Why Are EVs so Expensive?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

EVs – as apologists for them never tire of pointing out – have fewer moving parts than vehicles with engines and transmissions and drive axles, etc. So why do EVs cost so much more (on the order of 30-40 percent more) than otherwise comparable vehicles with engines and transmissions and drive axles?

The reason is simple.

EVs are required by law to do what EVs aren’t able to do  . . . without making them 30-40 percent more expensive than otherwise comparable vehicles with engines, transmissions and drive axles. That being capable of operating on highways at highway speeds.

If they aren’t capable of doing that, then it’s not legal to register/tag them as passenger vehicles and that renders them effectively useless, even as low-speed, short-range and low-cost cars – because even if the city car never leaves the city, the government of the city still requires that the car be registered and tagged, just like any other car.

What’s the use of owning a car you can’t legally operate on anywhere – except your own driveway?

So, the EVs that are available must be capable of operating on the highway, at normal highway speeds – just like any other passenger vehicle. But in order to be capable of doing that, a very large, very heavy and very costly energy storage device is necessary. This device being the EV’s battery pack. It is the single most expensive component that goes into the making of an EV and it is also the thing that hobbles the EV, as well as making it expensive.

The weight of the thing is the thing that requires the EV to have larger/heavier and more expensive motors – in order to move all that weight. And the heavier the EV is, the faster it burns through the power it has – just the same as a heavy truck burns more gas than a lightweight car. This, in turn, necessitates the bigger (heavier) and more expensive battery.

And that’s why the only EVs you can buy in this country are expensive EVs.

Now, imagine if manufacturers could sell EVs that were analogous to mopeds.

The latter aren’t capable of reaching and holding highway speeds, but it’s not illegal to sell them for use on secondary roads, where speeds are lower (within the capabilities of the moped). Nor to use them on such roads – notwithstanding that it is illegal (generally) to operate a moped on a highway.

Most mopeds can’t go much faster than about 35 MPH, in order to be considered mopeds under the law rather than motorcycles – which fall into the same category as passenger cars in terms of registration/tag (and insurance) requirements. Motorcycles also cost more – because they are more capable.

You’re paying for more engine, among other things.

It’s just the same – or at least, similar – with regard to EVs. Rather, with regard to the EVs the manufacturers aren’t allowed to sell and which you’re effectively not allowed to use – because EVs that aren’t highway-capable can’t be registered and tagged in this country as passenger vehicles and so you’d be committing an offense by driving one within its capabilities, in the city.

None of this is conjecture. It’s physics – and politics. An EV city car that isn’t expected to be capable of going much faster than about 50 MPH or going much farther than about 50 miles does not need a huge, hugely heavy and hugely expensive energy storage device. And because it doesn’t have to lug one around, it does not need a large or especially powerful electric motor.

And it doesn’t need as much power, either.

Such a car would be just-the-ticket for people who don’t need a highway-capable car or who might like to have a second car for short-range, low-speed trips in the city. And it would be just-the-ticket for dramatically reducing the “emissions” of the dread gas carbon dioxide, which is ostensibly causing the “climate” to “change” (convenient that this “change” is never specified). A small, lightweight electric city car such as those available in China causes the “emission” of far less carbon dioxide than an energy hog EV such as a Rivian R1, GMC Hummer or Ford Lightning – all of which lug around close to 2,000 pounds of energy storage device and consume enormous amounts of electricity that has to be generated before it is burned. Not to mention the energy wasted (and the additional emissions generated) in the course of manufacturing these energy hogs.

A 2,000 lb. electric city car (that’s the entire car, not just the battery pack) has a “carbon footprint” a fourth or less the size of the energy hog EVs just mentioned. And a third or less that of the typical compact-sized, two-ton electric car such as a Tesla3.

But politics have thus far prevented the 2,000 lb. electric city car – which practically anyone could afford, since these typically sell for under $10k in the countries where they are available, such as China – from being a car you can buy or use here.

This says a lot about the politics behind all of this. As opposed to the talk about the “climate” supposedly “changing.”

. . .

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!)

If you like items like the Keeeeeeev T shirt pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!











  1. “being capable of operating on highways at highway speeds.”

    These EV’s are expensive to adapt to long, high speed, highway trips…..

    To travel at high speed with a short diff. ratio and only one gear….means revving the crap out of the motor, causing premature failure…..

    At 100 mph the Tesla’s electric motor is turning abut 11,000 rpm….this causes a lot of wear…just like an ice engine running at 11,000 rpm……there is a problem with tesla motors wearing out their rotor end seals, leaking coolant into the motor…destroying the motor….$5000 to $6000 rebuild or replacement required….

    The Porsche Taycan is an exception…it has a 2 speed transmission reducing motor rpm at high speed….

    If these EV’s were designed with a 4 to 8 speed transmission….lowering high speed motor rpm…… this would reduce engine wear and save energy, get better fuel economy….

    The EV’s are already far too heavy and expensive….adding a multi speed transmission would just make it worse……they are already the most unreliable vehicles, adding a transmission would just make them worse….

    the biggest problem is their 1000 to 3000 lb battery…..

    • Apart from the Porsche Taycan Taycan, with a two -speed transmission every production EV uses a single-speed transmission,

      EV makers favor low-end acceleration over Autobahn-worthy top speeds.

      Where most electrics top out around 125 mph (Tesla limits its cars to 163), the Taycan will touch 161 mph….top speed is limited by the diff. ratio and maximum engine rpm….

