EVs can't work, and are just stepping stones to banning all personal transportation

[Anti Federalist]

Keep in mind while reading this that once "emissions" are no longer an issue, it will be some other issue that will ban EVs.

The EU is working on new "Tier 7" regulations because of brake dust and tire particle "pollution".

Occasional Use Vehicles

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2022...-use-vehicles/

By
eric -
December 6, 2022

There are a couple of things to be worried about with regard to electric vehicles – assuming you like electric vehicles – that have nothing to do with how far they can go or how long it takes before you can get going again.

The first thing is the disparity between electrical generating capacity – which is analogous to crude oil supplies, if we were talking about fueling cars with engines – and the amount of electricity that would be required to power a fleet of electric vehicles. As of right now, total U.S. grid generating capacity is about 1.2 million megawatts, with another 412,000 in the pipeline (so to speak). That would bring the total available capacity up to . . . not even close to what a fleet of electric vehicles – including commercial vehicles – would require.

That being something in the neighborhood of 23 million megawatts.

The disparity is worse than that, too – if you factor out the electricity currently generated by the burning of hydrocarbon fuels such as natural gas (which accounts of about 42 percent of all electricity generated in the United States) and coal (another 18.5 percent). The two latter together constitute more than half of all current generating capacity.



If we are to be “green,” that half must be taken out of the equation – for the same reason vehicles with engines are being taken out of the equation. Both “emit” carbon dioxide, the allegedly “climate changing” gas that replacing vehicles with engines with electric vehicles is supposed to tamp down. But it does not tamp down the “emissions” of carbon dioxide to change the source of their “emissions” from millions of tailpipes to a handful of much larger ones – those hydrocarbon “emitting” natural gas and coal-fired utility plants.

Thus – if it’s not just for show (and for something else) – at least half of the current grid’s 1.2 million megawatts of generating capacity must be replaced with “green” electricity generation, such as solar. If it isn’t replaced, that means there’s less than half of current electrical generating capacity available to “greenly” power a fleet of electric vehicles that will need many times 1.2 megawatts of power in order to be other than Occasional Use Vehicles (OUVs).

As by rationing power.

Solar accounts for a mere 5 percent of the 1.2 million megawatts of grid power currently available. Where will 95 percent more come from – to convert the current grid entirely over to “green” energy? Where will much more than that come from – to provide the 23 million megawatts of power a national fleet of electric vehicles would need?

How is this “transition” supposed to happen?

The answer to that question is – it’s not supposed to happen.

It’s not going to happen.

The only realistic way it could would be if many new nuclear (and hydro) power plants were built. They could provide a great deal of “green” energy, at least insofar as carbon dioxide “emissions” are concerned, as nuclear and hydro power plants are “zero emissions,” in that respect.

None are being built.

Solar arrays and wind turbine farms are being built, but nowhere near the total needed. Neither will be able to provide even the current grid’s 1.2 million megawatts of electricity for years – decades – to come.

If ever.

And that doesn’t begin to consider the additional megawatts that would be required by plugging in hundred of millions of electric vehicles – or even half that many. A third as many, for that matter.

There are currently about 275 million registered vehicles in the United States. Of these, only about 2 percent are electric. The governments of several states – including California – have decreed that only electric cars will be legal for sale within just a few years from now (2030-2035).

Consider the implications.

On the one hand, electric vehicles are being made the only vehicles people will be able to buy in the not-too-distant future. And on the other hand, no serious provision is being made to provide the electricity they will need . . . if they are to be used other than occasionally.

It is as if the government knows there’s not enough grid capacity to power so many electric vehicles.

What a brilliant way to reduce the number of vehicles!

Or at least, their use.

