Electric cars

Sen. Chuck Schumer Proposes Billions in Government Handouts to Kill Gas-Powered Cars

Say hello to "Cash for Clunkers 2.0."

|

"By 2040 all vehicles on the road should be clean," says Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.).

Schumer outlines his "Clean Cars for America" plan in an article for The New York Times. "Scientists tell us that to avoid the most devastating effects of climate change, the world needs to be carbon neutral—to have net-zero carbon dioxide emissions—by midcentury," he writes. "At the moment, we are not remotely on track to meet that target."

In a statement to Reuters, Schumer listed three actions the government needs to take in order to get American emissions to meet his target. First: Give Americans a discount of up to $5,000 (with an additional $2,000 for low-income Americans) when they trade in their gas guzzlers for an electric car. Second: Invest $45 billion in charging stations throughout the country. Third: subsidize automakers with $17 billion to increase production of electric vehicles (EVs). Altogether, Schumer predicts his 10-year plan will cost about $454 billion to implement.

Schumer's article cites China's commitment to EVs, but the jury is still out on whether that country's increased production of EVs has been as beneficial to the environment as the senator seems to think. For example, a 2017 study found that EV production in China is about 60 percent less efficient than China's production of gas-powered cars. This is mostly due to environmentally destructive components that EVs require, such as their lithium-ion batteries, which require several rare metals to create. Until EVs can be manufactured more efficiently, their production will still contribute significantly to environmental degradation.

Once they're out on the roads, EVs do emit less tailpipe emissions than gas-powered cars do. But EVs' hidden environmental costs, such as charging stations that have their electricity generated by burning fossil fuels at power plants, make them less than optimal for creating a carbon neutral world in three decades. In California, the state where EVs are most popular, installing a dedicated EV charging circuit to one's house has the same effect as adding a house to the electricity grid.

Schumer claims that his plan will "create tens of thousands of jobs." But Jeff Schuster, an official at the auto parts supplier LMC Automotive, has told the Associated Press that a shift in production to electric vehicles will result in a 50–75 percent reduction in the engine and transmission workforce, since the batteries and motors of EVs are much less complex to assemble than traditional powertrain components. Schumer apparently wants to mitigate this possible effect by shifting those workers into building new EV plants and charging stations throughout the country. But those jobs will disappear after the plant or charging station is completed. Needless to say, that's no reason not to embrace new technology—but it is a good reason not to overpromise the jobs that technology will create.

Schumer also contends that his plan will make electric vehicles more accessible for average Americans, who are allegedly priced out of the electric car market. While it's true that electric vehicles are still pricier than their gas-powered counterparts, it's less clear that we need government to make electric cars more affordable. From 2018 to 2019, prices for new electric vehicles fell by 18.8 percent, from $68,562 to $55,646, mostly because Tesla reduced the price of its Model 3. Interestingly, Tesla cut the Model 3's price largely because people were losing a government benefit—the federal tax credit for buying an electric car was halved.

Other governmental handouts meant to lessen automobiles' environmental impact have done poorly. Take 2009's "Cash for Clunkers" program, which subsidized automakers and gave money to citizens who traded in their gas-powered cars. "Cash for Clunkers" removed an estimated 690,114 used cars from the market, but it also contributed greatly to surging used car prices in 2011. It's basic economics: Decrease the supply of a good, and the demand for it goes up. In the auto market, this meant higher prices—and making life more difficult for those who could afford only decades-old technologies.

Schumer's plan would repeat those mistakes. And it would impose yet more burdens on auto workers and low-income Americans by euthanizing the gas-powered vehicle market before it's ready to die.

NEXT: America Needs a 21st Century Equivalent of the Ellis Island Open Border Immigration Policy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sen. Chuck Schumer Proposes Billions in Government Handouts to curry favor and buy votes.

