, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I find myself, gentle readers, with an embarrassment of riches when it comes to writing about electric vehicles. Years ago, I could find sufficient material for the occasional article. Now, I could write nearly every day, so I spend time separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. We begin with Karen Hunt at American Greatness.

She explains an issue I’ve been pounding for some time: “renewable energy” proponents have no idea from where electricity comes, or, choose to ignore that reality, substituting their own unicorn farts and fairy dust reality:

Alas, the mystery of life was not solved by a synthetic stimulation with electricity. Today, we are told that electricity will solve all of our pollution woes. Magically, wondrously, if we switch everything from fossil fuels to ‘renewable’ energy, we can save mankind and the planet from destruction.

Of course, the opposite is true.

Let’s start with the fact that electricity is a secondary energy source, meaning that we must first use something else to ignite it.

That something else could be coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear power, or other natural sources. These are called primary sources. The energy sources we use to make electricity can be renewable (such as wind or solar) or nonrenewable, but electricity itself is neither renewable nor nonrenewable.

This distinction between renewable and nonrenewable is a fallacy as surely as it was a fallacy that electrical currents could bring a dead person back to life. How do we capture wind or solar energy? We must produce other things, like wind turbines and solar panels. Are these clean? No.

By all means, take the link and read the rest. In energy as all else, there is no such thing as a free lunch, which is why the government has to waste untold billions in taxpayer dollars to subsidize the whole “clean energy” scam. John Murawski at Real Clear Investigations, narrows the point:

As CaliforniaNew York, and other states move to phase out the sale of gasoline-powered cars, public officials routinely echo the Biden administration’s claim that electric vehicles are a “zero emissions” solution that can significantly mitigate the effects of climate change.

Car and energy experts, however, say there is no such thing as a zero-emissions vehicle: For now and the foreseeable future, the energy required to manufacture and power electric cars will leave a sizable carbon footprint. In some cases hybrids can be cleaner alternatives in states that depend on coal to generate electricity, and some suggest that it may be too rash to write off all internal combustion vehicles just yet.

What?! EVs aren’t magically inexpensive? Each one doesn’t immediately do something mystical to ‘fight climate change?’ Not quite:

The electric car’s biggest disadvantage on greenhouse gas emissions is the production of an EV battery, which requires energy-intensive mining and processing, and generates twice as much carbon emissions as the manufacture of an internal combustion engine. This means that the EV starts off with a bigger carbon footprint than a gasoline-powered car when it rolls off the assembly line and takes time to catch up to a gasoline-powered car.

One of the big unknowns is whether EV batteries will have to be replaced. While the EV industry says battery technology is improving so that degradation is limited, if that assurance proves overly optimistic and auto warranties have to replace expensive battery packs, the new battery would create a second carbon footprint that the EV would have to work off over time, partially erasing the promised greenhouse-gas benefits.

Take that link too, gentle readers. Murawski labors to be as fair as possible to EVs, but real reality isn’t kind to them and their proponents.  Kamala Harris recently engaged in cheerleading for electric school buses. True, she made her usual amount of sense–pretty much none:

Who doesn’t love a yellow school bus, right? Can you raise your hand if you love a yellow school bus? Many of us went to school on the yellow school bus, right? It’s part of our experience growing up. It’s part of a nostalgia, a memory of the excitement and joy of going to school to be with your favorite teacher, to be with your best friends and to learn. The school bus takes us there.

Teton County, Wyoming—Jackson Hole—is an island of D/S/C virtue signaling in a sea of red, so lets visit Teton County to see how Kamala’s the brave new world of yellow electric school busses is working out. Kevin Killough at Cowboy State Daily explains:

credit: cowboystatedaily

The Teton County School District #1 was among the 400 school districts across the country that received federal grants to buy an electric school bus.

The district was set to receive more than $200,000 from the EPA’s $1 billion Clean School Bus Program to support the purchase of a new electric bus, but the district will have to return the money.

“We’re not able to move forward with an electric bus simply because of the infrastructure and facilities situation,” said Charlotte Reynolds, a spokesperson for the district.

The northwestern Wyoming district felt it would need indoor storage for the vehicle, which it doesn’t have.

