It’s reliable to assume the opposite is true of whatever the McCorporate Press says – whether it says “safe and effective” or “Ukraine is winning.” Here’s another: Electric cars are getting cheaper.
So says MSNBC.
This time, it’s not brought to you by Pfizer. Instead, it’s brought to you by Tim Mullany, a “technology writer” who says EVS are about to become “much cheaper” and so “more mainstream.”
But which vehicles, exactly?
And how will be they be “much cheaper” than the current average asking price of around $45,000?
Mullany doesn’t say. So I will.
The promised/predicted cost-cutting, if it occurs – and the facts indicate otherwise, as the prices of EVs have been increasing not decreasing – will be done by using cheaper batteries. At first glance, this sounds good – as the battery is the most expensive component in a battery-powered car. Would it not be like putting a smaller engine in place of a larger one as a way to reduce the cost to buy and feed? This is how, in the past, economy cars were made more economical.
Except for the asterisk.
When you put a smaller engine in a non-electric car, you get a lower-priced car and better gas mileage – perhaps at the cost of decreased acceleration. With a smaller battery, you get less range – because the smaller battery holds less charge.
The implications of this are interesting.
It typically takes about 1,000 pounds of lithium-ion battery pack to endow a small EV with a range of around 280 miles because it takes that much battery to store the energy equivalent of around seven gallons of gas. The latter would provide the liquid energy necessary to power a non-electric economy car that averages say 40 miles-per-gallon around 280 miles. This is how the “MPGe” shibboleth one often comes across with regard to EVs can be easily understood – and it is important to understand it.
To get the electric energy equivalent of the typical small car’s 13 gallon tank (and 400-500 miles of range) would take a much larger – much more expensive battery.
This is why extra range always costs extra with EVs.
This is one of the hidden costs of EVs that people had better begin to see – because they’re going to be paying for it. Those who have already bought an EV already did – whether in the form of less range for a lower price or in the form of higher cost for the additional range. For example, the ’23 Tesla Model 3’s base price is $41,990 and for that you get 272 miles of fully-charged range. More range (358 miles) is available but it costs about $10,000 more to get it, pushing the price of a viable Model 3 to well over $50,000.
The Ford “Mustang” Mach e comes standard with 247 miles of range – for $45,995. To get a little more range (271 miles) you have to move up to the Premium trim – which has a starting price of$50,995 and then buy the extra-charge battery for another $7,000.
Now, this can elaborate in reverse, too – i.e., the price of an EV could be reduced. By reducing how far it can go. Just fit it with a less puissant battery pack that cannot store as much energy. It will not be the EV equivalent of installing a smaller engine; it will be the equivalent of installing a smaller gas tank in a non-EV.
It is also apt to be a smaller car – because a smaller battery would provide even less range in a larger – and heavier – car. A small car is fine for commuting. But a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Bolt-sized car is not a viable family car. So a family would need two such cars – rendering moot the “savings” of a putative “$25,000” EV hypothesized as “coming soon” in the MSNBC piece.
This appears to be how EV prices will be reduced, though Mullany doesn’t explain it what it will cost. He does the same as almost every other McCorporate PR McFlack has done so far with regard to not telling people that, with EVs, you must pay extra to get what heretofore came standard. That being a car you could drive more than wait for it to be ready to drive.
It’s true that people have in the past paid extra to go farther – as by choosing a hybrid or diesel-powered car. But it wasn’t a de facto mandatory option. The non-hybrid (or gas-engined) equivalent still had plenty of standard range. And even if it didn’t – even if it could only go 250 miles on a tankful – the tank could be refilled in just a few minutes, enabling you to continue driving almost without interruption.
An EV with 250 miles of range has a much shorter effective driving range in that if you burn through its range, you must stop driving for at least a half an hour or so to get back a portion of the range. Burning through most of the range regularly – and regularly “fast” charging it back up – is also likely to shorten the useful life of the battery, by more rapidly degrading its ability to hold a full charge. Read the owner’s manuals of EVs and read about this for yourself. 
For an EV to be useful for more than short-trip driving – and to reduce the regularity of heavy discharging/recharging – it is almost a necessity to buy the extra-range, extra-cost battery.
That’s the fine. If you can afford it.
For those who cannot, the leash will be shortened.