    1. Searching for a supplemental source of income?
      This is the easiest way I have found to earn $7000+ per month over the internet. Work for a few hours per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis.
      go to home media tech tab for more detail..☛ https://bit.ly/36brMRr

      1. Talk to Chuck.

    2. Meh. It’s not the first dumb thing Schoomie has ever proposed. We’re not talking Mensa-minded here. Would tax sex by the inch thus insuring that blacks would pay higher rates than whites…so racist.

    3. its a problem. do we invest to compete with china or do we become a market for china?

      believe it or not there is a e charging station at a the love’s in Crossplains TX, 200 mile from Dallas and 300 mi. from El Paso

      so far I have never seen anyone charging.

    4. Another transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Unlike Congress members, most of us can’t vote for a pay raise to ourselves.

  2. By 2040 all vehicles on the road should be clean…

    Firmly in the pocket of Big Car Wash.

    1. Seriously, I just let the rain take care of mine.

      1. And my car has less than 4000 miles.

  3. First: Give Americans a discount of up to $5,000 (with an additional $2,000 for low-income Americans) when they trade in their gas guzzlers for an electric car.

    Jesus, it is Cash for Clunkers all over again.

    1. It is worse than that. It is just a pay off for rich, stupid white people. EVs are so expensive even $7,000 will not make them economical.

      1. It is just a pay off for rich, stupid white people.

        And EV manufacturers like Elon Musk.

        Ah, but I repeat myself.

      2. They could hand out free EVs, and they still wouldn’t be economical.

      3. Bingo, John. The other thing it will do is cause people with fewer resources to have to pay higher prices for POS used cars.

      4. Hopefully that money is considered taxable income like the first Cash for Clunkers.

    2. Shirley $7,000 is enough to get poor people to buy a $17,000 EV ….

      1. Shirley $7,000 is enough to get poor people to buy a $17,000 EV ….

        You’re not finding an EV for $17k.

        The cheapest are just under double that.

        1. Actually the cheapest is the LevDeo i3 – for roughly $8000. Course you gotta drive it in China.

          And there are probably a dozen or two models from different mfrs that sell for $17,000 or less

          1. And there are probably a dozen or two models from different mfrs that sell for $17,000 or less

            Link?

          2. LevDeo i3? Does it help with underarm odor as well?

      2. don’t call me Shirley

  4. This is mostly due to environmentally destructive components that EVs require, such as their lithium-ion batteries, which require several rare metals to create. Until EVs can be manufactured more efficiently, their production will still contribute significantly to environmental degradation.

    Until someone develops a battery that uses only very common materials, the electric car will never replace the ICE in any significant numbers. As long as electric cars rely on littium-ion batteries, the limited supply of the metals that go into those batteries will prevent electric cars from every being anything more than a toy for rich people.

    Any efforts to get people to abandon ICE are just either payoffs to cronies and or flat out efforts to send people into poverty and deprive them of personal transportation. It is really that simple.

    1. Supplies of rare materials have a way of increasing to meet demand. Maybe it’s different for lithium and rare earths, but that is yet to be seen.
      Otherwise, I completely agree with you about electric cars. Batteries are not the answer.

      1. Yes, supply increases when demand goes up. But there is a finite amount of this stuff in existence. They are “rare earths” for a reason. As I understand it, unless the known reserves of lithium increase dramatically, there simply isn’t enough of it in the earth’s crust to make enough batteries to replace anymore than a fraction of ICE vehicles.

        1. it’s all comets these days.

      2. Well, for rare earth metals the pattern has always been to find some way to innovate past the need for them. We’ve got a pretty good idea of how much lithium is accessible on earth, and switching to current generation EVs across the entire world would heavily tax that proposed amount, assuming we could find it all.

        Since I’ve actually worked in the field, I can tell you: it’s much more likely that in the short term we’ll find a way to manufacture high energy density batteries using relatively common materials (well, common, but in unusual configurations) than it is that we will discover a new method of mining lithium that greatly enhances the supply.