      NOTE: these EV’s have very short diff. ratios….increasing motor rpm….Taycan 8.0 to 1….Tesla 9.0 to 1…..compared to a Corvette 4.1 to 1……another reason they accelerate quickly….

      The Porsche Taycan electric motors reach up to 16,000 revolutions per minute…..it has a 2 speed transmission

      The maximum RPM of a Tesla motor …it has a 1 speed transmission….depends on the vehicle, but the new carbon-sleeved motor is capable of 23,308 RPM @ 200 mph compared to the previous P100D redline of 18,000 RPM @ 155 mph…..lower rpm in the Taycan motor means less wear, longer lifespan…..

      This high rpm is causing problems…Tesla rotor end seal failures….coolant in the motor….motor destroyed…..$5000 per motor replacement….

      Nobody would buy an ice powered car that was geared for 11,000 rpm engine speed at 100 mph….like the EV’s have…..lol

      The Taycan’s transmission is an in-house Porsche solution….there is no EV transmission available anywhere, for other EV’s…..

      But auto industry supplier ZF is working on its own version of the two-speeder, which it’s looking to sell to any automaker that doesn’t want to choose between low-end torque and top speed .

      “With a two-speed transmission, we can do both,” says Stephan Demmerer,For automakers willing to take on a bit more complexity, he says, the two-speed setup can either improve an EV’s range by 5 percent, or push its top speed beyond the typical cap.

      It does that by improving the conversion rate of battery power to actual wheel power. Every one percentage point in energy conversion efficiency translates into 2 percent more range, ZF says.

      Carmakers can use the system to squeeze more range out of a smaller battery—thereby reducing vehicle weight—or pair it with larger batteries to pursue performance, whether it’s racing around a track or towing the family boat.

      “There is a real race to compete on the energy efficiency of EVs,” says Venkat Viswanathan, a mechanical engineer at Carnegie Mellon University.

      The two-speed transmission is only arriving now partly because it’s complicated. Multispeed transmissions must be robust to deal with the massive amounts of torque that electric motors can generate in a very short period of time, says Shashank Sripad, a mechanical engineer also from Carnegie Mellon.

      Tesla tried multi speed transmissions with its proof of concept Roadster more than a decade ago, but ran into reliability challenges and has stuck with single-speeds ever since…..the torque breaks the transmission….. And because they require more maintenance, these gearboxes can make very unreliable EV’s even more defective….

      Moreover, going beyond one speed hasn’t really been necessary so far. “Batteries have been small, with ranges of about 100 to 150 kilometers and the focus was more on inner-city driving,” Demmerer says…..single speed EV’s are better suited to low speeds in the city….not highway speeds…..

      EV’s with 1 speed transmissions are not ready for highway use….plus the range problem…..

      “Today we see all-round use of battery electric vehicles with a higher portion of highway driving, and the range has increased.” Two-speed setups have an advantage when people are driving in many applications….highway driving….. he says, and that 5 percent range improvement can save significant money as battery capacity continues to increase.

      In fact, the two-speed system makes the most economic sense in vehicles with larger batteries—or in higher-performance systems—so urban runabouts…at low speeds….. will likely stick with single-speed transmissions indefinitely.


  2. Another irony: They don’t even want us driving at highway speeds anymore. Cities are lowering speed limits nationwide on many main roads. NYC lowered the speed limit to 25 on most streets, including main streets that naturally flow at 45-50. And we don’t go highway speeds often on urban interstate highways due to congestion.

    My own suburban Indiana town has not one road that has a limit over 35. Including a highway that should be 55!

    I drove my mom’s Fiat 500 the other day. I looked at the travel computer thing, and her average speed was 14. Yes, 14 mph! Granted she is 80, but she doesn’t drive like an old lady. I am trying to figure the average speed out on my own car, and I bet it’s not much faster…..

    So why force us to buy cars that go highway speed?

    • Some G7 countries are lowering speed limits to 30 kmh….about 18 mph, in cities….

      By the time you wait at lights, it is almost quicker to walk, a horse would be quicker….bicycles are quicker and ebikes are far quicker…..

      turning people off driving cars….the plan of the slave owners…..

  3. Just saw the new commercial for the VW Id Buzz (EV). Not excited at all, given that they didn’t even to attempt to make a gas or diesel version. It’s a shame that we haven’t had any decent VW passenger vans available in the U.S. since the discontinuation of the Eurovan (after 2002); the Dodge Caravan based VW van didn’t count (I forget its name).

    Even if the new ID Buzz were available as a gas or diesel version, it doesn’t appear to be very utilitarian (having a driver-side rear door really takes away from the utility; that’s why full size vans don’t have one; they just have one rear door on the passenger side, not counting the cargo doors at the very back).

    I SERIOUSLY doubt many of these will sell

    • Hi Dood,

      That device will cost $50k-plus – so even if it were appealing, few could afford it anyhow. VW is trying to sell a Mercedes – insofar as price. And Mercedes is selling (trying to sell) devices priced like Ferraris.

    • I saw the VW EV commercial during the superbowl. It had a segment showing a “just married” sign on the vehicle then immediately cut to the interior view with 2 women kissing.

      How to alienate 50% of your potential customers in one stupid woke shot….

  4. I hope Lucid is the company that figures out the battery problem. Teslas are so damned ugly. And pretentious. Lucid put in a ton of great engineering into the Air, and seems to care about elegance, proportion, and how the thing drives.

    I’d laugh like hell if they developed a $35K car with batteries made from cheap, lightweight, non-flammable crap that didn’t care about the weather.

