicles when their lease was up? Are they really that shortsighted as to declare a radical new design a failure because it didn’t have a Corvette-like waiting list? Or did someone from the DOT and EPA stop by for a little conversation?
They probably killed it because they were losing money on each one.
No, they killed it because of the insanely low maintenance costs. The dealers who make their money from maintenance did not want to sell them.
OH, I missed this one.
“No, they killed it because of the insanely low maintenance costs.”
So it still has tires, brakes, an engine and a motor and a battery pack. Seems like MORE stuff than simple ICE. In Owen’s world, more parts and complexity means lower maintenance?
I guess an idiot like you did not think of the billions a day collected by the govt from gas and diesel road tax. if every body started driving idiot EV they will start taxing the air by the mile . they will think of 100 new taxes
I am perfectly OK with all cars paying a roadtax per mile x weight. The problem is that some states are now taxing EV’s extra where you would have to drive an average ICE car 50000 miles a year to pay the same.
Yep. Hybrids make a lot more sense…but still not as much sense as ICEs.
I dunno- all of this seems very silly though compared to a 1978 Datsun B210…. 2000 lbs; could carry 4 adults and cargo while getting 40MPG….were downright CHEAP to buy, and the epitome of simplicity. If they woulda made ’em so they didn’t rust away, they would’ve lasted forever.
Due to their higher initial cost though, Nunz, hybrids may not make economic sense for most people, at least while gas continues to be cheap. (No doubt when the “progressives” get back into power they’ll take care of that little detail.)
A modern Datsun B210 with a few modern tweaks such as port fuel injection would probably get closer to 50 mpg, if Uncle would permit such a thing to be sold.
Absolutely, Jason! -on both counts.
All of this nonsense- hybrids, EVs, hydrogen….they’re all solutions to problems that don’t exist, because ICE cars are clean, efficient and extremely practical- and we already have the infrastructure for ’em.
Yep, I’d say if we were allowed, make a B210 with a better body- FI or carb…wouldn’t matter much- but carbs are appealing, cause they’re simple and don’t require electronics (And when they did start FI-ing those kinds of cars in the mid 80’s, the mileage gains were negligible)….we could have cars that would last for decades and cost under $10K. (Guess that’s why the manufucturers don’t fight Uncle….why make $10K cars that’d last forever, when ya can make highly complex abominations that cost $35K and are pretty useless after 5 years?)
And I’ll second the notion with my usual defense of the Geo Metro, of which I’ve owned several. Very reliable, relatively simple, TBI instead of the far more complex port injection, and capable of 50 mpg without hypermiling (but then I didn’t beat on mine or do 80 mph everywhere).
If the tin would last longer–my 320,000 mile Geo rusted out badly in the rockers and lower door panels–the car would’ve been nearly perfect.
Anyway. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
“Guess that’s why the manufucturers don’t fight Uncle….why make $10K cars that’d last forever, when ya can make highly complex abominations that cost $35K and are pretty useless after 5 years?”
This here is the very reason why I plan on keeping my ’05 Trailblazer ’till the wheels fall off, and even that has the annoying seatbelt and >75mph “dings” and that dreaded “OnStar” crap. Ain’t no way in hell am I getting a late-model car! It is indeed a conspiracy to lure the sheep into debt servitude.
Yes, it would be a good idea to cut some of the large subsidies to the oil industry, and stop financing terrorism.
My car drives on fuel made right here in the USA, not from the corrupt regimes of the middle east.
Your data is very out of date. You may not be aware of it, but the US exports oil; it is the world’s largest producer of oil. The idea that filling your gas tank “subsidizes terrorism” is fatuous.
So why do we still carry on fighting wars in the middle east?
To keep oil prices from completely collapsing and oil in the ‘correct’ hands. To keep the military industrial complex well fed.
What got Saddam in trouble was selling -too much- oil. That’s why the fedgov gave him tacit permission to invade Kuwait. It gave reason to put the smack down on him for driving down oil prices.
The wars inflate the price oil. They are designed to.
I had a 1980 Chevette that got 40mpg and could carry 4 and some cargo. It was cheap and did not have the nicest ride but was fun to drive with its 4 speed manual and hand brake. It was also extremely easy to work on with its simple 4 banger, carburetor and lack of accessories in the engine bay. This was in the glory years before 1000lbs of safety gear was mandated to be added to each vehicle by the government, but I was never afraid while I was driving it, and have lived to tell the tale.
But…you could’ve gotten killed. Therefore, we need to ban these simple deathtraps and mandate that all new cars come with thick roll cages that create more blind spots; grenades in the dashboards, seats, and door panels; and automated “brake-checkers”.
You know, for your safety.
There is a good argument to be made for a performance hybrid ie: The LaFerrari. It uses the instant-on torque of an electric motor to compensate for the spool up time a turbocharged gas engine takes. The 0-60 times are epic. I have no problem with using electricity to overcome initial inertia. It’s a good idea. What I do have a problem with is our betters tampering with my live and freedom.
Don’t forget the Porsche 918, either. That was a killer car!