Do Electric Cars Pencil Out?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A good way to think about what they’re trying to take away from us is to consider what ten gallons of gasoline weighs.

The figure is about 63 pounds, each gallon weighing just over six pounds. That 63 pounds of liquid energy will power a piston-engined car that averages 30 miles-per-gallon about 300 miles. 

A standard issue Tesla Model 3 goes about 263 miles on the solid-state energy contained in more than 1,000 pounds of battery pack. To put this in liquid-energy equivalent, 1,000 pounds of gasoline would be about 158 gallons of regular unleaded. That quantity of fuel would be enough to power the 30 MPG piston-engined car in our example above some 4,740 miles.   

Which is more “efficient”?

Interestingly, it the piston-engined car also travels farther as it consumes the liquid energy it carries, because it carries around less weight as it burns up its fuel supply. The electric car, on the other hand, is just as heavy when it is fully charged as it is when it is fully discharged. 

There is also no “energy penalty” for storing liquid energy. So long as the tank isn’t leaking, there won’t be less energy available when the piston-engined car’s owner wishes to drive somewhere – even if he left the car sitting for a month after having pumped in those 10 gallons. They do not evaporate or become less energy-dense. The tank requires no energy to preserve the energy it contains. 

Electric car batteries, on the other hand, consume energy even when their energy isn’t being used . . . to power the car. But it is necessary to power the heater that maintains the temperature of the battery, which must be kept above a certain threshold in order to avoid damaging it and to maintain its capacity to receive a charge. Which it will require, after sitting for a month – unless it was hooked up to a charger, using energy that way.

More so, if it’s very cold out.  

How about cost-per-mile? 

It is cheaper to charge up an electric car than to refuel a piston-engined car.

A Tesla 3 with the standard 50 kilowatt-hour battery costs about $10 to fully recharge; equipped with the upgrade 82 kilowatt-hour battery and the cost to fully recharge goes up to about $14. This is still much less than the roughly $32 it takes (at current per gallon cost of about $3.20) to buy ten gallons of liquid energy.

But is it cheap enough to make up for the cost of the electric car, itself?

A Tesla Model 3 with the 263 mile battery pack lists for $41,990. Excepting its electric drivetrain, it is otherwise similar to other small sedans such as the Audi A3, which lists for $33,900 – a difference “up front” of $8,090.

The Tesla goes 262 miles on about ten dollar’s worth of solid-state energy. The A3 goes more than 400 miles on 14.5 gallons’ worth of liquid energy (more than 500 miles on the highway) which costs its owner about $46 (at $3.20 per gallon).

To travel the same distance as the A3, the Tesla would have to receive an additional $5 or so of kilowatt-hour-equivalent energy, bringing the savings down to about $31 to travel roughly the same distance per charges in the Tesla vs. tankful (singular) in the Audi.

It works out to about $124 per month in the the Tesla’ favor. But only in isolation. One cannot ignore the other cost difference – the $8,090 additional that the Tesla cost vs. the Audi. It will take about six years of driving to “work off” that sum ($124 times twelve months equals $1,488 times six years equals $8,928).

The costs of recharging also varies – depending on the power demands of the battery pack in the particular electric car. As in the example above of the cost of charging up the base vs. optional-battery’d Tesla.

This is interesting because it does not cost any more to put however many gallons of liquid energy into the tank of a V8 muscle car or pick-up than it does to put the same quantity of liquid energy into the tank of a four cylinder-powered economy car such as a Hyundai Accent. 

A Tesla 3 with the standard 50 kilowatt-hour battery costs about $10 to recharge; equipped with the upgrade 82 kilowatt-hour battery and the cost to fully recharge goes up to about $14. And of course, the higher-powered the electric car is, the more power it uses. This is of course true of higher-powered piston-engined cars as well; however, they all cost exactly the same to fill with the same volume of liquid energy.

But the electric car can be recharged at home. This is said to save time, which is a way of saving money. The problem here is how much time it costs to recharge the EV at home.

The perception of this time can be made favorable if it is convenient to recharge the car while you sleep, overnight. But if you need the car before it has had time to charge up it can be extremely inconvenient.

Finally, the electric car us said to save the planet. But this assumes, first of all, it needs “saving” (like people needing “vaccines”) and that it can be “saved” by driving cars that use more energy than the cars they mean to replace. There is a great deal of energy tied up within 1,000 pounds of one one electric car’s battery pack – and it takes an enormous amount of energy to power up that battery pack. It will take an almost inconceivable amount of energy to power up millions of 1,000-plus pound EV battery packs.

Until the arrival of Mr. Fusion, electric cars aren’t “saving” anything – whether in terms of dollars or the planet.

. . .

Got a question about cars, bikes, or Sickness Psychosis? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me at if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!

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 or sticker or coaster 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 magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at and I will send you a copy directly!


  1. >They are programmed to predict rapid dangerous global warming because that’s what governments pay the scientists for.
    And I say that is rubbish.
    >I call them computer games
    You are welcome to call them whatever you like.
    >climate models is not accurate.
    And your professional qualifications for so stating are? Have you actually examined any climate models *IN* *DETAIL*? Have you the scientific knowledge required to intelligently criticize them?
    My guess (could be wrong) is that you do not, but are just BSing, because your assertion suits your prejudices.

    I do not claim sufficient knowledge or expertise to critique the work of experts in this field. However, I did earn an S.B. in physical chemistry, long ago (1970), and do have industry experience working in atmospheric sciences.

    As it happens, I was once personally acquainted with the presenter of the video to which I linked upthread, and can vouch for his personal integrity. I will thank you not to impugn the character of Prof. Prinn, or any of his associates, absent evidence which points in that direction, of which I expect you will find absolutely none.

    >If the leftists were not climate crazies, they would be Covid crazies
    Many of them appear top be both.
    >or they’d invent some other boogeyman
    Correct, at least IMO, because their main disease is the desire to control the lives of other humans.

    • When scientists make simulations / projections / predictions using computer models. one does not need a BS degree to determine whether those predictions matched reality. We have 40 years of predictions that consistently do NOT match observations. That means the models, as a group, are wrong.

      Since the over-predictions of global warming have NOT been reduced with model revisions over the past 40 years, it is logical to assume accurate predictions are NOT the primary goal of the models.

      So what is the goal?

      There have been predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming for at least 65 years. The models, as a group, have predicted rapid dangerous global warming for about 40 years. It would appear the models are being used to back up the much older human predictions. Both the computer models and human predictions that began in 1957 have consistently over predicted actual global warming. They have consistently over predicted global warming for 65 years (scientist forecasts) and 40 years (computer models). That’s a poor track record.

      On average, the climate models have predicted a global warming rate more than 100% higher than the measured global warming rate since 1950. CO2 levels HAVE been rising since 1950, so there is no logical reason to ignore the 1950 to 1975 period, which is often done. The average global warming over prediction since 1975 is close to +100% too high.

      These inaccurate predictions have NOT been reduced in the past 40 years.

      In fact, the latest batch of computer games (CMIP6) are predicting a faster rate of global warming than the prior batch of computer games (CMIP5).

      In addition, the ONE computer model that least over predicts the rate of global warming, the Russian INM model, gets no special attention.

      It is merely binned with dozens of other models, all of which over predict the global warming rate by a greater amount, so INM “gets lost in the crowd”.

      In the field of weather forecasting, the weather models that are the most accurate get the most attention. That’s common sense. With climate models, the best model gets no specific attention. That’s science fraud, in my opinion.

      A person with climate science knowledge might pick at least one sentence in my comment, and try to refute what I have written You make no such attempt — instead you respond with generic, childish character attacks.

  2. What happens to electric rates in an environment of chronic inflation? One answer is to review the minutes of the last meeting, in the inflationary 1970s:

    ‘As energy prices increased and as technological progress in generating electricity failed to mitigate those higher prices, customers and others quickly became disenchanted with the utility system.