        Once we’re mining in space, all bets are off – we have guesses about what’s up there, but the economics of finding stuff and mining it is too hypothetical to be certain about what it will look like. But for the time being, we’re better off going around lithium rather than digging up more of it.

        1. From what I understand, most of the mineral deposits needed for EV batteries are in China and Africa; Chile has the biggest lithium deposits, but there is also a fair amount in seawater if you can find a way to economically extract it.

          Of course there are not enough materials right now or in the foreseeable future to replace everyone’s personal vehicle with electric, which is just fine with the central planners who don’t want us to have them. They want us all riding electric buses and sharing bikes.

          1. And China has been busy cornering the market on all the raw materials needed for electric cars. I give you one guess who is behind the scenes pulling the strings for electric cars and supporting politicians pushing for them.

    2. Don’t worry Richie McEnglishman is working on getting people to Mars by the end of the next decade. Imagine the strip mining operations that could be run there with no environment to worry about.

      1. Yeah, that will fix it.

        1. There seems to be a growing number of people who believe that extraterrestrial mining will solve problems here. Who knows.

          1. I doubt it. Most minerals are recycled. It is hard to imagine the world getting so starved for minerals that the price of them gets so high that it would be economical to go to Mars or the asteroid belt to get them. Maybe some day, but not any time soon.

            1. How dare you talk about economics when the lives of the world’s children are at stake!

              -Environmentalist Heidi

              1. I love how people never put their views together or see how one affects the other. Very often same people who believe in strong AI are also big believers in the future of manned space travel and colonization. Hold it. The most expensive part of space travel is life support for dragging humans along. If you believe in strong AI and understand that, then there is no reason to ever send humans to space. Just send robots. They according to strong AI, will soon be smarter than humans and don’t require life support.

                1. Yeah, but the smart robots will just leave and not come back.

            2. Well, I agree it wouldn’t be economical for building stuff on earth (unless you’ve found a truly mountainous lode of something very rare, like rhodium). But if you wanted to build something in, like, Jupiter’s Lagrange points, using material sourced for the (comparatively) nearby belt versus mining it on earth and shipping it up, probably makes sense.

            3. Getting minerals from the asteroid belt is quite cheap if you’re willing to wait a few years to get them to earth. The big benefit of asteroid mining is not so much the product, but the fact that the product ends up already in orbit.

              On the other hand, mining on Mars is likely mostly useless.

    3. Rare earths are just one of the problems. There are sufficient reserves to electrify the fleet but you would have to triple production by my fermi approx (see other estimates below).

      But wait, there’s more! Rare earths are extracted from monazite ore. We have it out west in the US; Australia and Canada have it. China has it. There’s just one problem: monazite contains Thorium, and Thorium is radioactive. Now it’s not really all that active. 232Th has a 14BB yr half life, but thanks to our environmental overlords that still qualifies as radioactive waste. Add to that the nasty chemistry used to separate and there’s a reason that China controls 90+% of the world’s production, but even they’re getting tired of the taillings and acid pit pollution.

      But wait, there’s more!

      It’s not just rare earths that are a problem, you also need large amounts of cobalt for the EV fleet. Scaling up by 25x shouldn’t be a problem, should it? What’s that you say? Cobalt is already a strategic metal due to its use in superalloys? It has similar concerns over mining residue? Pshaw.

      1. Look skippy, if the market demands it, it will happen. Didn’t you know that?

        1. Gravity, specific and otherwise, has a say.

          BTW, that radioactive Thorium is what all the LFTR fanactics dwell on. Good to see nuclear going down the CAGW alarmist path again and hoping it works out differently this time.

    4. Until someone develops a battery that uses only very common materials, the electric car will never replace the ICE in any significant numbers.

      Not that it’s just that easy. Even if you find a different material, charging efficiency, grid efficiency, and specific density are still massive issues that EVs have yet to fully overcome. Even if you find a relatively lightweight material that’s 50% more clean, if it charge efficiency is lower you can’t feasibly make a vehicle out of it and, even if you do, the added cost in efficient delivery leaves you potentially worse off than where you started.