    Meanwhile, I’ll enjoy my simplistic dinosaur-burner.

    • The Lucid was designed by the guy that designed the Model S. And honestly, looks a hell of a lot like a Tesla to me, but I guess if it appeals to you.

  5. The BYD Dolphin already is available in Europe…modified (slightly larger) to meet regs there.

    Probably wouldn’t take much more modification to bring it to the USA.

    Sells for ~$17k in China…don’t know about price in Europe.

  6. You can buy the type of Small Car you write about in Mexico but it’s powered by Gasoline. Top Speed is less than 50Km/h. Here is an Article about other Cheap Vehicles in Mexico.
    You can use them in the US but I won’t get into how to do it.

  7. I just view EV’s as immoral.
    EV’s and the support network are produced by theft of others peoples money, without their consent.
    EV’s use the premise that they are better for the environment, which is provably false in every metric. They take way more resources to make, and still run on “fossil fuel” albeit indirectly.
    EV’s are the cause of tremendous human suffering in low income countries, so that some can virtue signal.

  8. As I read through some of the replies I understand there is great frustration building with respect to those who recognize the current state of affairs and their frustration that others are blissfully ignorant.

    I have worked on these vehicles since 2005 for OEMs and startups. They are here to stay. How can I be certain they won’t go the way of the horse drawn carriage?

    Step back and see the bigger picture but not so far as to read in theories true or false. Geopolitically fossil fuel extraction, transportation and storage are limited. These limits produce friction ie war financially and kinetically. In addition peak oil does exist albeit each new discovery updates that number. Manipulation starts by limiting discovery but that’s the theories I want to avoid. Think about Kennedy’s call for the moon shot, that is what you are living through right now. For better or worse the decision was made to move away from fossil fuels to an alternative. There are many alternatives e.g. hydrogen, nuclear, alcohol each with their own risks with respect to the same, mfg, transportation and storage. The debate has existed for decades. Given this environment engineers will always build cost effective, risk adverse solutions. Electric vehicles were engineered over 100 years ago, there is already a body of knowledge. Electric motors, batteries etc have progressed independently. No other alternative form of propulsion can compete. The moon shot was and is the enormous amount of money, trillions of dollars spent on the credit card to subsidize industry to re-tool, battery plants, charging stations. It is a one time deal folks, the money was spent and there is no going back. A critical mass moment to get everyone past the point of no return. Yes we can return to fossil fuels and they will continue to exist anyway because they are economical. To go back entirely means you have no solution to the geopolitical realities of fossil fuels, you have no money to pursue another solution set will we just throw the investment away? I think not.

    Going forward instead of backward has already been decided whether or not you agree, accept it and improve it. At the current stage hybrids are far more practicable. Battery technology the Achilles heal will be improved perhaps with nuclear batteries who knows. There is absolutely no way OEMs are going to retool again. They can’t or the go under. Indeed there could be a completely new mode identified in the future akin to ICE killing off the horse drawn carriage but those carriage companies became things like Fisher Body. Back to the author promoting what I refer to accurately as quadracycles I believe this is integral to 15 minute cities where transportation is limited to these vehicles. I suspect plans are in existence and money already allocated to convert open road travel ie between 15 minute cities, to public transportation. We will rent vehicles upon arrival and to be honest probably in our home town.

    The problem I see will be rural communities in America. Europe long ago limited land use beyond city limits to agricultural with exceptions of course. In America urban sprawl is a problem, how do you get people back to the cities? More theories I’m afraid.

    I could be totally wrong, if so then I am.

    • Hi Paul,

      I am certain the intent was to push us beyond the point of no return. Has this succeeded? Maybe. There is currently a major awakening going on with regard to the truth about EVs. Will people accept being pushed into vehicles that are much more expensive and far less practical for the sake of a lie about the “climate changing”? Maybe.

      In re oil: I am increasingly persuaded that it may be a renewable resource; it is a fact that more oil is available right here, in America, than we need, here in America. The decision was made to artificially decrease supply. It can be increased, if the political situation changes.

      I’d like to see the government entirely out of the automobile business – it being no legitimate business of the government’s. Let the market determine which kinds of vehicles are made. Let the government get back to its only legitimate function (i.e.,, keeping the peace).

      • The whole peak oil argument was that it would become more and more difficult to extract oil. The “easy fields” were tapped out, and so the costs associated with fracking wouldn’t ever pay. Thing is, humans are pretty good at figuring out ways to do things differently. The assumption was that an oil rig was not subject to iterative improvements. Most gloom and doom liberals assumed human technology is stable (indeed the world itself is stable and unchanging). That’s correct when you try to force change in a top down hierarchy of planning (or find some new basic discovery that fundamentally changes the world). But when you let smart people alone to figure something out you’ll get 20 solutions to pick from. That’s why no one anticipated fracking, which completely caught the CBOT boys off guard. Fracking had been around pretty much since the days of Colonel Drake, but it was really only used to get a little more product out of an old well. When it began to be used on new wells and in shale, that’s when the world changed. No one had considered that before. Then they added “intelligent” well casings with pressure controllers that could keep fissures open just enough to keep them producing (the new technology) and now we’re drowning in so much oil the FED has to print up trillions of dollars just to keep up. Oil should probably be about $25/barrel right now, but that would collapse the markets, so Powell keeps printing to keep the price up.