They may be able to “afford” a new EV, as Mullany says.
But they’re not likely to be happy when they find out what it’s going to cost them.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.Â
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!Â
Our donate button is here.
 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
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 [email protected] and I will send you a copy directly!
‘Electric cars are getting cheaper.’ — MSNBC
For perhaps the first time in recorded history, MSNBC is not lying its ass off: Tesla just cut prices again, it explained yesterday, to preserve market share.
Tesla’s profit margins, naturally, are falling. Today TSLA stock is getting savagely whipped, down 9.34% at Wall Street’s noon hour.
Trouble is, the Conference Board’s leading economic index just took another sickening slide, indicating a recession bearing down on us like a runaway freight train.
Autos and construction are the first industries that get smashed to shit when the economy craters. A deep recession can hit their sales harder than their capital reserves and credit lines can withstand.
Let the PAIN begin for these virtue-signaling Wokesters, as a collapsing economy chokes them with their own charging cables.
‘the prices of EVs have been increasing not decreasing’ — eric
From the Gallup polling organization:
‘Current ownership of electric vehicles among partisans is 6% for Democrats, 4% for independents and 1% for Republicans.’
https://news.gallup.com/poll/474095/americans-not-completely-sold-electric-vehicles.aspx
This is as stark a partisan divide as you’ll find on any political issue.
And it suggests that electing an R-party president in 2024 may be the only way to crush EeeVee Fever.
Mind you, I’m no fan of the R-party. RINO faggots like Mitch McClownnell and Lindsey Graham make me reach for my revolver in disgust.
And yes, I know that when in power, the R-party has ‘mended not ended’ nearly every single communist program of the DemonRat party.
But I’m reminded of a long-ago work colleague who asserted that he was voting for Ronald Reagan as ‘our best chance to get rid of 55 mph speed limits.’
I thought he was joking … and also, that his was a rather shallow reason to back a candidate. But, lo and behold, the hated 55 mph national speed limit has disappeared. And so could the ghastly scourge of climate-crank EeeVees and Battery Baloney, God willing!
Check out the hose hero take on nasty EeeVee fires:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/20/f-150-lightning-fire-footage-growing-ev-risk.html
Many electrical cars are actually insanely expensive and somebody, but not the customer, is making a healthy profit here. For instance Audi (in Norway) charges from about 72 to 96 000 $ for an Audi Q8 e-tron 55. Granted, it is a very nice car, but it is also exorbitantly expensive, since EVs are sold with none or very low additional taxes in Norway.
In fact, without taxes, ordinary fossil fueled cars or light hybrids with approximately the same power and equipment would (in Norway) cost close to about half of what a fairly equivalent EV would cost. Thus, it is hard to comprehend that customers (in Norway) prefer these insanely expensive EVs from Audi, MB and BMW. (They are so expensive, that one would never save money on the less expensive electricity).
If I were to buy an EV again (I might or might not, depending on my wife keeping our other fossil fueled car), perhaps I might consider a new Nissan Leaf, since the entry level model still actually costs only (believe it or not) 23 000 $.
https://www.audi.no/dam/nemo/no/pricelists/Prisliste-Audi-Q8-etron.pdf
Hi Jone,
It has been said – and it is true – that EVs are primarily the virtue signaling devices of the affluent Left; i.e., government workers and those who feed off the government indirectly. These people have the money, obviously. But they also do not want to drive something slow or unimpressive looking – like a Prius, say. A $50,000 EV lets them tout their politics and their affluence.
A two-fer.
Hard to believe this is the same country that produced an economy where a high school graduate to get a factory job that would support a family of 4.5, own a smallish home and two midpriced cars. Not only that but that wage would also pay for vacations, hobbies and tithing on Sunday.
Where did we go wrong? Or was that really unsustainable?
It is the fault of government, full stop. The voluntary division of labor made all of those wonderful things possible. The state hates anything that is voluntary.
‘Where did we go wrong?’ — ReadyKilowatt
Objectively, America’s post WW II boom ended when Nixon took the US dollar off gold in August 1971. Living standards have barely advanced since half a century ago.
But the dollar’s broken peg against gold in 1971 was the result of years of excessive US overseas military spending on its European and Asian client states, exacerbated by a hot war in Vietnam.