    ‘Having paid only 2.2 cents per kWh in 1969 (in current terms), the average residential customer in 1977 paid almost double that rate–just over 4 cents.’

    Not only that, but as the linked article details, supply chain issues bogged down new power plant construction projects, and high interest rates further punished utilities undertaking capital projects.

    With their incoherent green agenda, count on the Bidenites to follow the 1970s playbook of wrecking electric utilities, then passing on their bloated costs to the victims — US.

    FJB with a fence post auger.

    • A year ago, Texas was hit with a massive winter storm. Some were without electricity and others like my area had rolling blackouts. We’ve had storms like this before but never with such loss of power. Afterward we horrified to learned that 40% of our electricity now comes from windmills and solar panels over in West Texas and neither was working – frozen, snow covered. Other fossil fuel power plants were down for their normal inspections getting ready for the summer heat.

  3. Let’s just say it and say it again:

    Vaccines failed-They do not work. (Sorry Orange Man, your claim to fame is a failure)

    Electric Cars Failed-They are not practical and never will be.

    • Vaccines do work to reduce Covid symptoms, but not for Omicron. Just not for long, and the side effects are the worst in the history of vaccines.

      The long term adverse side effects are unknown, but after the horrible short term adverse side effects, I can’t imagine they will be minor. Those who get boosters every six months will always have spike proteins in their body. That sounds like a big risk to me.

      Electric cars have not failed.
      They are just waiting for much better and cheaper batteries.
      Electric golf carts work well.
      Electric hi-lo’s work well.
      Electric scooters, bicycles and motorcycles work well for short trips. There are some really cheap electric “city cars” in China that sell well. Maybe they are fancy golf carts?

      Electric automobiles competed with gasoline powered automobiles from about 1880 to 1920. Even Thomas Edison had to admit gasoline was better than electric.

      That’s still true today, but there are advantages of a hybrid electric / gas system for automobiles, at least for people who drive enough each year to offset the extra cost. The hybrid batteries seem to last longer the EV batteries do. That hybrid technology works, so naturally the green dreamers don’t like it.

      The low rpm torque of an electric motor is an advantage over internal combustion engine automobiles. In fact an electric vehicle can be better than an ICE vehicle until you have to recharge the batteries — then it’s a loser.

      The mining and manufacturing to build an electric vehicle and its batteries will increase CO2 emissions a lot — and it would take a lot of EV driving to offset those CO2 emissions. Maybe never in my area, where DTE Energy uses over 60% coal for electricity. For unknown reasons, for several years almost all the Teslas in the Detroit suburbs were painted black. I used to call them “60% coal cars”.

      • Richard,
        I’ll say it again: THE VACCINES DO NOT WORK. A vaccine was supposed to impart immunity to the recipient. If all this jab does is lessen the symptoms, then it is a *therapeutic*. And there are good and safe therapeutics that don’t require taking a jab from an experiment.

        I’ll say it again: ELECTRIC VEHICLES ARE NOT PRACTICAL. These are toys for the rich and deluded to show their virtue signaling off to others of their group psychosis mindset.

        Richard, you’ve bought have of what they are selling. You might as well go all *in*. Go big or go home.

        • Indeed, Hans!

          The deliberately obfuscatory manner in which these (ahem) therapeutics were presented as “vaccines” is one of the many serial outrages that define this whole “pandemic.”

          I am certain it was done in this manner out of necessity – from the point of those pushing these drugs, for reasons of profit or something worse. If they admitted to people that these drugs did not prevent people from getting (and so, spreading) the illness then they are not vaccines and forcing people to take them is particularly despicable.

        • And as I have been saying for many years, the idea behind the politics is to make automobiles back into toy for the rich. All the while retaining the taxes and so on so the rich have roads to drive on.

    • The entire environmental movement, while beneficial in the long run, has become a totally irrational exercise in sheer stupidity, colossal boobidity, a madly irrational waste of limited resources, and will ultimately end with the final dissolution of the USofA, and sooner than later.

      The fondest dream of liberal America is do away with the 2d Admendment – it’s no mere accident or coincidence that the most violent states in our nation are those with the most restrictive gun laws, whilst places like WY, ND, and TX are the most peaceful.

      • The environmental movement used to be what it obviously should be conservative. Because it conserved things and because it was property rights based. The horrors that are pointed to anytime someone opposes the latest watermelon idea were due to the government going against property rights and not defending the commons. Anyways the lefties figured out it could be used to bring about their goals and took it over. They don’t care less about the environment as evident by how communist countries go about doing things and how China is given a pass.

        • Hi, Brent,
          Years ago, there were people known as “conservationists.” Such people were interested in *conserving* nature, and were therefore … conservative! What a concept. A goodly number of conservationists were actually in touch with nature, and engaged in such activities as hunting and fishing.

          Today’s “environmentalists,” as far as I can tell, tend to be city folk, whose “connection” to nature consists of an occasional hike, on an “approved” trail. Probably very few of them harvest wild animals for food, or grow their own fruits & vegetables.

          Different mindset, entirely. Watermelons (Communists with a “green” wrapper) is a good description for many of them. Others seem to be just clueless.

    • Hi, 37,
      I do not expect to see it in my lifetime. My guess (and that is all it is) is that fusion power will become reality sometime later this century. If I had go place a bet, I would bet on:
      Pilot plant: circa 2040
      Routine production: circa 2050

      Just a guess. I bet my money on the bobtail nag, somebody bet on the bay.

  4. In Elon’s semi truck you will need 20 pounds of battery for every one pound of diesel fuel. Who is going to sacrifice that kind of cargo capacity without the political terrorists threatening to kidnap you at gunpoint and lock you in a cage?

    • Hi Myron,

      The costs of electrifying commercial trucks will of course be born by those who buy the goods shipped – whenever they arrive. The cost of everything will go up even more than it already has. A day may come when a can of beans costs $5. Maybe more.

      • An 8 pack of green beans briefly went to $9 at our nearby Sam’s Club before they knocked the price back to what they used to charge for a pack of 12 — $6-7.

        Nothing special. Del Monte. Anything Bush’s is regularly above $1/can.

    • I don’t see EV working at all for towing loads of any kind.
      Just my towing a 5K lb trailer for 5-6hrs requires 30gal of gas.
      That equals a 1000Kwh battery needed. Current/proposed light duty trucks are claiming under 200kwh batteries. hahahahaa…………….
      Can’t wait for the first owner of an EV truck that tries to tow his boat/RV to his vacation/weekend getaway and gets maybe 50-60 miles.

    • The tractor trailer truck batteries would need to be smaller and lighter with some way for a battery pack quick replacement, with fully charged batteries. Otherwise it would take a long time to recharge the batteries at a truck stop, while the truck driver gets paid to sit and wait for a long time.

      • Richard G: Truckers park at truck stops overnight already. By law they can only drive 500 to 700 miles a day. (11 hours per day up to 70hours per week at less than the poasted speedlimit under electronic monitoring. They are paid per mile, not per hour. Supposidly trucks can go 500 miles per 1000kwh. And truckers need to take a 1 hour lunch break mid drive anyways. Aside from installing a gigawatt of chargers at every large truck stop, and terawats of generators & transmission lines, stripmining every thirdworld country for lithium, nickle copper and cobalt, theres no downside to the transition to ev trucks. Assuming 1 mwh battery packs and that every trucker can park at a megawatt charger for his lunch break, 100kw chargers overnight and that elon is accurate in his range predictions Truckers can simply charge overnight and rapid charge at lunch to go the normal distance. And his truck will drive its self most of the time.

        • Truckers are paid by the mile but sitting and waiting for the truck to charge isn’t going to get them any money. Truckers are not required to take a 1 hour lunch break midway. They can work for 14 hours a day of which 11 can be driving. After driving for 8 hours, they have to take a 30 minute break which may or may not fall at a location where there’s a truck stop. A fuel stop – if no waiting is required – can take about 15-20 minutes. There are frequently trucks lined up to get fuel and one gets what they need and moves – either back on the road or to another parking spot. Imagine if the truck needs to sit there for an hour or several hours to get charged. The driver isn’t making money during that time. If that charging time goes against his hours on duty, he certainly isn’t going to make 500 miles a day especially if he has to wait an hour or two on others before getting to the charging station.