        This is the big concern with EVs. There just isn’t any new power source or production methods out there that will scale. Doesn’t matter how many moon shots you bet on if there’s nothing that will overcome the fundamental issue of energy density. The focus should be on improving ICE engines and power-to-weight ratios, just like all transportation problems, not shoehorning a bad idea into a good product because it’s theoretically interesting.

    • The “moon shot” was all green screen fakery so I guess we can expect the same thing with respect to EeeeeVeees, grainy one time broadcast till it’s lost forever (whoopsie!) footage showing them “working” and outperforming ICE vehicles in all categories. Problem is, Kubrick’s dead now so…

    • EV’s and their existence are based on a massive lie.
      That massive lie is that humans are causing the climate to change
      and the compound the liars decided to blame is CO2, the most
      vitally importand compound on earth, without it, life is impossible.
      Consider this: If the atmosphere were a 10,000 seat stadium, CO2
      would comprise 4 seats, up form 3 seats 1000 years ago. Now, “experts”
      have said humans contribute less than 10% of the CO2 produced by natural
      sources such as volcanic eruptions. if one seat is 16 inches wide, humans are responsible
      for less than 4.8 inches of one seat in the 10,000 seat stadium.

      The greatest scam by lying villains in the history of man.

    • Think about Kennedy’s call for the moon shot, that is what you are living through right now.

      This “moon shot” looks more like a ditch landing…

      For better or worse the decision was made to move away from fossil fuels to an alternative.

      “The decision was made”? Why the passive voice here, you’re leaving out the most relevant part – who (allegedly) made this decision?

      Electric vehicles were engineered over 100 years ago, there is already a body of knowledge.

      Including the knowledge that they didn’t work a century ago – and, as it turns out, they don’t work today either. The definition of insanity, and all that…

      It is a one time deal folks, the money was spent and there is no going back.

      Don’t be too sure about that – it may be too late for current automakers, who will have to pay for their follies of repeating a century-old mistake by going bankrupt, but it is an opportunity for the Chinese.

      Going forward instead of backward has already been decided whether or not you agree, accept it and improve it.

      Betting on EVs is going backward, not going forward, as you yourself already alluded to when you pointed out that electric vehicles were engineered over 100 years ago.

      There is absolutely no way OEMs are going to retool again. They can’t or the[y] go under.

      The lousy EVs they’re producing today will make them go under as well.

      In America urban sprawl is a problem

      “Sprawl” is a pet peeve among crazy urban planners, whose crackpot opinions can be safely ignored.

    • ‘Geopolitically fossil fuel extraction, transportation and storage are limited.’ — Paul

      Such limits are economic. We are nowhere near reaching the point where hydrocarbon fuels are uneconomic. Whereas EeeVees already are uneconomic, despite massive subsidies.

      You speak with the complacent, heedless certainty of an entitled central planner: ‘already been decided, whether or not you agree.’ I perceive you are from Hahhhhhvid, sir … or somewhere like it. Did you captain the rowing team?

      Your ‘already decided’ assertion will be proven spectacularly wrong in coming years — whether or not you agree.

  9. We have Urban Bicycle Lanes. We have country lanes. We have high-speed interstate lanes. We’ve got under-used Express Lanes. I guess we are just out of “road room” for Low-Speed EV Lanes. What a shame.

  10. You refer to quadracycles. They are in a separate category for a reason. NHTSA has spent decades creating rules, standards, testing to facilitate transportation on the current road system in this country. They worked these standards in tandem with insurance companies who have an obvious stake. Our infrastructure mirrors these standards e.g. heavy trucks are restricted to certain roads, bridges, speed. Why? Because they are in a different league, heavy equates not only to weight but mass as in energy transfer in collisions. EVs have been cheating as they are classified as passenger vehicles but their mass is more like Ford 350s. Many companies have sprung up all over the world offering exactly the vehicle you describe, a quadracycle but these vehicles are restricted to say, universities, segregated communities or industrial campuses. It these environments they may be alone or coexist with larger heavier vehicles but velocities of all are low to limit damage and injuries. Quadracyle manufacturers actually capitalize on that special category as they are exempt from certain NHTSA safety requirements. Why? Because of their classification. They have zero crush space, they require only structural designs needed for handling and ride comfort and nothing for collisions apart from seat belts, locking mechanisms of this sort. There are no barrier tests, side impact tests etc..

    • Which tanks are performing best on the Ukrainian battlefield?

      ‘The old 42-ton Ukrainian T-64 Tanks (worth about $1.12 million) are heavily armored and are performing well. The German Leopard 2A6 Tank (62 tons) and the British Challenger II Tank (64 tons) are both faster and superior to the Russian tanks.

      ‘[But] the most powerful American tank in Ukraine’s armory, the M1 Abrams, has not seen action simply because at 73 tons it too heavy for the muddy Ukrainian roads. It is also too expensive to maintain. The U.S. has stopped all further production of new Abram models.’ — RealClear Wire


      Americlown engineering — straight outta Big Gov. Along with 14,000 lb Jeeps (Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, replacing the Humvee).

      Makes you want to weep in shame, don’t it?

  11. Little town cars or golf carts. EVs have some good uses.

    On Amazon the prices for LFP batteries have dropped. LFPs don’t spontaneously combust and they last for 4000 to 6000 charge cycles. Less than $200 per kWhr for 12.8V 100a. That’s less than $2k for 10kWhrs of battery that easily fits under the seat of a golf cart or ATV. ATVs are street legal here AZ, but not on highways.