      Fuel Cells (could) fit more of your ‘common material’ definition but their theoretical maximum efficiency is on the order of 80% and once you combine that with inefficiencies from the grid, they wind up less efficient than ICEs.

      1. Eh, SOFC’s can hit 60% electrical efficiency. Even higher thermal in the winter time because it’s no longer waste heat. That’s better than ICE. Too bad they’re not “common materials” as you say. Scandium, and Yttrium, and Cerium, oh my! And until they can get operating temps below 650C you’re looking at expensive stainless for much of the structure. 🙁

    5. Until somebody develops a battery that either doesn’t wear out or isn’t a ecological nightmare to dispose of, battery powered cars will remain a completely typical Green ‘solution’; worse than the problem they were supposed to ‘solve’.

    6. “any efforts to get people to abandon ICE are just either payoffs to cronies and or flat out efforts to send people into poverty and deprive them of personal transportation. It is really that simple.”

      The Dems REALLY do hate ICE, don’t they?

  5. Give Americans a discount of up to $5,000 (with an additional $2,000 for low-income Americans)

    Yeah, and $7k is somehow going to make up the difference between a $4000 used car and a new electric car for over $30k?
    More subsidies for toys for rich people.

    1. Exactly Zeb. That is all this would be. That seems to be all the Democrats are about these days other than identity politics, hand outs to the gentry left.

  6. “Scientists tell us that to avoid the most devastating effects of climate change, the world needs to be carbon neutral—to have net-zero carbon dioxide emissions—by midcentury,”

    Any chance those scientists have a job the relies on you believing them?

    1. Not so much their jobs, since they are clever enough to adapt, but their egos that are very tied into this.

    2. Do they talk about the devastating effects of costs of carbon neutrality? They are worse than the effects of rising temperatures.

  7. Where you gonna plug them in when the power is cut to prevent forest fires?
    I laugh myself to sleep thinking of all those CA EV fanatics getting an evacuation order with the battery at 5% because there has been no electricity for 4 days.

    1. You shouldn’t laugh at other people’s misfortune, but sometimes justice is served. The question is how bad is it going to have to get before the brain dead idiots out there learn?

      1. The question is how bad is it going to have to get before the brain dead idiots out there learn?

        PG&E just shut a bunch of people’s power off again and it’s looking more and more like they wound up starting a fire anyway.

        A PG&E worker was supposedly attacked the other day, and rate increases are coming in January.

        This may be the actual thing that starts to push Californians over the edge, since you really just can’t find a Republican to pin this mess on, no matter how hard you try.


        1. This may be the actual thing that starts to push Californians over the edge, since you really just can’t find a Republican to pin this mess on, no matter how hard you try.

          No, but ‘profits’ are a good stand in for ‘Republican’ so I’m sure they’ll find a way to demonize someone or something other than themselves.

          Hell, the very fact a PG&E guy was attacked instead of a legislator or governor indicates who’s going to take the blame here.

          I’d expect California to just essentially rename PG&E and claim mission accomplished.

          1. No, but ‘profits’ are a good stand in for ‘Republican’ so I’m sure they’ll find a way to demonize someone or something other than themselves.

            Some people are going that way, but I’m noticing less people biting. People are starting to catch on to the incestuous relationship between PG&E and the CPUC.

            Realistically, in the short term this will mean the state takes over PG&E – privatization isn’t even in the cards. But I hold out the (possibly unrealistic) hope that people will start to realize that putting Dems in complete charge of everything didn’t result in Utopia.


            1. Realistically, in the short term this will mean the state takes over PG&E – privatization isn’t even in the cards.

              Agreed, which is essentially what I mean by California just renaming PG&E and claiming victory. I’ve noticed that this type of mentally often mistakes changing out particular actors as solving a problem. That they inevitably replace the individual with a clone apparently doesn’t compute for them.