          • As I said, every truck parking spot would have to have a charger electric trucks would always have to park at chargers. In that sense it would be more convenient than pumps. Park, plug in, get lunch leave. Or park, plug in, go to bed, unplug when you get up. Obviously truckers don’t always take a proper lunch, but e- trucks might need to recharge mid day. Could also put chargers at the warehouses to recharge while they unload/reload

            • Hi Anon,

              My answer is to ask a question: If all this electrification is such a grand idea – saves us money, etc. – then why must it be forced upon us? Surely, if it made more economic and practical sense to power an over-the-road truck with batteries rather than diesel, the trucking industry would dump diesels tomorrow – on their own.

            • Who pays for all of that? The truckers park at the rest stops along I-294. Those are paid through tolls. Illinois loves raising tolls. How much will these trucker chargers cost me?

              Furthermore the truck stops often fill up and as a result trucks are parked along the ramps on and off the rest stop. Sometimes on to the shoulder nearby. How will the truckers mandated by law to stop driving charge their trucks if all the spots are taken?

              • When the charger stops are full, the Drivers on the shoulder can send an alert to dispatch an electric truck carrying a diesel generator to charge it enough to get to the truck stop once a spot opens up. Same thing for weather related closures. Just need a fleet of electric trucks carrying generators to keep the batteries from freezing

                • Optimum ride:
                  “Electric” pickup with a diesel engine & generator in the bed, plus saddle tanks to supply the diesel engine, in order to power the electric wheel motors.

                  Just like a railroad locomotive, in other words.

        • You’ll need 2MWH batteries for 500 miles if using them between 20% and 80% to preserve the batteries. At $100 per kWH, that would be $200,000 for the 2.0 MWh of batteries. Might have to stop before 500 miles because chargers won’t be exactly 500 miles apart. Range would be significantly less than 500 miles in cold weather.

    • Fuel cell electric is the only thing that will work in big trucks, 10 minute fueling and no 20,000? lb battery. a 20,000? lb battery means you haul 20,000 lb less cargo. You can’t spend hours and hours charging, that is too much down time. you can only use battery capacity between 20% and 80%, that is only 60%, now subtract up to 50% more in very cold climates = very short range.

      The batteries are so expensive to replace the numbers look really bad, these big diesel rigs go 1 million miles. If the battery goes at 100,000 miles like the tesla, you have a huge repair bill at 100,000 miles (in 1 or 2 years), with a diesel no rebuild till 1 million miles.

      The tesla when driven at ten tenths on a race track used 80 miles range in 8 miles driving.

      So you are driving your battery powered semi truck up a mountain with a huge load, it is maxed out ten tenths, wide open, then your range drops 80%, you are screwed, diesels range does not drop 80% when using full power, gas powered cars don’t either. EV’s at full throttle losing 80% of their range is a huge problem, ice vehicles do not do this, better just drive your EV around town at 30 mph like grandma, at full throttle you will have no range, phone the tow truck..

  5. Lots of problems with EV’s

    Worldwide 80% of electricity is produced by oil, gas and coal. electric cars aren’t zero emission they are remote emission. In China most teslas are coal powered.

    The new gas powered cars run so clean they have very very low emissions, very close to zero like .00001% contaminants. The exhaust coming out of a modern diesel is cleaner then the air in a big city. ICE engines will be banned because they are not zero emission, .00001% contaminants is too high, this is leftist insanity.

    EV’s pollute more
    NOTE: The biggest pollutant emitted from new cars because they have so low emissions are from tires wearing out while driving, tire particles.
    ATTENTION: Electric cars weigh 50% more than gas powered cars so have higher tire wear, so EV’s pollute more.

    Below 90% charge EV performance keeps dropping, at 10% charge it is down quite a bit. ICE cars on a quarter tank are quicker because they got lighter.

    ATTENTION: Only 5% of electric car batteries are recycled, a huge pollution problem.

    In their entire life cycle including manufacturing, electric cars in total pollute far more than gas powered cars, people don’t seem to understand that the vast majority of a car’s carbon footprint is made during manufacture and scrapping. Running the car, not so much. EV’s pollute far more, the leftists lied to you.

    Most electric cars are designed as performance cars so they use far more energy and resources than they should. (the government regulations don’t allow the manufacture of small light electric cars which would make more sense, china does).

    Recharging costs:
    The grid can’t handle large numbers of electric cars recharging, if all cars are electric the grid capacity has to be increased 500%. There is already power shortages, blackouts in many countries with electricity costs rapidly rising, when electricity prices go up 400% your old ice vehicle will look cheap to run.

    Open pit lithium mining for battery manufacture, often done with child slave labour, is worse then tar sands mining.

    The biggest problem…….EV fires:
    Enormous amounts of water are required: tactically, this may mean using a master stream, 2½-inch or multiple 1¾-inch fire lines, to suppress and cool the fire. Vehicle fires don’t typically call for surround-and-drown tactics, but these are not typical vehicle fires. so you need multiple fire trucks to put out the fire, this is insanity.

    One example: the flames on the Tesla were extinguished, it reignited again. Firefighters began hosing it down with copious amounts of water, up to 200 gallons per minute, but “that did not extinguish the flames,” according to the NTSB. At approximately 9:13 p.m., nearly three hours after the first alarm was received, firefighters had to pour out more than 600 gallons of water per minute. In the end the agency used 20,000 gallons of water. these should be banned from the road…..

    Then the fire still isn’t put out……..Batteries can be expected to reignite after being put out because they still have stored energy. 15 hours later it catches fire again…
    “Battery fires can take up to 24 hours to extinguish”….. the vehicle must be parked under “quarantine” for 48 hours, so that no new fire can break out.
    Batteries are difficult to extinguish, and they can burst into flames again several hours later –ATTENTION: in some cases, right up to a week later
    ……… and they allow people to buy these abortions.

    ATTENTION: EV’s can’t replace ICV’s because………global capacity for the materials for EV batteries can’t replace even 3% of fossil fuel vehicles.

    Electric cars are expensive, they are only for the rich, but they are heavily subsidized by the government with taxpayer’s money, including taxes from the poor, the poor subsidizing the rich. the poor can walk. electric cars, toys for the rich.

    NOTE: The first people to buy electric cars were the most sold on the idea, the biggest believers, 20% of them are switching back to ice powered cars because of the inconvenience factor, the charging time hassle.

    Another problem EV shares with new ice powered vehicles: Electronic components have a limited life, even if you do not use them. It’s the nature of the P-N junction that forms a transistor.

    During the first three months of ownership, EVs were 2.3 times as expensive to service as gasoline-powered cars. At the 12-month mark, repair costs were about 1.6 times what owners of gas-powered cars paid.
    It’s Not Parts. It’s Labor

    Electric cars depreciate over two times faster than their internal combustion engine counterparts, a serious black mark when it comes to tallying up your actual yearly cost to run your vehicle!

    So the new electric vehicles like the new computerized ice vehicles will have a limited lifespan, when these electronics fail the car will be scrap, too expensive to fix, more recycling and waste. Only buy cars with no computers.

    A 1913 Bugatti type 22 is 108 years old and daily driven. A Tesla is scrap after 10 years.

    But mechanical systems, like Jay Leno’s 1832 steam engine can last for centuries, get a steam powered car, they run on wood.
    Steam powered cars have the same advantage as electric cars, instant torque.

    • 25 Problems With Tesla Nobody Talks About

      insurance premiums are high for these vehicles.