    • Problem is getting people to shop locally. In my town, I’m within a short bike ride of an expensive grocery store (that has very limited selection). Or Dollar General and the Kum-N-Go. That’s it for “golf car distance” away from 90% of the neighborhood. The Super Walmart in Rifle is 20 minute drive, the City Market about 30. And there’s Grand Junction about an hour’s drive.

      Is it worth it to ride the bike up to the grocery store? Well, if I just need a few items I forgot to get at the big grocery earlier. If the selection was better and the prices even remotely competitive with the big chains I’d switch in a minute. I like the locals, and I like that they don’t have “you scan” cash registers, and that they exist at all. The pharmacy probably is the only thing that keeps them in business at all though.

      It’s probably a chicken-and-egg quandary but there’s also the fact that a good number of people won’t change their habits no matter what you do. They like the “shock and awe” of seeing the Super Walmart, a cathedral of crony capitalism, with everything one could ever want under one stadium sized roof and at prices that no one else can ever match.

  12. Good grief how many times do you say the same thing over and over here. And its info that everyone knows. EVs are a scam to make the elites MORE money, that’s all. They destroy the environment and waste far more energy that gas/diesel vehicles. But our country is now plagued with people who are SO stupid, SO indoctrinated, that they have lost all reason and common sense. I just didn’t realize how MANY are this stupid. This was done on purpose to the American citizen, by dumbing down the population (by design) and importing genetically inferior races to dilute and drag down our country. Its pretty much too late now to do anything but bitch about it, unless God helps us, puts Trump in the presidency and we have fair elections AFTER Trump or that ‘other’ alternative like the one that happened in the 1800s.

    • Well, soldier, not many were “saying the same thing” as I until rather recently. Just the same as regards “masks” and “vaccines.” I continue to say it so that it gets through enough people’s heads. So that – maybe – in the future I won’t need to say it anymore.

  13. If governments were truly set on reducing carbon dioxide, they would all stop using hydrocarbons to launch rockets that have ordnance. Not a single gallon of fuel would be used for offensive purposes involving war machines.

    No jet fuel for fighters, none of it.

    Of course, that doesn’t change, so governments will just plow ahead with more useless war.

    An all EV fleet of trucks, tanks, and electric planes. The all electric vehicles for the army would grind to a halt, the fighting forces would have to quit, can’t move, could all go home and plant tomatoes.

    A lot of hydrocarbons not used by war machines could be used for more peaceful purposes. There would be hydrocarbons by the millions of barrels, have three SPRs.

    Fairly obvious governments don’t give two hoots about how many emissions there are blasted into the atmosphere from war machines on the march.

    Doesn’t matter, you, however, are still at fault.

    • [If governments were truly set on reducing carbon dioxide, they would all stop using hydrocarbons to launch rockets that have ordnance. ] drumphish.

      They would then kill themselves and their offspring along with every animal and plant on the planet.

      No, They just want to eliminate most of us. Leaving enough to do the work that keeps them living their lavish lifestyle.

      • When my dad, raised Catholic, married my mom, a Lutheran, all of his brothers shook his hand good-bye.

        Catholics are crazy people, sin for six days, then confess to some idiot dressed like a dork, you are forgiven, the next six days, you can sin some more. It’s called fun too, sin is for the guilty.

        I’ll choose another belief, faith, not Catholicism. Martin Luther was aware of the corrupt Catholics 500 years ago. Something about indulgences and making sure the poor remained poor.

        Afficionados always choose the nosebleed seats when they attend a concert of a favorite musician.

        Now there are front row seats for war 24/7 on the internets.

        Coffee helps keep your blood pressure normal. Sometimes, anger makes the pressure rise, your blood boils.

        “For us in Russia, communism is a dead dog, while, for many people in the West, it is still a living lion. At no time has the world been without war. Not in seven or ten or twenty thousand years. Neither the wisest of leaders, nor the noblest of kings, nor yet the Church — none of them has been able to stop it.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

        Farewell to Solzhenitsyn at Mises.

        Old Joe Biden is clearly in the dark. Dark Winters for Joe these days. Have to have some empathy for the poor abused soul, Joe needs a serious break.

        It’s Sunday, so there were camel races all day long, double humpers under the lights ended an hour ago.

        Marxists, WEF’ers, whoever they might be, fully intend to make your life just plain miserable.

        • If you look up what Martin Luther wanted, his problem with the Catholic Church was it was too traditional and conservative. Luther was a massive lefty revolutionary. Whatever issues the Church has (this Marxist pope included,) pointing to him as an example of something good just means you’re not actually looking into things. And for that “sin for 6 days, confess-on-Sunday type thing,” that’s not at all how that works lol. Movies obviously portray that but when has popular corporate media actually told the truth about anything, especially Christiananity?

    • CO2 emissions are a proxy for energy usage. The crackdown on CO2 emissions is an indirect way of attacking people’s use of and access to energy, thereby curtailing their freedom. That, I believe, is the real agenda here, and in order to persuade people that CO2 is bad, the powers that be use loaded words such as “emissions” and “pollutant” about it, and claim that the only way to avert a global scale disaster is for these “emissions” to stop (which in reality means that people need to stop nearly all activities that depend on the usage of energy).

          • EVs and “climate change” caused by man is Clown World.
            In order to make ONE lithium battery, a Cat loader has to work 12
            hours, burn 900 gallons of diesel and move 500,000 pounds of earth. Then that earth has to processed using orders of magnitude more energy than the Cat loader. That’s for ONE battery.

            In what reality does this make any sense at all?
            It doesn’t because AGW is all a massive scam.