              I think Einstein had something to say about this exact method of ‘solving’ problems. Something about trying to same thing and expecting different results.

              1. Except he didn’t say that. The phrase appears to have been popularized by Alcoholics Anonymous.

      2. I wouldn’t consider it a misfortune when there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that a fire could occur, the electric grid is unreliable, and one should rely on one to get away from the other.

        Sheep gonna sheep tho

        1. *shouldn’t

          Rough day. I’ll see myself out.

        2. Likely misfortunes are still misfortunes, I think. It doesn’t have to be a complete out of the blue surprise.

    2. Or people who get an evacuation order when a hurricane plows through. Turns out that during most natural disasters, electricity transmission becomes spotty at best.

      Of course, if the Progressives really got their way you wouldn’t be allowed to live more than a mile from a public transit hub. Electric self-driving vehicles are a wet dream for Progressives. They’re excellent at limiting the movement of populations.

      1. The conspiratorial side of me thinks that the Left is trying to force public transport by forcing people to get vehicles with terrible mileage

    3. Where you gonna plug them in when the power is cut to prevent forest fires?

      And to add insult to injury, if you have solar panels in the PG&E zone, the inverter has to be set up to shut down if PG&E turns off their grid. If they’re not providing power, you’re literally not allowed to generate your own from solar panels.

      And just to add my own bit of bitching, I have a gas stove and oven, but they have safety features to prevent the gas from coming on if the electric pilot is out.

      The next major disaster in CA is going to be greatly amplified by the sheer levels of stupid in how we regulate things.

      1. That’s hardly a PG&E exclusive thing, most utilities operate that way. The inverters are required to do that for safety reasons because of the grid tie. If one were to go completely off grid, that’s not an issue.

        Some gas systems, fireplaces in many cases, have a backup battery just for that case. Or you could go with a gas pilot; dunno how available those are these days.

        Now you can ask how that’s different than someone with a backup generator plugged into their box. I don’t have an answer for that, but given that the solar kids usually get paid retail feed-in tariffs I’m certainly not weeping at the injustice.

        1. Now you can ask how that’s different than someone with a backup generator plugged into their box.

          This is what’s been another of those convoluted consequences to all of this – lots of people are going out and buying generators to plug into, but that strikes me as a much bigger fire risk, not to mention the hypothetical climate impacts of everybody getting their power from emergency diesel generators rather than from the nat gas plants.

          But if there were consistent attention to concerns, it wouldn’t be California.

          1. You should ask how many are going to die of CO poisoning from running the generators in their house…

            1. But it doubles as a heater, doesn’t it?

          2. Not to mention the carbon footprint of manufacturing these additional generators.

        2. I think that properly installed backup generators are supposed to have an automatic cutover switch that disconnects from the outside grid when the generator is running.
          I don’t see any reason you couldn’t do the same with solar, but most solar systems aren’t designed to run “off the grid” or as backups, but rather to feed power into the grid.

          1. And they need to run that way because their output is so unpredictable. To be honest I don’t even know how the inverter knows. I’ve never seen a schematic and the only way that the inverter could tell power is coming from the grid would be to switch off the solar input briefly and check. Maybe some sort of ping-pong with sense circuits for both inputs but only one connected at a time, but then that would defeat any feed-in.

            Maybe I’m bored enough to finally get an answer to this along with why fuel cells seem to violate Carnot.

            1. Completely guessing here, but it may be that the “SmartMeter” controls both? The inverter won’t operate without active permission from the meter?

              1. Doesn’t matter. Something has to break the connection or the circuit can’t tell the difference between power delivered by the inverter versus power delivered by the grid, i.e. it would sense the grid as being there when it isn’t. That’s the point after all. In single transistor terms that would be called “latch up.” The one home brew schematic that popped up in google would have a latch up problem because the inverter windings are tied in parallel with the main windings.