Without enough electrical power available to charge up tens of millions (let alone hundreds of millions) of electric vehicles and provide for the electrical needs of everything else, electricity will inevitably have to be rationed. The math is not obscure. The powers-that-be are aware of the gap between even existing capacity and the many-fold increased draw on that capacity “electrification” would impose. Just as the power-that-be knew that wearing a disposable dust mask over your face would do nothing to prevent the getting or spreading of a respiratory virus they also knew posed little to no serious threat except to the very elderly and frail and the already sick.

The doing-of-nothing to increase the only “green” electrical generating sources that could at least possibly/realistically provide the needed electricity without rationing – i.e., nuclear and hydro power generation – speaks abundantly of their actual intentions.

And in the unlikely event that a way is found to power electrical vehicles regularly rather than occasionally, the powers-that-be will then “discover” that EVs – themselves – aren’t very “green,” either. Their “net carbon footprint” will be – suddenly – found much bigger than thought.

It will become necessary to regulate these newfound “emissions” downward.

Just as it became necessary to change the definition of “emission” from compounds that cause or contribute to air pollution to carbon dioxide, an “emission” that has nothing to do with pollution – and which can only be reduced by reducing combustion.

That’s how they got rid of vehicles with engines – or are in the process of doing. They will next get rid of driving – except occasionally – by requiring vehicles that need electricity for which there isn’t adequate capacity.

In the event that doesn’t work, EVs will be found not-as-green-as-advertised.

And gotten rid of on that basis.

[Anti Federalist]

The $5.25 Per Gallon Canary in the Coal Mine

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2022...the-coal-mine/

By
eric -
December 7, 2022

There may not be a shortage of diesel fuel yet but there is something else that amounts to the same:

Unaffordable diesel.

A gallon currently sells for about $5.25 per gallon on average.

Interestingly, this is about $2 more per gallon than the current cost of a gallon of regular unleaded. The Biden Thing has succeeded in temporarily tamping down the cost of the latter by draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve – but diesel prices have not come down appreciably from their spring/summer high of about $5.70 per gallon.

Diesel cost less than half as much two years ago – just before the Biden Thing was selected president.

If you have a diesel-powered car (such as the excoriated-anathematized VW Jettas, Golfs and Beetles equipped with the TDI engines you can’t buy anymore) with a 15 gallon tank, you’re currently paying about $80 to fill ‘er up.

That’s not very affordable.

But not many people are driving diesel-powered cars – chiefly because the car companies haven’t been selling them for about seven years now, ever since the federal government sicced itself on VW for selling them. In italics to emphasize the true nature of VW’s “crime,” which was not “cheating” on government “emissions” certification tests anymore than Matt Strickland’s restaurant, Gourmeltz, was Hut! Hut! Hutted! the other day for supposedly selling alcoholic beverages without an ABC permit.

Gourmeltz was Hut! Hut! Hutted! because Strickland refused to Face Diaper his staff or customers and kept the doors of his restaurant open in defiance of “lock down” orders.

In other words, it was necessary to make an example of him.

VW was Hut! Hut! Hutted! for the same fundamental reason. It had the audacity to sell a whole lineup of diesel-powered cars that were also affordable cars. Most cost less than $25k – and got more than 50 miles per gallon. This was the equivalent – in terms of the threat it represented to “electrification” – that refusing to wear a Face Diaper and keeping the doors to one’s business open was to keeping the public fearful and submissive.

Alternatives always present problems for those who do not want others to have alternatives.

And now, they don’t.

You’d think this reduced demand for diesel fuel would have served to reduce its cost. Yet it has not.

If you happen to own a diesel-powered truck (these are still available) with a 25 gallon tank, you’re paying around $130 to fill ‘er up at current prices. If that persists, how many people will be able to afford to drive a diesel-powered truck? No doubt this will help “sell” $50,000-plus electric trucks such as the Ford F-150 Lightning the government wants people to buy instead.

Diesel-powered vehicles are problem vehicles – from the point-of-view of those pushing the electrification of vehicles. Not only because they go farther than gas-powered vehicles and much farther than electric vehicles – but particularly because it is possible to keep them going independently of a centrally controlled distribution apparatus.