  14. Car repairs generally getting more expensive.


    From link:

    Many in the auto space think costs can’t continue to rise at these rates. The industry is making its biggest shifts in the last hundred years — from gasoline to electric, and from mechanical to digital.

    “If cars are to be affordable, they must also be affordable to maintain,” said Alan Amici, president and CEO of the Center for Automotive Research. “And they must be affordable to repair, or else we’re going to have fewer vehicle sales. So I think the automakers are going to be motivated to drive those costs down.”

    Hmmm… ya think maybe fewer vehicle sales is the plan? If you read all of the “trends” they mention, heavier and more complex vehicles among them, you’d think automakers were specifically gunning to make repairs more expensive. Oh, and not a single mention of the word inflation.

    • I was talking to a friend last night whose car was in what was no more than a fender bender. He said that the repair shop had it for five days, but that it only took them two days to repair the scratch (or replace the affected panel). But it took three days for them to replace all of the sensors and related computer crap that was damaged in the accident!

      I knew back in the late 80’s that adding all of these computer chips and parts to cars was a bad idea. Back when I got stranded along a busy freeway in sub-freezing temps in my mom’s Buick when one of the sensors decided to croak. And when it croaked, it took the car’s entire electrical system down with it. No radio (emergency CB in the trunk was useless), no lights, no way to start the engine to at least have heat. Luckily I was only there about a half hour when a cop came by and radioed AAA. But they couldn’t even jump it (if the battery was dead) or even get it to start, and had to tow it. All because of a stupid piece of electronic hardware!

  15. ‘EVs are required by law to [be] capable of operating on highways at highway speeds.’ — eric

    Presumably Eric is referring to the EPA’s high acceleration Supplemental FTP test cycle, which reaches a maximum of 80.3 mph in seconds 334 and 335.


    Don’t worry, folks — this is on a dynamometer, so no children or animals are harmed during this reckless speeeeeeeding.

    Still, it is odd to think of this ‘aggressive driving’ cycle as establishing an effective minimum of 80.3 mph capability for highway licensing.

    Farther down the linked list is the Motorcycle 1-B test, for motorcycles of 50 to 170 cc. It reaches a high of 58.7 kph — kilometers, not miles per hour — or 36.5 mph.

    So the precedent exists for accommodating small motorcycles that can’t reach 80 mph. Why not an analogous test for ‘city EeeVees’?

    Y’all know the reason: they’re made by Chyyyyyyyyna. You can’t built cheap stuff like that with $40/hr UAW labor here in our shining Workers Paradise. 🙁

    • “ Presumably Eric is referring to the EPA’s high acceleration Supplemental FTP test cycle, which reaches a maximum of 80.3 mph in seconds 334 and 335.”

      My own anecdotal evidence from yesterday:

      I was merging onto I-65 yesterday afternoon, an 18 wheeler in front of me and a Tesla behind me. Traffic was heavy, but moving.

      Everyone who drives knows that semi trucks take time to accelerate and merge. Everyone except for the driver of the Tesla.

      I didn’t try getting to the passing lane because I instinctively knew he would jet out and pass both me and the semi. That’s fine I wasn’t in a hurry.

      Still, the crotchety old man in me hoped that he ran out of charged before we got to the next exit for driving like a douche bag.

      • Fascinating because Tesla drivers around here are like Corvette drivers. They are all sitting on rocket engines but accelerate like geriatrics, if at all. Dutifully going 55mph because leftist liberal sheep dare not break any law.

        • Hi Useranon,

          I have noticed this as well – the slow-driving of people with “fast” cars. BMWs especially. Also new Corvettes – which seem to be almost always driven by an older guy (for the obvious reasons). Teslas are similar, though the owner demographics seem to encompass all ages. I’ve yet to see one driven in “ludicrous” fashion. So, why not just drive Prius?

          • I’m one of those pokey bmw drivers. My brother says I wear an old man hat (flat cap) and drive an old man car (x3). Guess it’s true.

            Not sure if the Tesla just passed the semi and got over / slowed down. I only thought he was a db cause he was tailgating me on the on ramp & apparently oblivious to the 80,000 lb 18 wheeler in front of us both.

  16. I agree with everything you say about EVs. However, one thing that bothers me about all the CO2 bullshit is the fact that those of us that oppose all the government interference in all aspects of our lives are in fact agreeing with them in some degree when we use the words like emissions, CO2 pollution, etc. CO2 is very beneficial to the entire ecosystem. We actually need more of it instead of trying to cut back on it. We have to be aware of the words we use when we discuss these subjects because if we’re not careful, we’re sounding an awful lot like the people we oppose.

    • Absolutely, blacklander –

      That’s why I take care to question the foundations – C02 as an “emission,” the vague assertions about the “climate” “changing” – and so on.

    • >We actually need more of it instead of trying to cut back on it.

      Which is why commercial greenhouses enrich their interior air from ambient 400 ppm to ~1200 ppm, i.e. triple what exists in our atmosphere. It is not a pollutant; it is air enrichment.

      Does climate change? Fuckin’ A, Bubba. Continuously, whether Homo Sapiens exists or not. Ask yourself why there are huge coal deposits in Wyoming, or the Four Corners area. Not making any new ones there these days. Must have been a DIFFERENT CLIMATE when these deposits were formed.

      Ditto the rocks left behind by glaciers in places like Nebraska, and Rockland County, NY, sedimentary rocks (limestone, complete w/ marine fossils) at 10,000 ft elevation in the Sandia Mountains, oil in the Permian Basin, etc.