                The meter could potentially sense which way net power was going, but it should still be allowable to have current flowing from the grid into the house/meter in the case of inadequate power from the array, current flowing out of the house in the case of extra production, or zero current flowing in the case of exactly balanced loads. Since all 3 conditions are allowed that doesn’t permit you to discriminate either.

                So I keep coming back to some sort of chop mechanism to switch out the array power and sense for live mains. Actually the more I think about it the more I think it’s SCR/triac driven and probably uses a little bit of dead band around the zero crossings. That would allow you to maintain the phase coherence you need. Basically you switch out/off the inverter at 0V, dead band a little, and trigger the SCR at very low phase angle (they want 1 deg or less) which causes the inverter to sync with the mains.

      2. Is that a California thing? Or is my stove just cheap? My stove will happily light with a match when power is off.

        1. I don’t know – I’ve never lived anywhere but here, but it feels very California.

          My old apartment in Oakland had a basic gas stove that you could light with a match, but the stove in my house, which was installed about 2005, has electronic controls that lock both the oven and the stovetop in case of either power outage or earthquake.

          The seismic thing makes sense, due to the potential for leaks, but I suspect locking the cooktop is to prevent you from turning on a burner and walking away assuming the flame is going to come on because you don’t get how the pilot works?

          We take protecting people from their own ignorance and stupidity very seriously in CA.

          1. Without a built-in backup battery, not flowing gas makes sense. It would be too easy for someone to turn it on, see no flame, and forget to turn it off.

          2. Disagree about the seismic thing making sense. The cooktop is supposed to leak gas some of the time any other part should never leak gas and, if it does, the locked/unlocked top is no real deterrent to any danger.

            Not that there’s no risk in accidentally turning a burner on, but you still have to be pretty deliberate/negligent in order to do damage this way.

            1. Disagree about the seismic thing making sense.

              I should have clarified that the seismic shutoff is not integral to the stove, but is on the meter prior to entering the house. Because, yeah – just shutting off the one part that gas is supposed to come out of wouldn’t make a lot of sense.

    4. “I laugh myself to sleep thinking of all those CA EV fanatics getting an evacuation order with the battery at 5% because there has been no electricity for 4 days.”

      Do you also laugh yourself to sleep when a child accidentally shoots himself when playing with his gun-fanatic parent’s unsecured firearm? Same metaphor, different politics.

      1. When a 5 year old can vote for that policy, buy the gun, store it, and fail to heed warnings, I will.

        1. And take money out of my pocket to subsidize the purchase of the gun . . .but, seriously, is there ANYONE out there who owns an EV as their sole transportation?

          1. Oh yeah. I worked a contract job in Sacramento for 6 months with a guy from LA who has an electric FIAT.

            He had to ship it back home when the contract ended. It wasn’t really feasible to drive it that far.

  8. i hate to throw the hate word but Elon, dude …

  9. There is also the small problem that net zero emissions is not a feasible goal, especially when you discard nuclear from the start. Electricity is a method to transmit energy. Batteries are a method to store energy. The energy still has to be produced somewhere from some source, wind and solar are not going to cut it, and hydro is about tapped pe otherwise objectionable.

    1. “…especially when you discard nuclear from the start.”

      This. As long as these leftists say than nuclear is off the table, I cannot take them seriously.

  10. Anybody who is in favor of EVs shouldn’t regard this as good news. There’s no better way to screw up progress than getting the fedgov involved. Billions of dollars will be thrown down various ratholes and blind alleys, all to benefit the pals of politicians. The most promising solutions will probably be outlawed.

  11. “By 2040 all vehicles on the road should be clean,” says Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.).

    “And that includes the tanks and other military vehicles imposing order on the country.”

  12. Chucky is one of America’s biggest asshole parasites.

  13. “It’s basic economics: Decrease the supply of a good, and the demand for it goes up. In the auto market, this meant higher prices.”