Three generations as self-appointed global hegemon have brought the US to its knees. Circa 3 percent of GDP in excess ‘defense’ spending — over and above the ~1.5 percent of GDP needed simply to defend US borders — has starved the US economy of domestic investment while relentlessly eroding US living standards.
Clowngress just hiked ‘defense’ spending another 10 percent in its egregious omnibus bill last December, locking in and accelerating America’s decline. US life expectancy is now falling faster than in some Third World countries, as America approaches failed state status.
Bright expectations in the 1960s that Americans would enjoy rising material affluence and shorter work weeks were not unsustainable. Instead, they were deliberately sabotaged by our treasonous Micimatt overlords [Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Media Academia Think Tank].
Not just Uncle Sam, but everyone. Everyone assumed the good times would roll on forever, and the FED leaders had learned from the depression. The job you had yesterday would still be there tomorrow, as reliable as the sunrise. So why not finance that Buick when you’ve got a Chevy budget? So why not mortgage the house with the extra bathroom, it’s only $25 more per month (for the next 30 years)? So why not finance the 25 inch color TV when you would have been just as happy with paying cash for 19 inch model, which is replacing the 12 inch black and white that still works?
The more stretched out on low monthy payments we all got, the less we saved for retirement, figuring social security and our good-as-gold pensions would be there, so why worry about saving? Live for today! Meanwhile the banks got rich for doing nothing.
Then it all fell apart. Yes, Nixon, but also everything that led up to the end of the gold standard. All that credit, not just the Treasury having to pay for losing wars, but the rise of the consumer credit economy. Bringing all those purchases forward because the world was perfect. Once the bombed out cities of Europe and Japan were rebuilt with modern machine tools, by a population that was fighting for second place, it was inevitable that the US economy would take a hit. Only the hubris of those on top should have assumed they’d always be there. Oh sure the US is still on the top podium spot but only because we gutted out most of our accumulated wealth in exchange for amped-up GDP. We’ve pushed ourselves into the third world in a first world enviroment. California being the most glaring example, but it seems to be coming to a town near you soon.
‘Hard to believe this is the same country.’ — ReadyKilowatt
Indeed, it’s deteriorated to the point that Nayib Bukele, president of impoverished, crime-ridden El Salvador, now feels entitled to troll “Joe Biden’s” dying America with tweets like this one: “Move to El Salvador — the new Land of the Free!”
https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1640168857800253441
The biggest mistake was to let government get control of education. Now the populace overwhelmingly believes that the only way to make an important decision is to vote for “representatives” who will decide and then force the result on everybody. At the other end of the spectrum are those who preach self-sufficiency, which is a recipe for poverty and misery. Libertarians, of all people, should understand how much we need capitalism and a global division of labor.
Lest we forget the total lie of “climate change”, formerly “global warming”, which had to be changed since the globe wasn’t warming. Not one of the alarmist’s predictions have come true. Not for the last 50 years. NOT ONE!! Which clearly indicates they haven’t a clue what they’re talking about.
All the coming climate crisis predictions have been wrong for at least a century
But computer projections for the global average temperature in 70 years have been accurate so far, probably by chance. With about 40 years of data available to verify the 70 year forecast (called the Transient Climate Sensitivity of CO2), it looks good so far … except for the past 8 years and 9 months.
The IPCC does not publicize that TCS prediction. They publicize their Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity to CO2 (ECS) prediction, for 400 years in the future. The ECS prediction is for a global warming rate roughly double the TCS prediction warming rate. Better for scaring people.
Meanwhile, the climate will do whatever it wants to do, no matter what future climate is predicted.
In fact, there has been no global warming for the past 8 years and 9 months, based on the most accurate global temperature data available, from NASA satellites used for the UAH compilation.
I bet you did not read that in the newspapers.
But it is happening.
Looking forward to the news stories when the deadline hits & we don’t have the capacity to make all non ICE, or the electric capacity to charge EV’s even if we would get there.
And no effort at all to increase the grid capacity to meet such demand. Which clearly indicates the intent is NOT to replace ICVs, but to reduce private personal transportation
It is John. How will that play out politically?
Can’t imagine they will be able to box car us all into the 15 minute city by then, so there will be a price to pay.