      Tesla recommends drivers invest in their maintenance plans that include a thorough inspection of the vehicle every 12,000 miles. The prices vary based on the year and model of the car, as well as which specific plan the driver chooses, but standalone inspections range anywhere from $475 to $750 per visit (not including repairs). A four-year maintenance plan is around $2,500.

      A few new Tesla owners have experienced problems with the steering wheel locking up while turning

      There is a defect in their partial self driving system, sometimes they just lock the brakes up because the system thought it saw something.

      Tesla’s can sometimes be uncharted territory for mechanics—this is a relatively new technology, after all—so it may take several days, and sometimes even weeks, before owners get to see their cars again. What’s worse is that many of these technical difficulties aren’t fully resolved during the first visit

      the emergency handle is near where a door handle normally would be, but if it’s pulled too often it can and will crack the window.

      owners have been extremely let down to find that their overpriced electric vehicle has scratches all over their car and bulges in the windshield.

      the price to insure a Tesla tends to be more than the average vehicle.

      Someone drove one at 10 tenths on the race track, on the straights the abs worked, when it went over a bump the brakes locked up and it crashed backwards off the track and it used 80 miles of range in 8 miles, what happens if you drive fast?
      You need someone like Colin Chapman, who was an English design engineer, inventor, and builder in the automotive industry, to build cars, Musk studied ecomomics and was into software, Tesla is all about trick software..

      Another problem with teslas, they are poorly engineered, there is a very unsettling vertical movement when driving down the road at speed where there is bumps, this gives people motion sickness, they should come with aircraft type barf bags.

      Another problem, they are unstable, all over the road at high speed and the brakes are horrible. The residual value of a tesla after 10 years is zero, because that battery is dead .

      Tesla’s autopilot cannot detect stationary vehicles, so if you rely heavily on this feature then you may be in for a rude awakening. You could yourself slamming into a non-moving vehicle.

      Tesla has been accused of having a fatality rate that’s more than triple what you see in luxury vehicles.

      As you may now well know, Tesla drivers are much more likely to get into an accident than other vehicles. Though Elon Musk doesn’t want you to know about this little fact,

      There’s a common problem with Teslas experiencing rattling in several areas of the cars. Owners have taken their cars to service centers numerous times for this issue but a very rare few have seen the annoyance resolved

      • Hi Anon,

        Electric cars will enshrine Clover-type driving out of necessity. When people realize that their EV’s range is hugely dependent upon a very light right foot/gentle inputs you will see mass docility/timidity on the roads. It’s a Clover’s wet dream.

        PS: I have driven a few EVs and know this to be so. Drive it with gusto and the range disappears just as fast as the gas in the tank of a Hellcat Charger. But you can’t refuel the EV in 5 minutes, anywhere.

    • “Electric cars weigh 50% more than gas powered cars so have higher tire wear, so EV’s pollute more.”

      Baloney. Not close to 50% heavier.
      EVs weigh 500 to 1000lbs. more than a similar size ICE vehicle, which is typically in the range of +15% to +30% more. Few people care about tire wear particulate matter. It’s all about CO2 emissions. And they depend a lot on the source of electricity and how many miles you drive over the life of the EV.

      A retired fireman told me he’s glad he never had to fight an EV fire before he retired. Heard bad stories about them. Told me he’s rather climb a tree to rescue a cat, than fight an EV fire. I think that was an old fireman’s joke.

      • Hi Richard,

        A Tesla3 weighs 3,880 lbs. An Audi A3 (similar size/type of car) weighs 3,329 lbs. So the difference in this case is about 500 pounds. It’s a substantial weight penalty that has an efficiency cost. I think that’s the point here; viz – EVs are not “efficient.” Arguably, they’re quite wasteful. They may not burn gas. But that doesn’t mean they don’t burn money.

        Or produce those dread C02 gasses. Far more of them than they would if they didn’t emphasize power/performance, as most EVs do.

      • The new gas powered cars run so clean they have very very low emissions, very close to zero like .00001% contaminants. The exhaust coming out of a modern diesel is cleaner then the air in a big city. ICE engines will be banned because they are not zero emission, .00001% contaminants is too high, this is leftist insanity.

        EV’s pollute more
        NOTE: The biggest pollutant emitted from new cars because they have so low emissions are from tires wearing out while driving, tire particles.

        ATTENTION: Electric cars weigh more than gas powered cars so have higher tire wear, so EV’s pollute more. Teslas eat tires because they are heavy.

        Few people care about tire wear particulate matter…..that is the biggest pollutant now….very stupid remark…

        You are clueless again.

        • Hi Anon,

          You’re absolutely right about this – about the non-issue of modern vehicle exhaust “emissions,” which approach zero. But that’s not good enough. It must be actually “zero” – even if there is no provable harm caused by nearly zero. Even if the “zero” alternative isn’t “zero,” either.

          • Pollution from tire wear 1,000 times worse than exhaust emissions


            tesla weights
            5,390 lbs – Model X Plaid
            5,185 lbs – Model X Long Range
            4,766 lbs – Model S Plaid
            4,561 lbs – Model S Long Range
            4,416 lbs – Model Y Long Range/Performance
            4,065 lbs – Model 3 Long Range/Performance

            Passat (B8, facelift) | 2019-2020 2974 lb.

            • In Japan, as environmental efforts to regulate particulate
              substances, environmental standards were established in
              Dust Resulting from Tire Wear and the Risk of Health Hazards

              1973, including the definition of suspended particulate
              substances as particles with a diameter of 10 μm or less
              that stay airborne for a relatively long period and are
              absorbed by the respiratory system, and general measures
              for atmospheric environment conservation have been
              implemented. In recent years, there has been concern
              over the adverse health effects of microscopic particles
              with a diameter of 2.5 μm or less (SPM 2.5) among sus-
              pended particulate matter because they can easily enter
              deep into the respiratory system and a variety of harmful
              constituents are absorbed by them or attached to their
              surface. Western countries ar e considering setting envi-
              ronmental targets for not only common suspended par-
              ticulate matter, but also microscopic particles [9]. First,
              this paper discusses the particle diameter of tire dust,
              suspended particulate matter, to examine the adverse
              health effects of dust resulting from tire wear

              • In their entire life cycle including manufacturing, electric cars in total pollute far more than gas powered cars, people don’t seem to understand that the vast majority of a car’s carbon footprint is made during manufacture and scrapping. Running the car, not so much. EV’s pollute far more, the leftists lied to you.

                the leftist liars don’t want you to know this other large problem with the EV’s they are ramming down your throat, the very heavy vehicle increased tire pollution issue, they always lie and cover up. small light EV’s for use around town would make more sense.

              • Dust Resulting from Tire Wear and the Risk of Health Hazards

                1973, including the definition of suspended particulate
                substances as particles with a diameter of 10 μm or less
                that stay airborne for a relatively long period and are
                absorbed by the respiratory system, and general measures
                for atmospheric environment conservation have been
                implemented. In recent years, there has been concern
                over the adverse health effects of microscopic particles
                with a diameter of 2.5 μm or less (SPM 2.5) among sus-
                pended particulate matter because they can easily enter
                deep into the respiratory system and a variety of harmful
                constituents are absorbed by them or attached to their

                the guy coughed they said it was covid, it could have been just a goodyear tire in there….haha
                go to the hospital and they will force feed you remdesivir and jam a ventilator down your throat, kill you and collect up to $100,000

  6. How about BEV battery longevity? Do they last for decades if the vehicle does not have many miles on the engine (which is generally the case for a regular I.C.E. car)?

    • Suppose we have an example of a 20-year-old I.C.E. car vs. 20-year-old B.E.V.; each has been driven a total of 100,000 miles. The I.C.E. car will almost certainly have a lot of life left in the engine, but the B.E.V. will almost certainly have needed a new battery before the 20 year period is up, despite not having many miles. Age of the battery array (in the B.E.V.) is a factor, but age of the engine in the I.C.E. is not.

      This attribute alone (considering the extreme high cost of replacing a B.E.V. battery array) is enough to make me not want one, let alone all the other negative attributes of a B.E.V.