Gas-powered vehicles require gasoline to keep on going. If there’s none at the pump, it is hard to refine your own. Gas does not store very well for very long, either. So even if you thought ahead and stored 50 gallons in a drum for just-in-case, its shelf-life is limited.

Electricity is hard to generate independently in the quantity needed by electric cars. Even on 120v grid power, it takes a day or more to instill a charge in a 400-800 volt electric car battery. If the grid goes down, it will take much longer – unless you have a seriously mighty solar array on your roof or on your backyard.

Diesel, on the other hand, stores almost indefinitely. And many diesel engines can burn bio-diesel, which is “diesel” not made from petroleum. It is made from vegetable oil, animal fats and restaurant grease. In other words, almost anyone can make it.

Themselves.

This presents a dangerous alternative to those pushing “electrification,” which is really more about centralization.

It is most definitely not about the “climate changing” – at least, no more than Gourmeltz was Hut! Hut! Hutted! on account of an issue with its ABC license. Or VW over literally fractional differences in real-world “emissions” that went undetected on federal emissions certification tests.

Diesel is simply too attractive an alternative to “electrification.” And it is almost certainly for that reason that the price of diesel has not come down. And is certain to go up even more – as we get into winter and heating oil demand goes up. Note that food prices are way up – on account of diesel fuel being required to get the food to the stores.

Gas prices will follow.

For political reasons, as the president of the American Petroleum Institute stated recently.

Gas prices have come down – for now – because the Biden Thing drained the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In italics to emphasize the fact that gasoline is refined from . . . petroleum.

And so is diesel, of course. It is easier – and cheaper – to make diesel out of petroleum because it doesn’t have to be refined as much.

But if most of the petroleum is used to make gas (for reasons of political expedience) rather than diesel, what happens to the supply – and price – of diesel?

Capisce?

So, the current cost of diesel can be seen as a harbinger of the cost of gas to come – Unless the supply of petroleum is increased. API President Mike Sommers says this isn’t likely.

“The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, unfortunately, has become the strategic political reserve. And we have grave concerns about how it has been so politicized. This is for emergency purposes, not to lower gasoline prices during a time during a political season.”

That being precisely what the Biden Thing did do.

As a result, the reserve is at its lowest ebb since 1984 and there is nothing being tapped to refill it.

Or your tank.

The Biden Regime peddles the half-truth that it has “issued 9,000 drilling permits” on federal land. But the full truth is that most or even all of these permits are just that – permits to look for oil. Not a guarantee that there is oil there. The distinction is, obviously, important. Like that between a drug that does not prevent infection or transmission and a vaccine that immunizes.

The Biden Regime knows there may not be oil to find – and that oil companies aren’t going to “invest” in looking for it when it may not be there and even if they did find it, why bother with it – knowing in advance the regime is openly hostile toward them actually drilling for it and to people being able to buy it.

Put another way, the regime wants petroleum to be scarce – and so, expensive – in order to prod people into the centralized and more readily controlled “alternative.” The regime has been explicit about this.

“No more drilling” said the Thing, just a couple of weeks ago.

Which doesn’t mean the Strategic Reserve won’t be refilling. That being the government’s “tank.” To assure its supply of abundant and affordable petroleum. It is your supply that’s to be curtailed. The current cost of diesel gives us a window into what the cost of gas is likely to be, soon.

[TheCount]

Current energy supply meets current demand. If demand grows, supply will grow to meet it. If the demand is for green energy, then that is what will be supplied.

[ClaytonB]

Current energy supply meets current demand. If demand grows, supply will grow to meet it. If the demand is for green energy, then that is what will be supplied.

It always amazes me how lucid the Left is in respect to the basic mechanics of the market whenever it happens to be consistent with their agenda. It's almost like they know the market works and they just don't care how much economic devastation they wreak on the economy with their socialist/commie agenda...