Someone wrote a report of how much the push for a “Net Zero” economy would cost Americans….(Hint: It would be VERY EXPENSIVE, and for virtually NO impact on the climate)
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2023/03/Kelly-Net-Zero-Progress-Report-USA-.pdf
Net Zero is the dumbest thing they ever came up with – first it will be impossible to achieve – unless we are all dead. Then the fact that CO2 doesn’t warm the planet, so reducing CO2 does nothing about temperatures – which are controlled by the sun.
Net Zero is a program by people with zero intellect.
I have this new theory about Biden, they put the stupids in charge, and are allowing the stupids to wreck the United States. You have to admit that Kamala Harris is beyond stupid, Biden is a senile pedo, his appointments are losers, his health czar is a mentally ill tranny, etc.
THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING because they are to stupid to know anything, they just have some weirdo ideologies, and as they pursue them, everything gets wrecked in the process. The Afghanistan withdrawal is proof, they are flailing again in Ukraine – which will for sure be another total loss.
We are in a slow motion train wreck because complete incompetence has been put in charge.
Hi Jack,
“Net Zero”is like “Zero COVID” in that both are fanaticisms with a religious quality to them. They are purveyed to people desperate for a religion (for the meaning it provides) by evil people using this religion to magnify their power.
Eric and Jack,
Someone at the Global Warming Policy Center also wrote a paper titled “The Inadequacy of Wind Power”. Along with “Net Zero”, the globalist technocrats are also pushing wind power, but that can’t power an entire society either, plus, windmills may have also been the cause of death of all those whales we’ve been hearing about in the news. However, there are people who REALLY believe in the existence of a Green Energy Unicorn, and will obsessively pursue it regardless of how it affects humans, civilization, animals, or even the planet.
Engineers are working on a $30,000 US EV (in 2022 dollars) for 2026 model.
I don’t have any contact with those engineers to see if they are making much progress. Engineers working on much more expensive 2026 model EVs think they are making little progress. Like Tesla’s imaginary $25,000 EV that has been coming for the psst 10 years.
I know a smaller electric motor is not a big cost reduction. But it can gain at least 5% more range than a larger motor. Maybe 10% more range for a driver who frequently uses his bigger motor to accelerate rapidly.
The $30,000 EVV would be a very small, cheap trim model with limited range.
One of the big problems is rising prices in general, and rising lithium prices as demand increases.
That $30,000 goal in 2022 dollars might be $35,000 in 2026 dollars.
Engineers working on the expensive EVs know their customers consider EVs to be worth LESS than ICEs, but the auto companies think they can charge MORE.
Based on my study of economics, the optimum price is NOT based on the cost of a product — it is based on how much the customers think your product is worth.
If they think an EV is worth $40,000 and the fully accounted manufacturers cost is $40,000, or more, the manufacturer will lose money.
The auto bean counters )finance people) can demand more cost reductions and a $30,000 selling price EV, that makes a profit for the company, but it does not appear that the engineers will be able to deliver that wish.
… There are lots of cheap Chinese EVs that could meet the $30,000 target if they were redesigned to meet US regulations. Not that Americans buying Chinese EVs would benefit any American auto manufacturer.
The DEMAND of the customers:
Most people choose ICE’s
Some choose Hybrids
A small minority choose EVs
The SUPPLY demanded by the leftists in government
Mainly EVs
Isn’t it great to have a nation mismanaged by gooberment “experts” in Warshington. DC?
So they’re coming around to the inevitable — these are essentially fancy golf carts. As a kid, I worked at a golf range after school. They didn’t want those things to have to be recharged so often, that’s just how it had to be. But nobody was expecting them to do more than 18 holes in a single go. I never saw the super-fancy (literal) golf carts with air conditioners and whatever the hell else they put on ’em. I’m sure it all cost too much to be in a place where I’d be schlepping carts and balls as a kid.
Maybe they’ll figure out that, if they strip all the bullshit (i.e., make it lighter with fewer power accessories), that they can even eek out a couple/few more of the (magical) MPgE.
That air conditioner… pah! You don’t need it! That’s for the rich folk! Power windows?! Who do you think you are?!?! Roll ’em up and down you stinking pleb! Fancy sound system?! For YOU?!?! Oh hoho no! No, no, no.
Roll down those windows (manually!) when you need it cooler. Take some of those hot packs when it’s cold out (maybe a thermos with some warm beverage)! Bring your boom box with 10 “D” batteries for a sound system!