  17. The whole EV debacle is just one of many reasons why I don’t think Uncle Scam is serious about climate change. If he were serious, we’d see EVs along the lines of what EVs were when they first came on the scene around 1900 and what every EV from then until the arrival of the Tesla was—small, light, simple cars without a lot of power designed for use in cities.

    While we’re at it, I don’t think Uncle Scam is serious about climate change for a lot of other reasons. If he were serious:

    -We’d see telecommuting become the norm for most office jobs, including those in the FedGov. Yet the push to go back to the office remains, even though telecommuting has been proven to be successful. (Personally, I think it’s about poor management, commercial real estate, and “quiet firing” people.)

    -We’d see nuclear power on the fast track. We’d fast-track design and approval for next-generation reactors that reduce or eliminate the problems with nuclear waste or meltdowns. We’d replace all those dirty coal plants with next-generation reactors.

    -We’d see decent small cars. We can make small cars with modern technology such as EFI and overdrive, along with ABS, A/C, decent audio systems, comfortable seats, a decent ride and handling, and power options that sell for $15-$20K, or maybe less. Problem is, we won’t.

    -We’d see EU-spec diesels be a lot more prevalent. After all, the only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to burn less fuel. Clean diesel cars do just that. Plus, the relative simplicity and reliability of diesel engines means a longer service life.

    -We’d see motorcycles be a lot more common and designed to be more user friendly, á la the Hondas of the 1960s and 1970s, as opposed to a market mostly consisting of crotch rockets and hogs.

    -We’d make mass transit convenient, pleasant, and safe.

    But once again, these are not things we CAN’T do, but we WON’T do. And once again, it’s because the whole climate change thing isn’t really about controlling the climate…it’s about controlling YOU.

    • I agree, Bryce –

      The deliberate pushing of $50k-plus energy hog EVs that specifically tout speed/performance and so waste energy and increase emissions gratuitously speaks for itself.

      Als that (per Pug) EVs are not required to use only “green” electricity.

      The whole thing is another con only this one involves more than just money. It is a deliberate effort to make car ownership and driving something for the affluent only.

    • Hi Bryce,

      Here’s another example of why the federal government isn’t really serious about climate change….Endless wars over the past 20+ years. How much environmental damage has that caused in addition to people killed in all those wars?

      And let us not forget all those private jets that elitists such as John Kerry and Taylor Swift fly around in. Those create a FAR bigger “Carbon footprint” than people driving an ordinary gas powered automobile.

      • True dat, John B.

        What was the carbon footprint of the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan?

        How many MPG does a Humvee or Abrams get?

        Which leads me to this: WW2 was an absolute mad orgy of fossil fuel production and consumption. Why wasn’t there “global warming” after WW2? In fact, temperatures were actually cooler from 1940-1980. So was it really CO2?

  18. There are even saner solutions to small EVs as city runabouts. An indian motorcycle manufacturer, Bajaj, made a quadricycle, dubbed ‘Qute’; very compact car having about 220cc of water cooled engine and can carry up to 4 adults comfortably and capable of speeds of up to 43.5mph. Not allowed in USA though due to ’emissions’ tests.


      • OT, but OF took a shot at Nimrata’s husband being overseas and off the scene while at a campaign rally. This was her response. “If you mock the service of a combat veteran, you don’t deserve a driver’s license, let alone being president of the United States,” Haley said. Imagine this creature holding the levers of power in this country? Yet, some red teamers eat this shit up.

        • Hi Funk,

          Nikki Haley is someone I’m not supporting period. For those who don’t already know, in an interview not too long ago, Haley once called for social media users to verify their identity. People who post information that goes against government/ establishment approved narratives won’t be able to post anonymously anymore with such a proposal. She’s also calling for endless war, which is another reason not to vote for her.

          • Speaking of endless war, you can tune in to the $60 billion Uniparty Ukraine freak show here, starting at noon eastern today:


            Yesterday I watched Senator Mike Lee. Every amendment he opposed was shot down (under a unanimous consent rule) by Nevada senator Catherine Cortez Masto, who chanted in a ritualistic singsong like an 11-year-old girl: ‘You’re a MAGA extremist. I OBJECT!

            No engagement on the facts at all. Just ‘nyah, nyah, nyah, ur stoopid.

          • It speaks to her swarthy Gurkha, non-traditional understanding of what it means to be an American. Things like the first amendment. She’s a caricature of a “conservative.” A cartoon…. Nikki…hehe. Her MIC handlers must think utterances like that play well with someone.

          • Hi John,
            Yeah, Nikki Haley is some piece of work. I saw a clip of her saying “ America should just give Israel whatever it wants”. Seriously? Hey, I’m an actual citizen and I want a million dollars – cough it up! 😆

  19. Of course the excuse given by our “Leaders” is that first thing some damn fool will take the thing out on the highway and get plastered against the Jersey barrier by a FedEx triple semi.

    “This is why we can’t have nice things!”

    And yes, that would probably happen. On Friday night around 20:00 I was headed home through the South Canyon section of I70. In the right lane, doing the PSL. Guy behind me gets on my trailer hitch and won’t pass despite the open left lane. I slow down to encourage him (again, I’m in the right lane, and in no mood due to the rain/snow mix that had been falling all day). He matches my speed. This continues until I’m doing 40 and put my flashers on, wondering if he’s doing it on purpose to get me to react aggressively (which I was, but again, plenty of opportunity for him to pass, traffic was light). Finally he goes around and I get a look at his face lit up by his phone. He then proceeded to do the same thing to the next car!