    • Hi Dood,

      It’s kind of a paradox with EV batteries in that if you use the car regularly (and subject the battery to frequent heavy discharge/recharge cycling) it will need a new battery much sooner. In other words, the way to make an EV “last” is to not use it much.

      • It depends on the battery chemistry. The LiFePo4 (lithium iron phosphate, or LFP) will last quite a long time, but at the cost of less capacity. Your 1,000 lb pack might go 200 miles instead of 284, but it’ll do hundreds of thousands of miles.

        LiPo (Lithium Ion Polymer) which is used in most cars right now, with the exception of the lower range Teslas which use LFP, has the highest capacity per unit weight, but it’s also the most fragile in terms of longevity.

        Electric motors themselves are much simpler and will work a hundred years from now. There’s no oil to gel, no pistons to seize, just some bearings to rust.

        • If I’m not mistaken, again, I seem to recall that the very first electric motors powering an elevator in Atlanta Georgia, I believe, are STILL running a hundred years later. I read that quite a number of years ago, so facts may have changed.
          The durability and performance of electric motors has never been in question. Feeding them is. Battery tech simply is not there yet, and like FTL, may never appear.

          • Those elevators have huge motors with much lower performance. Also the mechaincs replace the brushes and or bearings every few years.

            teslas have to package 100x more power in a smaller case. Subject to shock, vibrations, salty, wet, dirty roads high and low rpms. The motor controllers are also quite complicated electronics & software. Again running hundreds of killowatts of varying frequency AC out of a system smaller than some old 20w tube amplifiers. The teslas use somewhere around a 10:1 single speed gear reduction which is a wear item. The liquid cooling system could be damaged. Teslas are as high maintainence as any modern car

              • Hi Anon,

                It’s curious that EVs have had to focus on such things as performance – not that there’s anything wrong with performance – over efficiency and practicality. The Tesla Plaid is an exotic high performance car that happens to be electric. Again, nothing wrong with that – as such. But it’s absurd to consider such a car anything other than what it is.

                • tesla’s whole marketing plan

                  it is green, in reality it isn’t

                  0 to 60 quicker then anything

                  if it wasn’t for that they would sell far less cars probably…

                • you can put a 19 to 1 diff in anything and it would be quick, but the top speed would be 50 mph

                  the new Z06 Corvette has a 5:40 to 1 diff, that is pretty agressive

                  • Z06 has multiple overdrive gears, so it probably pulls around 2000 rpm at 100 mph in top gear. You haven’t needed the taller final gears since the days of 3/4 speed gearboxes

      • operating Li-ion batteries outside the safety zone (i.e. 20%–80%) state of charge, a loss in conductivity can be observed

        You can only use 60% of the advertised range, in cold weather subtract 20% more, so what is the real world range?

  7. 50 kwh consumed when the battery is discharged to zero driving the EV.

    240 volts times 20 amps is 4800 watts charged into the battery in one hour. 4.8 kilowatts, ten hours of charge, full charge. It’s all about flow of electrons, how can you charge your dead battery with no electricity? New acid and lead, for one. Electricity is a horse of a different color. Amps times the Volts equals the Watts.

    James Watt figured out how to improve efficiency in a steam engine, then Nikola Tesla improved the animal.

    5 kwh times 12 cents per kwh times 10 hours equals 6.00 USD. For one full charge.

    Ten kilowatt hours consumed for each 50 miles of distance traveled, 250 miles of range.

    It’ll be less than that by 20 percent, 200 miles for every 50 kwh consumed.

    An hour of driving per day, 40 miles, in thirty days, you will have 30 hours of time logged driving the EV.

    You have to meter the electrons coming and going. If don’t know how much is gone, you’ll find out when it’s all gone.

    300 kwh consumed, 36 USD at 12 cents per kilowatt hour.

    1200 miles distance, about three cents per mile for the cost of electricity.

    42 grand for a Tesla, buy a good used vehicle for 10,000 dollars. You’ll have 32,000 dollars to buy gasoline. Can’t spend it all at once, takes time to burn through 10,000 gallons of fuel. 20 mpg, you can go 200,000 miles. With some good luck, it won’t cost much to insure and maintain your 10,000 dollar vehicle.

    200,000 miles of battery use will be 5,000 hours of driving, 40 miles burns 10 kwh.

    50,000 kwh used to travel 200,000 miles. Six thousand dollars of electricity to drive 200,000 miles.

    200,000/25=8000 gallons of fuel. 25,600 dollars in gasoline expense to drive 200,000 miles.

    You’ll save about 7000 dollars if you drive the 200,000 miles at 25 mpg.

    It’ll cost more to insure the electric vehicle, you pay more for the convenience to charge the battery at charging stations.

    One ton of coal can produce 2,500 kwh of electricity, translates to 20 tons of coal to charge an EV to travel 200,000 miles. 20 tons of coal to power an EV 200,000 miles is going to take 2,000,000,000 tons of coal to charge 100,000,000 EVs

    20 years of driving 10,000 miles per year will consume two billion tons of coal with one hundred million EVs in use every day driving 40 miles per day.

    You’ll burn 100 million tons of coal each year to charge the batteries in EVs at 100,000,000 of them in use.

    8.5 billion ton worldwide consumption will increase to 8.6 billion ton each year.

    A billion EVs crawling around the planet will increase coal consumption by one billion ton per year or 9.5 billion tons total.

    One billion ICE vehicles not burning gas, off the road, will eliminate 15 trillion miles of fuel being burned. 500 billion gallons of gasoline not burned with one billion EVs replacing all ICEs not there. About 15 billion barrels of oil saved in a year, 100 million barrels of crude oil consumed per day, 365 x 100,000,000 = 36,500,000,000 barrels of crude consumed each year, there will be a significant savings in the form of joules expended.

    It’s all in the math. The numbers don’t lie. Just too much waste driving an ICE vehicle compared to the electric mobility there is now.

    Too much jonesin’ for a gallon of gas. Quit being so selfish and greedy, you have to share with the elites so they can be selfish and greedy at your expense. You’ll have nothing, they’ll be happy with all you’ve got.

    Run along, nothing to see.

    He’s a wino, tried and true.
    Done about everything there is to do.
    He worked on freighters, he worked in bars.
    He worked on farms, ‘n he worked on cars.
    It was white port, that put that look in his eye
    That grown men get when they need to cry
    And he sat down on the curb to rest
    And his head just fell down on his chest

    – Guy Clark, Let Him Roll

    • >5 kwh times 12 cents per kwh
      i live in inland SoCal, ZIP code 92882.
      My electric utility is So Cal Edison.
      In December 2021 I used 485 kwh.
      SCE charged me:
      375 kwh @ $0.24 (Tier 1)
      110 kwh @ $0.32 (Tier 2)

      If I had an EV, it is possible(?) I would exceed Tier 2 limit, and be charged incrementally at “High Usage Charge” = $0.40/kwh.

      You are welcome to plug those (real world) numbers into your spreadsheet and recalculate. 🙂

      City of L.A., City of Anaheim, and City of Riverside all have their own electric power utility. I do not know their rates.

      In Sqn Diego County, there is San Diego Gas and Electric, a.k.a. San Diego Gouge and Extort, which notoriously has rates significantly higher than SCE.

      • Here in Taxachusetts the average kWh is 20 cents, so no great savings vs ICE; plus the uber greenies want everyone to go “all electric”. Right. Wonder how that worked out for the 60k+ who lost their power in the blizzard last weekend. Not only are your teeth chattering you won’t be going anywhere because your EV will have used most of its charge to keep the battery from freezing during the single digit temperatures.
        I love my gas furnace, the PTB will have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

        • Hi, Mike,
          I am old enough (born 1949) to remember the “all electric” propaganda from the 1950s. Back in those days, we were ass-u-re(a)d that nuclear (fission) power would be “too cheap to meter” (didn’t work out that way) and G.E., et. al., were pushing the “all electric” home. Ho, hum. Not sure how well a heat pump will work when outside air temp is -20F.