And maybe… but not likely… the lower down folk don’t actually need 6 – 10 airbags. Maybe just one or two… because they’ll also limit the top speed anyway! High speed and acceleration! YOU CAN’T AFFORD ALL THAT!
Better become Amish and get a horse! 🤣🤣🤣
Off topic, but nevertheless a droll piece of rare good news: the prolonged absence of senile ‘senator’ Feinstein, laid up with shingles, in turn blocks the Senate Judiciary Committee from nominating DIE leftist activists as federal judges.
Democrat efforts to appoint a ‘temporary’ substitute for old-and-out-of-it Feinstein have met a brick wall of R-party opposition.
Gridlock, comrades: ME LIKE! 🙂
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/republicans-vow-block-feinstein-judiciary-replacement
BTW, your warning on intrusive insurance companies has come true.
Recently, I ran over a truck tire in a rain storm and had to file a claim to get my front air spoiler repaired, which cost over $500. The insurance company decided that the rain storm and the truck driver’s blow out were my “fault” and raised my insurance rate from $750 a year to $2500 a year (for full coverage.)
So I shopped for another insurance carrier and one thing I find is that in order to get a reduced rate I have to add a computer monitor to my car (although I only drive 300 miles a month and have had no claims in 20 years before.) This monitor will record all sharp braking and (probably) all speeds I travel and who knows what else.
So I won’t be getting the inexpensive rate I deserve to get because I won’t give up my privacy and my liberty to decide for myself the best way to drive.
Shop around and you may find a better deal with no monitor. If they require a monitor for a good deal, just attach it to grandma’s car.
We have $1000 deductible for our collision insurance because smaller claims can end up costing you more in the long run.
Many insurance companies will give you a good deal for the first six or twelve months just to get a new customer.
The next bill will be much higher — so you move on to another new company.
Be aware that buying auto and home coverage from the same company may NOT be a better bargain.
Our cheap auto insurer for this year (State Farm) wanted twice as much as we were already paying for home insurance through Allstate, when I asked if buying both coverages from State Farm would be a better deal.
A prior upstate Michigan insurer decided to cancel us simply because they stopped doing business with our insurance agent. They didn’t even bother giving us the name of another agent who sold their policies.
For about 20 years before I retired, I drove a company car with free insurance. Buying car insurance after I retired has been a nightmare of cheap deals that last for 6 or 12 months, and then have huge increases. I fight that by buying policies from different companies frequently — up to every year — to get the good deals. Michigan insurance is very expensive — we’re number one, and that’s not good. And we have NO accident claims in the past 20 years. And no tickets in many years. And we drive under 5,000 miles a year.
Thanks for the advice, Richard G. I appreciate it.
My past experience with State Farm means that I avoid them like the plague, but I am shopping around elsewhere and will likely reduce my coverage (that is, more self-insurance.)
(St Farm refused to pay my auto claim in the 90’s for over a year after ‘totaling’ my car and offering 1/4 of its market value. A year later St Farm treated me like a criminal when my apartment was burgled and several cameras were stolen with the agent asking me why I had more than one camera. That claim took over a year to settle, too. I dropped them at that point and haven’t considered them since.)
I had the same experience that you did with increases after the first year on auto insurance.
If you aren’t using an independent agent, you should be. The commission for agents is extraordinary and ongoing, so they don’t want to lose a customer. Threaten that loss and an independent agent will likely find you a better deal.
Too bad the PTB aren’t going anything to upgrade the power grid to be able to charge all the EV’s they want to push onto the serfs. In fact they’re doing just the opposite, retiring base load gas and nuclear power plants as fast as they can, while banning that evil natural gas. Be ready to freeze in your tiny apartment while reading by candlelight because that’s what our overlords want for us.
If it’s any consolation, PHEVs will be included in the new clean vehicle mandates in CA. Even after 2035, you’ll be able to get a PHEV. You can see the CARB policy here: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission-vehicle-sales-2035#:~:text=The%20rule%20establishes%20a%20year,plug%2Din%20hybrid%20electric%20vehicles.
I am always surprised at the number of financial analysts and accounting gurus that can’t read numbers. Don’t these car manufacturers have a bunch of bean counters in a back room somewhere crunching these numbers out on what is selling and what isn’t?