I’m sure Jackson Hole would have loved to virtue signal with an electric bus, but an indoor bus barn was the least of their problems. Even Jackson Hole is sufficiently grounded in reality to understand electric buses just don’t work in Wyoming; it’s too cold, and an enormous amount of battery power is necessary to heat the cabin, which reduces range to ridiculously low levels. Then there were federal regulations:

As with the Clean School Bus Program, the NEVI program contains requirements that don’t fit circumstances here in Wyoming. The program requires charging stations to be placed every 50 miles and near exits. With long stretches between towns where there is infrastructure to support charging stations, the Wyoming Department of Transportation requested 11 exemptions from the requirements. The feds approved only three.

And how is that charging station program working out?

One of Wyoming’s few, and rarely used, charging stations…

If the Wyoming Department of Transportation were to follow all the federal guidelines laid out for a program that pays to build and operate more charging stations along the nation’s roadways, Wyoming would need 17 charging stations at a cost of about $19 million — and they wouldn’t be profitable. [skip]

To meet those requirements, 17 charging stations would need to be built along Interstates 25, 80 and 90 through Wyoming, which would cost about $19 million of the $24 million available through the program over the next five years.

Yeah. That’s not going to work in Wyoming, and in many other states:

With only a few hundred EVs registered in Wyoming, the stations would primarily serve out-of-state drivers for the benefit of the state’s tourism industry. With so few cars using the stations, though, they wouldn’t likely be profitable.

Patrick Lawson, owner of Wild West EV, said there are a lot of variables that go into the costs of building a charging station, and inflation rates are raising that. Lawson said ballpark figures are about $500,000 per station, which means the feds would pay $400,000 per station.

The Wyoming Department of Transportation did an analysis of costs for a fully compliant NEVI program in the state. Based on responses from six companies, the state’s plan estimated costs of construction would be between $478,000 and $725,000 per station, which doesn’t include costs associated with installing a 480-volt 3-phase power supply.

Running that kind of power to the middle of nowhere is wildly costly, if an electric company would be willing to do it in the first place.  No wonder WDOT didn’t include that in their figures.  There would be no way, with runaway inflation, that would be remotely possible.

One company estimated that the cost of construction and operation over a decade would be between $587,000 and $837,000, based on an average of 10 station visitors per day.

‘In the end, it would create a system that is not economically feasible for private industry, especially Wyoming-owned businesses and disadvantaged communities, two entities the program is designated to primarily support,’ Luke Reiner, WYDOT director, wrote in the introduction of the state’s submitted plan.

And speaking of failure, let’s look in again on the Ford F-150 Lightning:

The Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck’s ‘kryptonite’ is a road trip, according to the Detroit News review of the vehicle. Auto critic Henry Payne explains that the electric truck got him ‘170 miles of range’ on a trip up interstate 75 in Michigan, while its gasoline-powered counterpart gets drivers ‘600 miles and 22 mpg.’


The auto critic explained that he had charged the vehicle overnight to 100 percent, giving it a 320-mile range. He then ran a few errands the following morning, and started his road trip with 281 miles on hand.

But by the time he got to Saginaw, ‘the Lightning was getting just 60% of estimated range and it was becoming clear to the trip computer that we would not make it to Gaylord,’ Payne said, adding that the ‘281-mile range looked more like 168 miles.’

The system then rerouted Payne to a charging station, but when he arrived, the only two chargers there were already occupied. So he drove to another facility that he knew had four charging stations. When he got there, unfortunately, two were occupied and the other two were being worked on by technicians.

Then, one of the electric vehicle owners said that his charger wasn’t working and went to wait behind the individual who was charging at the sole remaining charging station. So Payne headed back to the original charging station, where he planned on waiting for a charger to become available.

‘I arrived in Charlevoix after 6 hours, 40 minutes for what’s normally a stop-free, 4-hour trip by gas-fired pickup,’ he concluded. The odyssey led Payne to label the road trip as the electric truck’s ‘kryptonite.’

Unless I’m mistaken, that Lightning was equipped with the much more expensive, and heavy, high capacity battery. Imagine that experience with the less powerful battery, in cold weather, which reduces EV range in the area of 40% or more. But tax credits! Government subsidies! What about those? John Hinderaker at Powerline explains:

The transition to electric vehicles might not kill traditional auto makers after all—as long as they qualify for Washington’s flagship subsidy program.

At an investor day Thursday, General Motors laid bare the economics of its technological shift. The bad news: GM estimated that its operating margins on EVs would still only be in the low to mid-single digits at the end of 2025. That calculation includes sales of regulatory credits for greenhouse-gas emissions, but excludes new tax credits that President Biden signed into law in August as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

This is no surprise. GM lost huge piles of money on every Chevy Volt it ever built. I wonder what GM shareholders think about GM purposely losing money on its products—and their investments?