          Are oil fired power plants still common in New England?
          Back in 1971, I worked for a consulting firm which was hired by NEGEA Service Corp. (HQ in Central Square, Cambridge) to do an ambient air quality study for Canal Electric in Sandwich. CE wanted to construct a second (oil fired) generator, and had to convince EPA that ambient SO2 levels would not exceed EPA standards.

          I believe Canal Electric eventually got their permit, though I am not sure, as I left before the study was complete.

          • Too cheap to meter technology is likely out there, but we’ll never see it. The whole idea is far too disruptive.
            The idea is to go the other way, make energy scarce and expensive.
            In the 1950s there were still enough free loving people to put the idea out there and strive for it. That’s how all we solve the world’s problems, better and cheaper year over year. If it wasn’t for authoritarians, collectivists, control freaks of other types, banksters, etc we’d be much further along.

            On JRE Jordan Peterson talked about how making the poor richer is what improves the environment. That’s correct. That’s the whole idea. Welfare, and all the rest of the collectivist and crony capitalist tripe makes things worse. It’s a reversion to the mean. Handouts don’t fix problems. Making things so that everyone can afford them does.

            But alas people who think that way are down to a relatively few radicals these days.

          • Hi Turtle,
            Canal still burns oil but it’s the only one I know of that does. Ironically it’s one of the few power plants left in the area; the Pilgrim nuclear plant shut down last year, L Street/New Boston shut down several years ago (also burned oil) and is being turned into waterfront condos – good luck cleaning up all the oil that’s saturated the ground over the decades. Mystic station has one unit left operating that burns gas and rumor has it that one is shutting down in a couple years.
            So the climate hysterics want to go all electric while fighting any attempts to add base load generation and transmission lines to import power from Canada. Think it’s time I bought myself a generator so I can have power when the grid crashes.

            • >So the climate hysterics want to go all electric while fighting any attempts to add base load generation
              Same here, Mike. Idiots, as we both know.
              San Onofre decommissioning is taking many years and many $$$, with costs passed to ratepayers. Diablo Canyon may well be shut down in 2024.

              Not that I am a big fan of fission power plaints (see also Yucca Mountain), but the juice must come from somewhere. Windmills in San Gorgonio Pass ain’t gonna cut it, and neither are heliostats in the Mojave. Meanwhile the virtue signalers drive their oh-so-clean Teslas on electricity from coal fired power plants in Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico.
              Air pollution at the Grand Canyon? Yep, and now you know why.
              >Think it’s time I bought myself a generator
              and maybe a propane refrigerator…
              Pinkard & Bowden:

      • There is an access fee of 49.75 USD each month. I more or less pay for 400 kwh upfront each month to have electricity delivered through the smart meter. If you want electricity to the premises, you pay through the nose to get it there these days.

        Smart meters mean telemetry, the electric power company will know if the meter is pulled, they’ll be there soon to investigate.

        Before Obama, the access fee was 8.00 USD per month.

        Obama is in Massachusetts, cold air today, overnight low of 15 degrees F last night. It is going to be cold next to the ocean waters. I’ll bet Obama’s digs are being heated with fuel oil or natural gas. He ain’t out chopping wood.

        Been -56 degrees F on the top of the Greenland ice sheet. Don’t want to be anywhere near the middle of Greenland today.

        I’ll take 20 gallons of gas, two gallons in a gas can, the rest in the tank. It’s there when you need it. If it all goes away, that’ll be too bad. Feels a lot more reliable than an electric vehicle that could just fail at any time.

        You can always have a diesel engine in a vehicle that will go with vegetable oils.

        Peanut oil is the original Diesel fuel. Can’t really kill the internal combustion engine, internal combustion will live on as long as there are those who will make it happen.

        Plenty of uses for used oil and used vegetable oils.

        Crude oil production could fall to zero, there’ll still be oils from plants.

        It don’t get no greener.

        One thing about machines, they break down, happens all of the time. EVs will break down in ways that they are rendered useless, burnt to a crisp is one way we do see. Self-driving cars just slam into a truck on the road, something doesn’t compute and the battery-powered vehicle crashes and burns. A few glitches can cause some kind of failure, done for.

        Had to replace a wheel bearing on one of the vehicles. Not a big job, but the bearing was stuck from rust and heat. finally used a hammer drill to knock the bearing loose. Problems with machines never cease.

        Bolsheviks can’t really stop any of that.

        • >Obama is in Massachusetts, cold air today, overnight low of 15 degrees F last night.
          Yeah, and when Barry & Michael visit their digs in Kenwood, Chicongo, wind roaring off Lake Michigan will drive air temp to -20F, *without* accounting for wind chill. I guess as ex-Prez he will still be driven about in something like “the Beast,” (hydrocarbon power) and won ‘t have to sweat the severe range degradation for an EV.

          >used a hammer drill to knock the bearing loose
          Will be interesting to read, a few years from now, about the cost of rebuilding electric wheel motors, the which may have their bearings destroyed by driving on icy, salted winter roads in cold climates. Wait & see.

  8. As go ICVs, so go EVs. Fuel, or charge, are less than half the cost of operating a vehicle. Initial cost, depreciation and longevity, insurance, taxes, maintenance all combine to cost more than the fuel/charge. The ICV easily beats the EV on non fuel/charge expense. Especially longevity.

  9. My guess:

    At some point there will have to be major pushback on fully electric cars. They just won’t work for the majority. Unfortunately by that point most if not all fully ICE cars will be discontinued by the automakers.

    By 2030 a new fully ICE (non-hybrid) vehicle will be hard to come by. Even new hybrid ICE could be rare by that point. Do you think the elite would relent a bit and allow some hybrids to continue? I seem to think they want ICE gone completely no matter how much trouble it is. Or will they relent enough to prevent a revolution (that would target them)? Will they allow a few tiny 3 and 4’s cylinders engines to exist to keep the wolves at bay?

    Or do we have to let it completely collapse so we can have our V6’s, V8’s and bigger engines to come back? Would we even be able to make them again, or have to relearn how to? I doubt the automakers have the balls to make them again, if the the regulations went away….

  10. Good article. Another cost of EVs is depreciation, which can depend on the condition of the battery as much as the rest of the car. And the cost of repairs and insurance.

    From a higher level point of view, adding to national electricity demand with more EVs, while making electric grids less reliable with solar and wind energy, has to be very counterproductive. Any mandate to force people to buy electric appliances, and heat their home with electricity, rather than natural gas, will further increase the future electric grid capacity requirements.

    … Speaking of electric grids, Texas will be hit by very cold weather on Wednesday. Lets see how well their windmills and electric grid performs this year ! Not so good in 2021.

    Concerning the need to “save the planet” .
    You were WRONG. And you know it.
    The planet does needs saving … from dingbat LEFTISTS who falsely believe the planet needs saving from the staff of almost all life on the planet — carbon dioxide.

    Leftists say the planet must be saved for the children. Because if not saved, the children will move to other planets. Then grandparents will rarely, if ever, see their grandchildren. Therefore, the planet MUST be saved to keep grandparents happy! I read that in a published peer-reviewed study, written by a big shot climate scientist, so it has to be true.

    • Hi Richard,

      The “climate change” thing is in some ways very much like the “pandemic” in that in both cases, there is an alarming premise presented as fact, based on deliberately exaggerated (or even no real) evidence to postulate a Worst Case Scenario that then justifies extreme countermeasures – none of which are actually necessary.

      It relies on a very effective shuck and jive that begins with the term, itself. “Climate” does “change.” To deny this would be foolish. But the proper questions are:

      How much is the climate changing? What is changing it? Are these forces unnatural? Can these changes be materially affected in a way that will positively alter “climate change”?

