The Answer To Our Problems, EV's

How many times do I have to mention that our politicians are responsible for meeting EPA standards. Small subsidies are one strategy. I don’t see you complaining about a $6 Trillion oil war.

 

Again, thoroughly wrong. EPA works for the politicians when they set the standards. EPA doesn't work for themselves. They're part of the Executive branch of government, ultimately reporting to the President.

Subsidies are provided by Congress in order to grease the skids for something that's not naturally popular (hence the reason EVs need subsidies- they suck where it matters and folks don't naturally want them). Actually a better term for subsides would be "bribes".

And we've never fought a war over oil- ever. Oil's popular because it works great. It can make a healthy profit because people want to buy it. Unlike EVs.

 

There has never been an oil war.

 

Another failure . . . .
The Electric Bus Debacle in Antelope Valley: A Case Study in Premature Policy Implementation
Charles Rotter
This incident reveals the gaps between the idealistic pursuits of environmental policies and the pragmatic realities of their implementation. . . .

 

Your naivety is on full display. You should Google "Production Sharing Agreements". Unfortunately for GW and Dick Cheney, Chevron and BP, they didn't work out, as Iraq rejected all proposals.

 

Sorry, but your position is mere propaganda.
Iraq: Oil and Gas Sector, Revenue Sharing, and U.S. Policy

Every CRS Report
https://www.everycrsreport.com › reports

Jun 26, 2007 — The draft hydrocarbon framework law states that Iraq's oil wealth belongs to all of its citizens, as reflected in the Iraqi constitution.

Iraq: Oil and Gas Legislation, Revenue Sharing, and U.S. Policy
Defense Technical Information Center (.mil)
https://apps.dtic.mil › sti › pdf › ADA473668

PDF
by CM Blanchard · 2007 · Cited by 61 — regional oil and gas investment law and signed new production sharing agreements with several international companies, including U.S.-based ...

 

I've looked through this same sorry link before. It states the same thing that I said - Production Sharing Agreements drafted by US and British oil companies, which was rejected by Iraq. It attempts to paint a picture that these were wonderful deals for the Iraqis, and that it's their oil. Just think about the title - Production Sharing Agreements. If they were so wonderful, why did Iraq reject them? Make no mistake - it was an Oil War!

 

"Production Sharing Agreements" were (and remain) common in the oil industry around the world. The point of the proposed agreements in Iraq was to create a reliable revenue stream for the reconstruction of Iraq. Oil was never a US objective in Iraq. Had oil been an objective there were much simpler ways to get it, both before and after the war. The "war for oil" trope is simple-minded sloganeering with no basis in fact or US policy.

 

Yikes!

Business·Futurism
Tesla Reportedly Laying Off Every Single Employee Working on Superchargers

 

Thec

The argument that the Iraqi War was not about oil is naive and totally devoid of fact.

 

LOL, yet YOU never make such a case for it while Jack shows you several times evidence to back his position.

 

Sorry, but you're in denial on the facts. The GWB administration came into office -- from Day 1 -- determined to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Oil had nothing to do with it. The oil claim is merely a trope that the left used to rally opposition; it has no basis in fact.

 

You been duped man!

 

You been duped too!

 

I was still working then. I saw the process.

 

Like those WMDs that were.the pretext to the war, and never found.

 

WMD's were indeed a pretext, the lowest common denominator to create a coalition to support a policy decision already arrived at in advance of the intelligence. Saddam unwittingly helped. He wanted to convince the Iranians he might still have WMD to deter them from attacking him in his weakened post-Gulf War state. US intelligence picked up the information Saddam put out to create the appearance of WMD, but not the deception behind that information.

 

LOL, you are still batting zero with no cogent arguments to offer.

 

I did too but it wasn't just the Bush people it was also a few other nations who pushed the WMD angle as their way to get rid of Hussein.

 

Meanwhile Hertz is dumping even more EV's because it is destroying their profit line,

EV Hell continues: Crash victims might have to be “left to die”, Hertz dumps another 10,000 cars, Tesla sacks whole charging team

By Jo Nova

May 2, 2024

Excerpt:

Chronicling the collapse of the Big-Government-made EV bubble

In today’s EV obituary column, Elon Musk has dropped a bombshell. Two months after Telsa chargers became the industry standard (which promised to save the other car makers) his profits fell, and he’s fired the entire EV charging team overnight. Hertz, meanwhile, has realized that dumping 20,000 electric cars in January was not enough, and it has to offload another 10,000 electric cars, which now amounts to half its EV fleet. And then comes the news that there might be a secondhand “timebomb” coming at the eight year mark when most EV battery warrantees run out and cars will become “impossible to sell”.

As if that’s not enough, this week the fire and rescue experts in NSW are warning in the politest possible way, that they might have to do a “tactical disengagement” of a car accident victim, which means leaving them to die in an EV fire if the battery looks likely to explode. They say that first responders need more training, as if this can be solved with a certificate, but the dark truth is that they’re talking about training the firemen and the truck drivers to recognize when they have to abandon the rescue.

LINK

================

Would have been far better to go with HYBRIDS which is a far better investment.

 

The Used EV Timebomb

Excerpt:

Money Mail can today reveal a timebomb looming in the second-hand market for electric vehicles (EVs).

Our investigation found that many EVs could become almost impossible to resell because of their limited battery life.

Experts said that the average EV battery guarantee lasts just eight years. After this time, the battery may lose power more quickly and so reduce mileage between charges.

Many EVs will lose up to 12 per cent of their charge capacity by six years. Some may lose even more.

Yet the cost of replacing an EV battery is astonishingly high, our research found.

A five-year-old Renault Zoe costs £9,100 but a new battery will set you back £24,124

In some cases, the cost of a replacement battery is as much as £40,000. For certain EVs, the cost of replacing the battery could be ten times the value of the vehicle itself on the second-hand market.

LINK

==================


Now as the future is rushing up to the EV' owner who is beginning to realize their car is near unsellable because of the huge cost for a new battery to the prospective buyer.

Hybrid cars is a far better investment which my brother knows firsthand as he is on his second HYBRID car both from Toyota after 25 years which I have been a passenger in..

 

Live by the subsidy, die by the subsidy.

Why many electric vehicles will no longer qualify for a $7,500 subsidy
By Maxine Joselow

 

US market. The world is doing just fine without subsidies, especially when companies like BYD is now leading the world in sales, and pricing EVs well below ICEs.

 

EV's should be priced lower than ICE vehicles; they're less capable.

 

BYD is heavily subsidized by the Chinese Communist Party. The founder of BYD is a member of the National People’s Conference, representing the CCP so it’s not surprising record subsidies have been coming BYD’s way.