Electric vehicles are like incandescent light bulbs. No, that’s not quite right. EVs are like the government-mandated replacement for incandescent light bulbs.
You may remember incandescent bulbs. They have been around since the time of Edison, which is a long time. This was so because they worked. Their government-mandated replacements – LED bulbs – also work. Just not as well and a lot more expensively.
Like electric cars.
Before they were banned, you could buy a four pack of 75 watt incandescent bulbs for about $2. They cost so little to buy because they cost so little to make. There was so little profit to be made from selling them that the makers of them did what modern corporate interests often do. They got the government to ban them so that they could make a great deal more money by selling people government-mandated replacements that cost people three times as much to buy. That same four pack now costs more than $10 – with the sell supposedly being that they last longer and so, over time, you pay less.
This is like the suggestion made by the Biden Thing’s secretary of transportation – who knows as much about transportation as the Biden Thing does about earning an honest dollar – that people “save” money on gasoline by spending it on an EV.
The EV, of course costs a great deal more than gasoline. But innumerate (and illiterate) people often succumb to such buncombe.
There is no mathematical way spending the $50k-plus it costs to buy a lower-tier EV will ever “save” money, however much you don’t spend on gas. At least, not as long as it is still possible to buy cars that cost half as much as the average EV. And that is why the government will almost certainly do the same thing to those money-saving alternatives to EVs that it has already done to incandescent bulbs, which you will soon not be allowed to buy anymore.
This fact tells you everything you need to know about how much money you’ll be “saving” by having to buy the government-mandated replacements for incandescent bulbs.
And EVs, too.
It is much like the “savings” we all enjoyed when the government – at the behest of a corporation (DuPont) that wanted to make more money selling refrigerant – banned the excellent refrigerant R-12, known commercially as Freon. You – as in the private person – could buy a can of it to charge up your car’s AC system for about $1, which saved you a great deal of money – on the refrigerant and the fix. This of course would not do. And so a “problem” was manufactured – that of a hole in the ozone layer, supposedly caused by Freon molecules escaping from AC systems and wafting skyward. The problem was entirely artificial, of course – in the sense that it was manufactured, to create the rhetorical justification for banning what worked (and was almost dirt cheap) to facilitate its replacement with something that did not work as well and wasn’t cheap.
Post-Freon car air conditioners do not blow nearly as cold – and you’re paying for that, too.