    Imagine what a world we could have if people took driving seriously. No tailgating, keeping an even pace with traffic (again, in the above tale traffic was extremely light), driving to conditions instead of hitting a time clock, lane discipline. Light and fast cars insurance cost a fraction of what they are now, and enforcers doing what they should be doing, solving and preventing crime.

    It’s a big highway and plenty of room for everyone.

    • I had one like that not so long ago on an expressway outside Chicago about morning rush. A car just doesn’t seem to be driving right at all, tailgating, etc. I close the distance on him and he’s’s got a laptop on his dash, and he’s watching a movie! There is a point where you are just too stupid to live, just don’t take me with you.

  20. EVs are expensive because there were no market forces involved in their creation or production. Unless “free” government money and advertising are considered market forces.

  21. They should make small, single passenger EVs. For the many struggling single young adults and retirees, who can charge them safely at home. Put solar roofs on them, to help recharge with sunlight, easier when the car is so small.

  22. While small Evs would make a little more sense, wouldn’t an updated Chevette make more sense? Stick in a small fuel injected engine but keep everything else the same and it could also cost around $10K and be able to go on the highway.

    Trying to make a small car as safe to drive as a large SUV just results in a 2 ton economy car with lousy gas mileage.

    • Absolutely, Landru –

      The Chevette – I mean an original model from the late ’70s – is still a superior vehicle vs. any EV. While not quick, it is capable of achieving and maintaining highway speeds for hours. And refuels in minutes. It cost a third what a typical “cheap” new EV costs. It was not appreciably range-gimped by cold or use of the heater. Etc.

      • Hi, Eric,
        >The Chevette – I mean an original model from the late ’70s
        I once owned a small sized Mazda from that era (don’t recall the model – perhaps you know) which was far superior to the Shoveit. Bought used for a pittance. Economical to fuel, handled well, and utterly reliable.

        Digression follows. 🙂
        Also enjoyed driving a Ford Probe:
        as a rental car when an AGW totaled my ’85 Ranger back in 1989.
        The Probe could be had badged as either Ford or Mazda. Identical cars, except for name plate, AFAIK. Both rolled off the same assembly line in Flat Rock Michigan, IIRC. I test drove the turbocharged version for purchase consideration, but auto mfgrs had not really solved the turbo lag problem at that time. Very quick once the turbo kicked in, but way too much delay between pedal stomp and go fast, for me.

        I believe the actual production model had its styling origin in a concept car which was shown at the NY World’s Fair in the 1960s. I well remember riding through the Ford pavilion in the back seat of a Mustang convertible in the summer of 1965, and I do remember the Probe concept car, which was only a mockup, not a prototype, which was displayed at the Fair.

    • Exactly the best solution we actually HAVE right now. Sorry TOYota, even seemingly brilliant hybridization only feeds the techno inflationary scam.

    • Hi Elon,

      Yeah, me also. Though fundamentally, the thing I hate is the artificiality of EVs. By which I mean that, absent government pushing them onto the market (and pushing alternatives to them off the market) there would be no market for these things and we’d probably not even be talking about them.

      EVs are like horses and buggies in the 1950s… which you never saw in the ’50s (outside of Amish communities) because horses and buggies were inferior as vehicles to cars with engines. Even cars made 30 years prior, in the 1920s.

      • The mystery is how nearly all manufacturers seem to be so perfectly willing to quit making the ICE-powered vehicles they have spent a century perfecting, in favour of electric vehicles, which they haven’t figured how to build, and for which there is not even any natural demand. Surely they must realise that they are all on a suicide mission?

        I predict that the EV madness will wipe out American and European automakers (and I suspect that this is by design). Toyota and the Chinese will be the only survivors.

        • >Toyota and the Chinese will be the only survivors.

          Toyota, being the largest auto manufacturer, is covering all the bases. With working production models of various propulsion and drive train systems, it is clear they do not intend to get caught out by whichever way the winds of government decrees blow (and I do mean blow).

  23. I was just thinking yesterday as I walked past a solar panel farm – if the “green” government fascists were truly serious about saving the planet from ourselves that ALL solar/wind farms should be REQUIRED to have EV charging stations, and that should be the ONLY place where EV charging stations are located. Truly EVs will then only be charged by “green” energy.

    Everything else regarding the EV me-too freakout is BS, like the bioweapon shots and the covid me-too freakout.

    • In all of this, the silence is deafening when it comes to the fact that the only power source capable of generating the kind of electricity needed for widespread EV adoption while producing little or no CO2 emissions is nuclear power. Yet do we see new technologies being introduced and new plants being built?

    • Whoops, the sun went down!

      No charging for you till tomorrow morning … unless you want to pedal your bike, with the little silver headlight generator whirring against the tire.

      Thank you for your service.

    • You can do that if you are lucky. I plug my ev into my panels and it works fine. That being said, my ev is an electric motorcycle and two electric bikes. It’s not for everybody but it can work.

      • The hugely overpriced “Sur ron with pedals” at bicycle shops are among the finest examples of pure stupidity Ive ever seen.

        Have fun makin em work.

    • Indeed, Stufo –

      Very well-said!

      Related: If there were no need to “comply” with government rigmarole regarding “safety,” there would likely be an abundance of lightweight, affordable economy cars that averaged 70 MPG.

      These would also be capable of operating on the highway.

      All government does is cost, stymie and pervert.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here