The EV purchasers are the old Nissan Leaf/Toyota Prius buyers. And it is obvious they haven’t read the reports over the last several years. The Prius have sold roughly 1.6 million vehicles since 1999. The most popular years were from 2012-2015. Since 2015 the Prius’s sales have decreased substantially ever since. The hybrid/electric car market is not expanding (e.g. bringing in new buyers), but co-existing with each other with most buyers switching back and forth between these two options. The minivan/Chevy Tahoe mom will not be buying an electric car. The tradesmen in his Ford F250 or Ram 2500 will not be switching either. The EV industry has pretty much maxed out their market.
The smarter thing to do would be for manufacturers of hybrids to rethink their audience. An older couple whose kids have left home would likely consider a smaller, more efficient car (it goes along with the smaller, more efficient house), but Grandma and Grandpa are not going to want to add in new electrical transformers to the garage so they can plug in every night as they would need to do for an EV. If the focus was on truly caring about the Earth than the hybrid vehicle is the way that the auto producers should do it.
Ford and GM know what’s selling but they’ve decided to stake their futures on the agenda, content to use the profits from pushing IC garage queens to “invest” in EV manufacturing.
My neighbor’s new Bronco only comes out of hiding on extremely nice weekend days. The other space in the throne room -er- garage is an early 00s Camaro, from before GM stopped making them the first time.
BTW, I had a new Camaro in Orlando as a rental two weeks ago. 2023. Brand new, but with telltale signs of burning oil. I’m not surprised that those are done … again … this year.
Hi Roscoe,
I just ordered a rental for my trip to Florida next week – I asked for the largest freaking SUV they had. Enterprise stated they had a Tahoe available…that works. I couldn’t’ imagine the hell of the four of us, a carful of luggage, and a 14 hour drive in an EV….it would take me two days to get there.
We road tripped from Austin to Tennessee last Summer in my Camry, two adults, two teenagers, and that was tight.
Incredible gas mileage, even in the non-hybrid, but every bit of space was filled.
I remember my parents taking us to SC to visit my grandparents one summer. Picture this: four kids in the back seat, two adults in the front, and an 85 lb. German Shepherd in a 1985 hatchback VW Rabbit. Yes, we had a luggage rack. 🙂
Hi RG,
The wife and I would be part of that new hybrid audience. Our Corolla Hybrid might be the last new car we ever purchase. I wanted an IC engine before they’re regulated out of existence. Also something that approaches the efficiency that I enjoyed with VW diesels in the 1970s and 80s.
I had not driven a Corolla before, but that model seems to have gone the way of the Ford Focus in its later years. They used to be lightweight little buzz-boxes, but our 2015 was a completely different car: much bigger and heavier. Heft-wise, the Corolla feels just like it. To me, it is not “small.”
It’s a nice car, but as Eric has lamented on these pages, many of the features require a monthly subscription fee (not that I want all of the distracting gadgets anyway). And it’s just too darned complicated. Last evening I did something that I never thought I would do: with the engine auto-stopped, I accidentally left it “powered up” in the parking lot. Sheesh, next thing you know I’ll be putting the keys in the fridge. Oh wait, there are no keys.
All I needed to know about the veracity of the EV article was to see it’s published by CNBC. That virtually guaranties it contains regime-directed propaganda.
Another decent rule of thumb to spot propaganda is the lack of a comment section after the article. No comment section = propaganda (although having a comment section does not necessarily mean it is not propaganda).
I concur with the comment section, Mr liberty. Can’t have the plebes voicing their opinions about the matter, can we?
What will the rental companies do when EV is mandated? They make bank on having vehicles to turnover immediately to the next customer getting off the plane hence bring it back with a full tank or pay thru the nose. Hertz and Avis may like the depreciation expense as these expensive appliances are only good for a short time (much less than a ICE auto) but you have to make money first.
Terminology is important.
Ford Mach e comes with……
This (insert product name) costs less……..
and so forth.
We all fall for it. Reporting that Ford Mach e comes with 247 mile range is false. This phrasing refers to the claimed capacity of the battery in the Ford Mach e, once it is fully charged. Ford Mach e is nothing but a machine that needs charging. And the range claim is, of course, subject to about a thousand variables, as Eric has written about. Same as gas engines.