      What we have – as I understand it – is a slight degree of natural climate change, involving complex and inter-related mechanisms such as solar activity as well as cyclical factors here on Earth. The measured “change” in climate is slight. The predicted (alarming) increase is based on hugely sketchy data models that make assumptions in favor of extreme outcomes.

      It’s bullshit. And there is what ought to be obvious evidence that it is – in the form of real estate values along beaches and coastlines. If insurance companies – not run by stupid people – believed in “climate change,” they’d not be issuing coverage to waterfront developments. Banks would not be financing them, either.

      And people like Barry Obama would not be buying them.

      • Good comment. I have a climate science and energy blog that has had over 284,000 page views. What people don’t understand about “climate change” is that it’s only a prediction of climate doom, not reality. Reality is that we lived with mild, harmless global warming since 1975. The prediction is for rapid dangerous global warming in the future. Completely unlike the past, harmless global warming. Just speculation. No data. There are no data for the future.

        The coming climate crisis predictions began with oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957. Meaning that imaginary, dangerous global warming has been “coming in 10 to 20 years” … since 1957 !
        But it never shows up. In fact, it’s rather cold this winter, and those of us in Michigan, who LOVE global warming, are very disappointed.

        Covid is different than climate change. Not just a prediction. A real pandemic, but grossly exaggerated case, hospitalization and death numbers. The vaccines have failed. More US deaths with Covid in 2021 than in 2020, with no vaccines. Also more TOTAL US deaths in 2021 than in 2020, with no vaccines. That’s no success story, no matter how you spin it.

        Fortunately, Omicron is good news — it is a new coronavirus common cold, with symptoms just like any other common cold. Colds are rarely deadly. There is no such thing as a common cold pandemic. But our goobermint is falsely claiming Omicron is a new Covid variant to keep Covid fascism alive .. at least until the 2020 election, hoping for lots of absentee ballots, that Democrats just love!

        Ommicron has 50 mutations versus Delta Covid, with 30 mutations of the spike protein. A real Covid variant would have only 1 or 2 spike protein mutations and dangerous symptoms, just like Delta Covid. The symptoms would not match a common cold. So if Omicron keeps crowding out Delta Covid, there is a high probability the Covid pandemic will be over before Summer 2022. That’s my prediction, and it will be the only prediction I make this year.

        I’m unvaxxed and proud of it — I’m not VOLUNTEERING for spike proteins “injected” inside my body. They’ll have to fight my immune system to get there.

        • Hi Richard,

          I can’t say for sure, but I may have had the Moronicon, per my most recent Diaper Report. As you say, it was a common cold – in terms of its symptoms. I felt not-great for about a week, all told. Body aches, some coughing and sniffling. I’m fine now. Several of my friends had the same experience. The crazy thing is that even sane people like us now have these thoughts when we get a cold. God damn the freaks behind all of this.

          • My EV comment posted in the wrong place.

            Covid symptoms vary tremendously with age and health. They typically range from loss of smell only, to sick with serious flu symptoms for two or three weeks. Omicron rarely lasts for more than five days and everyone describes it as ‘just a cold”. Body aches sound more like influenza and Covid, than Omicron. Now you have antibodies for something, and got them without a risky vaccine.

            A friend threw a Christmas party in December with 20 guests. We are unvaxxed, and stayed home — told her it would be a super spreader event. But she insisted 18 of the 20 were vacxxed, so were safe, and the other two completely ignored Covid precautions since March 2020 but never get sick, so they are “teflon people”. All over age 50. Well, all 20 party guests caught Covid at the party. Several were tested to confirm a viral infection — all had similar cold symptoms — very likely Omicron — and all had recovered in two to five days. It WAS a super spreader party. but really no big deal. Vaccines did nothing !

            By the way, the PCR test, no longer used, can give false positives with 52 viruses OTHER THAN SARS-2.
            That is on the instruction leaflet.

            That’s why influenza “disappeared” in the past two years — always called Covid. PCR tests can also give false positives for dead virus cells up to three months after your immune system defeats SARS-2. The CDC stopped recommended the PCR tests for that reason. Covid case counts based on PCR tests were always grossly overstated. For the past 100+ years no one needed a test to know they had a respiratory disease. If they felt sick, they stayed home until they felt better. That’s too complicated for 2022?

        • “Reality is that we lived with mild, harmless global warming since 1975”
          Reality is we’ve been living with highly beneficial global warming for 10k years. Which is why we have advanced so rapidly during that time. Thank God for climate change, or much of the world would still be covered in ice. The only real threat posed by the alarmists is rising sea levels. So what? Because a great many very wealthy people live there? Increased CO2 is definitely enhancing plant growth. Which one might think is beneficial.

      • 1. The water level is rising in St. Mark’s Square because Venice is sinking, due to soil consolidation, *not* because sea level is rising (it isn’t, at least not yet). 🙂

        2. Quite some time ago, I saw a paper online published by a group of statisticians from University of Washington, which analyzed periodic fluctuations of air temperature from a purely mathematical standpoint. The authors are not climate scientists, and made no attempt to assign “causes” to the observed fluctuations. The data showed various cyclic variations with different frequencies, some of the order of many decades, going back hundreds of years. As most people realize, cyclic variations can reinforce each other, either positively or negatively, and thus either amplify or cancel each other. All these observations were *natural* phenomena, dating to before “anthropogenic global warming” was even a possibility.

        3. “Climate models,” no matter how sophisticated, can yield significantly different results, depending on the initial assumptions.

        Bottom line: none of this stuff is as simple as clueless ignoramuses such as Al Gore make it out to be.

        • Actually the infrared radiation physics are simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and more greenhouse gases impede our planet’s ability to cool itself. Unfortunately, it is impossible to measure exactly how much warming CO2 has caused. But there is no evidence the warming was dangerous in any way. No one was harmed. The planet is greening from more CO2 in the troposphere. And some colder climates now have warmer winter nights than in the 1970s.

          From 1910 to 1940, the global average temperature rose with almost no CO2 increase. From 1940 to 1975, the global average temperature fell with moderate CO2 increases. From 1975 to 2020, the global average temperature rose with faster CO2 growth. That’s three different CO2 – average temperature correlations in only 110 years, since 1910. CO2 is obviously not the ‘climate control knob” — it is one of many climate change variables — most of them are ignored by the IPCC, and have been dismissed as “noise” since 1995.

          Every IPCC report says the same thing:
          ‘Assuming global warming is man made and dangerous, future global warming will be man made and dangerous.’
          Pure circular reasoning.
          I’m not kidding — I’ve followed the subject for 25 years. Click on my name above this comment for further reading on my climate science and energy blog. We love global warming here in Michigan.

          • It is well known and accepted by people with a clue that CO2 by itself, the heat trapped by CO2, does not cause much if any temperature increase beyond 300ppm concentration. This is a simple engineering question of diminishing returns. At 300ppm there’s just not much additional energy left in CO2’s trapping wavelengths to trap. Sure there’s some, but doubling to 600ppm does a tiny tiny bit of what 0-300ppm did. Practically nothing.

            Climate change alarmism is based on the idea that this little bit is amplified by other things set in motion. Like a small current to a relay closes a switch for a large current. So far that clearly hasn’t happened so the ‘experts’ play around and make adjustments, corrections, estimates, using the extremes of error bars, and so on to torture it out of the data.

            • There are hundreds of guesses on exactly what another +100ppm of CO2 will do to the global average temperature. They range from a small amount of warming, to a large amount. The correct answer is “no one knows”. That means your answer is wrong. It is speculation, not a fact. This is not a simple engineering question. It is a very complex science question, whose answer is unknown.

              There has been an estimated +1 degree C. of global warming during the last +100ppm increase of CO2. That is more warming than expected from natural causes alone. So a logical assumption is that CO2 caused some of that +1 degree C. warming. But it is impossible to know how much.

              There is an increase of water vapor as the troposphere warms, but so far the increase appears no where near the large water vapor positive feedback claimed to amplify the (unknown) warming effect of CO2 alone by 2x to 4x.