    Bzzt! Back to Econ 101 for you, Noah Shepardson. Your “basic economics” is messed up, dude.

    “Supply” and “demand” are independent variables. Changing supply doesn’t directly increase or decrease demand.

    Decreasing supply at a constant demand will cause higher prices. Those higher prices may decrease demand, but they don’t usually cause *increased* demand.

    1. From radios and television sets to cell phones, it’s nothing short of miraculous how many new technology items were introduced and quickly became ubiquitous with zero help from politicians.

      We should all be grateful that we have such an enlightened and intelligent man of tomorrow like Schumer working tirelessly to make sure that new technology isn’t rejected by the public at large for the very first time in history.

      Thank you, Chuck! We would all be lost but for your leadership and that of other brilliant statesmen like you!

    1. Gonna say it, and probably get blasted (with soot) for it, but rolling coal is pretty dumb and bad and stupid. That’s just like, my opinion, man.

      I did see a hilarious yt video uploaded from the dashcam of a hysterical fagweed in his little import tincan. A guy driving past him in a truck puffs some smoke under acceleration and he starts screaming along the lines of “oh my god what the fuck did that guy just roll coal on me??!?!?? what the fuck?!?!?[exclamationpoints11111eleven]”, and seems to take it very personally. IIRC he speeds off after him to get his license plate, panties firmly bunched up his little commie crack.

      I don’t much care about what “should” be the case but Gale Banks and anyone in diesel tuning with an IQ above room temperature have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that despite what Bubba says, getting more performance out of your diesel rig doesn’t require making a shit ton of smoke (i.e. pointlessly chucking way more fuel in when there’s no oxygen left to burn it). So my opinion is very much that dumping a shit ton of atomized charcoal out of the smokestacks/tailpipe on purpose qualifies someone as a total clowndick. Just my opinion.

  14. California’s electrical system is already overloaded. Schumer wants the light to go out all over the country.

  15. Battery cars simply do not work as replacements for the ICE, on grounds of range and recharge time alone. And that seems unlikely to change soon. Batteries are not new technology, likely to have a rapid development path. And the first battery powered production car was on the market in 1886. This is not immature tech.

    Basically, this fantasy the Left has of replacing the ICE with battery cars is born of their deep seated desire of constrain the Unwashed.

    For which, f*ck them, AND the electronic horse they rode in on.

    1. #abolishICE

  16. Schumer is really a moron. Does he think $5000-7000 is a dent for buying a $30,00-45,000 car? How is a poor person gonna pay $400-500 a month car payments? Schumer is another rich, urban elitist who does not grasp that for most of the country, electric cars are worthless. Is someone living in Montana, West Texas, Alaska or the Appalachian mountains gonna really be able to travel using an electric car? Seriously? I want to see the government putting charging stations in the middle of the Alaskan tundra or in the Rocky Mountains. Talk about being disconnected from reality.

  17. It’s ok- Republicans gave 2 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthy. Apparently we don’t care at all unless it’s Dems doing it..

    1. They gave it to everybody. The rich just, you know, pay most of the taxes.

      This boondoggle won’t help the poor at all (as pointed out, EV are comically expensive), won’t help the issue (power generation isn’t going to be any cleaner and out electric grid sure as fuck could not handle millions of EV cars). Most modern Dem proposals are just stunningly regressive penalties for the poor.

  18. Insanity: doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

    I got caught in the last cash for clunkers when my good older car got creamed by a fool going through a red light and I suddenly needed to get some sort of reliable transportation. So, I guess, you might say I paid for cash for clunkers twice, once in taxes, and once for the new used car.

    What could possibly go wrong?????

  19. Ok if Chuck can trade my car for a Tesla Roadster I guess I could live with that.

  20. Needless to say, that’s no reason not to embrace new technology—but it is a good reason not to overpromise the jobs that technology will create.

Please to post comments