Cost less? For how many decades have you been told something is on sale, at 20%, 10% or whatever, off? Save now! Except you can’t save when you spend; you can only spend less, hypothetically, because all currency gets spent eventually. You may ‘spend less’ for the exact same product than you might have spent in some undefined past or future, but the fact remains, you are spending, not saving.
For decades, government got away with calling increases in spending, ‘cuts’, because their cuts only referred to planned increases to the budget. “We were planning to spend $100 billion more, but we cut that to only $50 billion.” Budget cut; Americans fooled.
There is no such thing as a battery powered anything. All energy comes from the sun, stored in either coal, oil, wind, heat, gas.
Just as there is no way to live without killing something else; vegans are murderers, too.
The philosopher says, be happy with your present condition.
The politician says, be envious of your neighbor. I’ll help you take what they have.
Mark Twain says, those who dont read the news are uninformed; those who read the news are misinformed.
I’ve exceeded the time alloted for such musings; time to get busy livin’.
A concept I could never successfully communicate to my former shopaholic wife. You cannot save money by spending it.
Something else that these propagandists are claiming is “lower priced” is so-called GREEN ENERGY. However, people who’ve actually looked into this MASSIVE push from the Biden Thing & the climate change zealots for “Renewable energy” found it would actually be VERY EXPENSIVE to “transition” (To use one of the Modern Left’s favorite terms) the electrical grid to 100% CLEAN ENERGY or “NET ZERO”, as well as UNFEASIBLE. Not only that, but it would have virtually NO impact on the climate.
EV = Expensive Vanity
First words out of Mullany’s mouf:
‘Tesla claims it will cut manufacturing costs in its next models by 50%.’
That’s Tim Mullany’s topic sentence. As a lazy-slug journo, he then proceeds to crib extensively from a corporate press release, gathers a couple of in-person quotes to spice it up, and bingo — an ‘article’!
Here a skeptical reader might interject that Tesla has been promising us a Cybertruck for over a decade now. There’s a decided gap between Eeeeeeeelon’s musings and an actual vehicle with an MSRP sticker on the window.
But such is the career risk of a flack who fronts for the powers that be. His conclusion is pre-ordained. As in the Iraq war, the shill’s job is to ‘fix the intelligence and facts around the policy.’
Somebody please supply me with the literary reference from an SF novel: a man is being interviewed by a patrol robot.
‘What is your profession?’ asks the robocop.
‘Writer,’ he replies.
‘Unemployed,’ confirms the robot.
Read it and weep, “Tim.”
Cut manufacturing costs by 50%?
Sorry, not possible.
Cut some small facet of manufacturing costs by 50% maybe. Labor costs by moving production to another country? unlikely but maybe through automation and cheaper labor. But that automation and the cost of the move will have a long payback and that payback gets even longer if they cut prices immediately instead of years down the road.
The whole car? Nope. Not going to happen.
Hecho en Mexico. Monterrey in the case of Tesla’s “Model 2”.
Maybe Tesla will have the Austin facility bolt the bumpers onto the cars on this side of the border in order to maintain the tax breaks.
Hell, maybe they’ll just stick on one of them longhorn emblems that all muh homies in Austin have on the back of they cars:
https://www.amazon.com/University-Texas-Longhorns-Auto-Emblem/dp/B00QELHSWC?th=1
Don’t sniff the glue! 😉
*Some* vehicles have the longhorn emblems, but not all.
Don’t forget the Texas Exes bumper sticker if you’re trying to blend in using a longhorn emblem on your vehicle
Why not sell EVs the same way they sell other toys?*
*Batteries not included.
A Vietnamese company (VinFast) is doing just that. They will sell you the car and rent you the battery on a monthly or annual basis. This cold be a smart move because it relieves the owner of responsibility for the battery, putting it on the manufacturer.
Hi Anarchyst,
It is “smart” – for VinFast – in that it gulls the mark into believing he is paying “less” by getting him to pay, forever. Serial debt, as far as the eye can see. Never own anything. And so, never accumulate capital. That is what the WEF’s mantra is all about. You will have access to “services.” It’ll be just like it was in the old Soviet Union – just less obvious. State-owned property that favored apparatchiks can use, so long as they behave.