              In summary, we have too many guesses of the global warming effect caused by a doubling of CO2 (TCS) and unproven theories of a strong water vapor positive feedback, never before experienced, even with CO2 levels up to 10x higher than today.

              That adds up to a lot of guessing. We don’t need any more guessing and climate predictions, including the one you claimed. We are overloaded with consistently wrong climate predictions.
              They are part of the past 60 years of 100% wrong predictions of various types of environmental doom, that never showed up.

            • In the 4.5 billion years of climate history, only a few decades had a strong positive correlation of the global average temperature and the atmospheric CO2 level. Not that correlation proves causation, Those years are 1975 to 2003 and mid-2015 through 2020. That’s all we know of.

              Rather than just saying there are many causes of climate change, I will show my own list. There are too many variables to know exactly what any one of them does, including CO2.

              The following variables are known to influence Earth’s climate:

              1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations

              2) Changes in ocean circulation, ENSO and others

              3) Solar irradiance and activity

              4) Volcanic aerosol emissions

              5) Greenhouse gas emissions

              6) Land use changes
              (cities growing, crop irrigation, etc.)

              7) Changes in clouds and water vapor

              8) Variations of a complex, non-linear system

              9) Unknown causes of climate change

              The variables above are not all independent.

      • co2 bs = insanity. another nutcase theory for low iq leftist morons
        This professor completly dismantles the climate change lie, worth watching, these leftists pushing this climate change bs are the biggest liars in history.

        Climate change just like covid is purely political and religious, based on fake science. Climate change, the new GAIA cult religion, like it’s brother covid, a big favorite of the communist, reset, one world government, satanic cult freaks, chasing you with the nazi needle to exterminate you.

        Don’t lose sight of the fact that the whole scam is being used to hide a financial crime, they looted the place.

        No pension money left = need depopulation now.

        • Indeed, Anon –

          There are a number of interesting parallels, ‘Rona and “climate change”-wise. They both depend upon hystericized fear of an invisible bogeyman who can only be defeated by just doing whatever you’re told by managerial autocrats such as Fauci and Gates, et al.

          What amazes me – as regards anyone over 40 – is the apparent inability to remember. The “climate crisis” has been predicted since I was a kid and that was a long time ago. Like “peak oil” – another scam – it just never goes away because people seem all too ready to believe, even when all the facts point in a contrary direction.

        • Climate change is not a lie. Global warming has been real for the past 47 years. It has also been harmless, and how much was caused by rising CO2 levels is unknown.
          The coming climate change crisis is just a prediction, that began in 1957, and gets louder each year.

          Covid is real, and led to a 20% increase of total US deaths in 2020 and 2021 — no improvement in 2021 from the vaccines.

          Leftists used the imaginary coming climate crisis and the grossly exaggerated, but real, Covid crisis (especially exaggerating Omicron risk).

          Their scare mongering has been very successful in increasing government power and control. Including elements of fascism with tech company censorship.

          People who have experienced life in Communist nations often consider 2020 and 2021 changes in the US to be a US Communist Revolution in progress. It’s hard to disagree with them.

          We are already a socialist nation, by my definition, with spending of all levels of government (about $10 trillion) at over 40% of GDP (about $23 trillion).

    • Texas hit by cold weather by Wednesday? It’s on its way, right through where I live. There’s a storm outside–sounds like a freight train right now–roaring up to 50 mph from the north. Zero visibility. The temperature later tonight is to drop to 30 below zero–ambient temperature, not wind chill. We’re getting the hell beat out of us this winter.
      I charged my car batteries today, bought gasoline, and my engine block heaters are working. I suggest you southerners not consider moving north unless you’re loaded with money. No wonder my fellow citizens move out of here when they retire.

      • Hi Ross

        It’s been unusually harsh here in SW Virginia as well for the past two weeks. Most of the snow that fell at the beginning is still here, which is a function of the temps lingering around freezing during the day and dropping into the teens at night. But 30 below zero is Hell on Earth. Too much for me; it’d be time to put on the sombrero and head to Mexico or some such!

        Stay warm….

      • Texas is expected to be below freezing for up to three days this week. February 2021 had nine consecutive days below freezing. The amount of ice this week may be more important than the amount of snow in Texas.

      • Modern climate “science” 101:

        All bad weather is “climate change”
        All good weather is just “weather”
        The future climate can only get worse, never better.
        The climate was perfect in 1850 — any change from then, in either direction, is a climate emergency.

  11. Think someone did the math on an I3 that got 200 miles per charge using a diesel generator that uses 12 gallons an hour.

    Basically comes out to 5.6mpg if you want to put it in gas terms. I’d rather just drive a Wrangler 392 if I wanted something thirsty and fast

  12. I’m interested in the calculations to determine EV cost to recharge. The cost of electricity, at least where I live in given/charged in “kilowatt hours”. That necessarily means pulling a quantity of electrons (1000 watts) over time (an hour).

    Where I live the power company (SMECO) lists the current rate at 0.074822 kwH, i.e., about 7.5 cents per kilowatt per hour. So if I leave 10 x 100 watt bulbs running for an hour, it would then cost me about 7.5 cents for that hour.

    I’ve never before heard of batteries being rated in kilowatts. So maybe I’m not understanding this situation and maybe someone can help clarify.

    I think that, if I connect a 50kw device to my electricity, it will cost me (50 * 0.074822) about $3.74 per hour. If I connect an 82kw device, it will cost me (82 * 0.074822) about $6.14 per hour.

    So then I’m pretty sure it matters how much time (how many hours or fraction thereof) that it takes to recharge the batteries for the respective model, doesn’t it?

    You’re saying $10 to fully recharge the 50 kw device and about $14 to fully recharge the 82 kw device? At my rate, that is 2.67 hours and 2.28 hours respectively.

    I thought it takes a whole lot longer than 3 hours to recharge those things with a 120v connection? What part of this am I getting wrong?

      • I just have the funny feeling that they’re low balling the estimate! I bet, in practice, it will cost more, especially as the batteries age. Maybe there’s more to it than the kw rating of the battery. But thanks for the reference.

          • Hi Richard,

            Yup. Only Tesla gets away with selling the same old car as a new car, each new model year. They also suffer from slipshod quality control and cheap materials. One look inside a Tesla 3 – if you’ve never seen one – will shock you. This $40k-plus car looks like an $18k fleet rental car.

            • For 2021, Tesla was the fourth brand from the bottom of the J.D. Power dependability three years in service survey. For 2020 model, Tesla was dead last in the Initial Quality three months in service survey.

              I checked out a Tesla 3 when they came out — maybe I am too critical after 27 years in product development at another auto manufacturer. But the sheet metal margins were shocking – the deck lid to fender gaps were huge, and uneven — embarrassing to own a car like that.
              The interior looked like a $20,000 car. The expensive Teslas seem much better, but they ARE expensive.

      • How about the cost to you, including opportunity cost of your time, plus aggro, of the Tesla failing to charge, using the Tesla charger on your house’s electric system, and having Tesla claim it must be “the grid,” when in fact the Tesla’s charging system has failed?

        I know someone here in town who has BTDT just recently. Tesla Model 3, still under warranty, belongs to his daughter, a Senior Mechanical Engineer (UCI grad) employed by (wait for it) Tesla!

    • Another slight divergence from the model is that, if I let my car *sit* for a month (especially when it’s cold), I gotta idle that damn thing every so often. I have an Audi A6 with 3.0 NA engine that mainly sits. When it’s cold I gotta run that sucker 10-20 minutes every week or the battery will go dead.

      But, if you’re talking about cars that are daily drivers, that obviously doesn’t matter. I’m not sure who would ever buy an EV and let it sit for an entire month.

      • Hi EM,

        The easy solution to the problem of the car that sits is to keep it hooked up to a trickle charger or just disconnect the battery’s negative cable.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here