GM also said its capital expenditures would rise to between $11 billion and $13 billion a year through 2025, from $9 billion to $10 billion this year, as it brings forward EV investments. Such numbers play into investors’ fears that Detroit is on a hugely expensive road to a technology that expensive battery metals will make less profitable for years to come.

That last sentence is what we in English call gross understatement; also wild optimism. Make that “grotesquely less profitable for years to come,” and that’s if sufficient materials actually exist, which they don’t. Remember too, our Meat Puppet President’s handlers aren’t going to allow mining in America, so we’re always going to be enriching our enemies and increasing our dependence on them. I wonder why Biden’s handlers would want that?

The good news: GM expects the Inflation Reduction Act to add between $3,500 to $5,500 per vehicle in profit—a transformative 5 to 7 percentage points in margin. Suddenly, EVs could be as profitable as conventional equivalents.

Except that money is coming out of taxpayer’s pockets, and none of it is going to be reducing inflation, which means much higher costs for vehicles already much more costly than gas powered vehicles, which means low demand. Gee, I wonder why GM isn’t mentioning that?

Consumers have understandably focused on the new $7,500 tax credit for their EV purchases available from next year, which comes with many more strings attached than the one it replaces. Notably, half of it will depend on manufacturers’ sourcing EV materials from outside of China, which will take time for anyone to meet.

Yeah, that and enriching China and making us more dependent on the good graces and intentions of Communists.

But consumer tax credits are only one piece of the pie. A tax credit for business EV purchases of up to $7,500 isn’t subject to the same conditions…

I.e., the full $7,500 tax credit is available for vehicles made with Chinese materials. We are talking about the battery here, not the body or powertrain.

…which may explain why GM said it would focus first on fleet sales when it launches its electric version of the Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck next year. And then there are huge tax credits for battery production: $35 million for every gigawatt-hour of cells, and a further $10 million to package those cells into modules.

See what I mean, gentle readers? Where EVs are concerned, nothing is free, except the lies being told about EV wonders.  But other than that, EVs are the future!

UPDATE, 11-23-22 1330 MT: when I think I can’t criticize Ford’s hyperbole enough, they do it for me, as Fox reports:

Automakers have developed several ways to mitigate the issue, including pre-conditioning the battery packs, so that they never get too cold while the vehicle is parked, and offering various driving modes that conserve energy.

Ford has now released a tip sheet for owners of the F-150 Lightning electric pickup on how they can maximize the range of their trucks during the cold weather months, where their all-wheel-drive systems can provide utility and fun.

See? The Lightning can drive in the snow! Ford’s photo proves it!

The suggestions are the result of testing in Michigan and Alaska at temperatures as low as -40 degrees.

1: Park inside as often as possible to reduces its exposure to extreme temperatures.

That’s going to work great for apartment and city dwellers, and don’t people have to do things like go shopping where they can’t park indoors?

2: Leave the vehicle-plugged in, which allows it to draw from the home’s energy to maintain its temperature without draining the battery.

Wait, doesn’t that tend to negate the whole energy saving/free fuel thing?

3: Use the pre-conditioning feature available if you’re planning a long drive.

4: Rely on the heated seats and steering wheel rather than the climate control system for warmth, as they are more energy efficient.

Riiiight. That’ll keep the windshield and other windows from frosting over.

5: Leave the cabin heater off or very while the vehicle is charging.

I’m not sure what this means, but winter is going to be very, very chilly without a heater.

6. Clean snow off the vehicle to reduce aerodynamic drag, which can have a significant effect on efficiency.

Desperation.  Who could ever have thought of that?  It’s an amazing electric vehicle innovation!

7: Drive at lower speeds when the temperatures are low.

Of course. Who needs to drive at highways speeds?  Driving slow will let bystanders admire your Lightning longer.  Wait a minute, don’t you have to drive faster to get any real aerodynamic benefit?

8: Keep the tires inflated to the recommended pressures.

Wow! Who could ever have thought of that? It’s yet another amazing electric vehicle innovation!

Ford apparently thinks this kind of advice will cause people to buy F-150 Lightnings where winter drops by.  I know my dealer would die of embarrassment if they had to spout this nonsense to prospective buyers.