Reader Question: eGolf Economics?

Here’s the latest reader question, along with my reply!

Russell asks: Where you say “Put another way, the eGolf costs a third more more than the non-electric Golf”  . . . it is actually even worse. The $10,000 difference over the non-electric $21,000 cost is a 50 percent  increase. As to green, when a large differing selection of people were asked how much they would pay to fix global warming/climate change/or whatever you want to call it now, the average amount that people were willing to save the earth with was $10. (Ten dollars, not a miss-print). They are more committed to spending towards a politician who they believe will force others to pay for things which they apparently do not want without “the full faith and credit of the United States” force upon them. You’re writings and understanding are superb.

My reply: This indeed is one of the great dangers of the “environmental” movement. People think someone else will pay for it. As is true of so many other things people vote for. Very few vote to increase taxes on themselves.

Let the other guy pay!

With regard to cars: Many people have no understanding of what it costs to (as an example) increase fuel efficiency by say 10 percent, either in terms of money or compromises in other aspects of vehicle design, such as size/power (and “safety,” too). All they hear is that the government is going to “improve fuel efficiency” – as if by waving the proverbial magic wand.

But there is no free lunch – especially when it comes to thermodynamics!

With regard to electric cars, the media – and “consumer advocates” – have been derelict in their duty to explain the costs and limitations of these things. Instead, they have parroted every supposed virtue and led the public to believe that electric cars will be cheaper, easier to use, more efficient and so on.

It amazes – and appalls me.

But the truth will out. Soon, I think. We are about to witness a scheisse show of unparalleled dimensions.

Thanks for the kind works!

…