[TheCount]

It always amazes me how lucid the Left is in respect to the basic mechanics of the market whenever it happens to be consistent with their agenda. It's almost like they know the market works and they just don't care how much economic devastation they wreak on the economy with their socialist/commie agenda...

It always amazes me that people get offended when reality is inconvenient to their belief system.

Are you just simply not able to understand how a thing works without first making it part of your personal identity?

[ClaytonB]

It always amazes me that people get offended when reality is inconvenient to their belief system.

Indeed, it is amazing. Pretty sure the professionally-offended Wokists are a product of the Left, though...

Are you just simply not able to understand how a thing works without first making it part of your personal identity?

I don't know what you're trying to say. I don't make the law of gravity a "part of my personal identity" but I'll be amazed when I see an exception to it. The law of supply&demand is what it is, whether I like it or not, just like gravity is what it is, whether I like it or not. The Left are the ones who are obsessed with identity and are living in denial of the basic laws of economics, so...

[acptulsa]

Current energy supply meets current demand. If demand grows, supply will grow to meet it. If the demand is for green energy, then that is what will be supplied.

And the demand won't be for "green" energy unless the government outlaws all other kinds. And is usually the case when government oversteps itself, the working poor will suffer and the middle class will shrink.

Yes, the market will work. But if it isn't a free market, and it doesn't look like it will be, a few will gain and many will suffer. But, hey. Leftists like seeing people suffer. Don't you?

Leftists: People can accomplish anything. All you have to do is force them to! They've been saying it since even before the catalytic converter was adapted to automotive use. And the technological advances that used to enrich everyone now enrich the very one percent the Left used to protest, because the impossible not only takes longer, it costs more.

Are you enjoying being a useful idiot?

[Brian4Liberty]

Current energy supply meets current demand. If demand grows, supply will grow to meet it. If the demand is for green energy, then that is what will be supplied.

And price is not an issue, right? Mundanes can't afford energy anymore? Too bad for them, they should use less.

Let alone shortages, lines and rationing, because those things have never, ever occurred in the history of the world. Shout
Merry Christmas over the cube wall to Zippy for us.

[TheCount]

And the demand won't be for "green" energy unless the government outlaws all other kinds.

The demand for "green" energy predates current climate policies, so I doubt that.

Yes, the market will work. But if it isn't a free market, and it doesn't look like it will be, a few will gain and many will suffer. But, hey. Leftists like seeing people suffer. Don't you?

Me saying that a thing is true does not require me to agree with the thing.

You: "It's impossible for people to live on Mars."

Me: "Right now, yes, but eventually we'd be able to live on Mars."

You: "YOU THINK WE SHOULD ALL LIVE ON MARS?!?!"


Repeat for every thread.

[TheCount]

And price is not an issue, right? Mundanes can't afford energy anymore? Too bad for them, they should use less.

Depends on when we hit diminishing returns on the current downward trend of price per kw for renewable energy.

[acptulsa]

Me saying that a thing is true does not require me to agree with the thing.

You: "It's impossible for people to live on Mars."

Me: "Right now, yes, but eventually we'd be able to live on Mars."

You: "YOU THINK WE SHOULD ALL LIVE ON MARS?!?!"


Repeat for every thread.

You're arguing the government position. And the government position is, everyone must.

Yes, solar power is old and wind is older. But no one ever seriously proposed...

Current energy supply meets current demand. If demand grows, supply will grow to meet it. If the demand is for green energy, then that is what will be supplied.

...demand for only green energy until the government decided to decree it. So, you are saying something, then pretending I put your words in your mouth.

What is now fancied "green" energy grew all along, according to its practicality. You know as well as I do that this sudden, greater demand is demanded from on high. Stop playing games.

[ClaytonB]

Depends on when we hit diminishing returns on the current downward trend of price per kw for renewable energy.

Another hallmark of the Left. They learn one thing about economics, and suddenly they are experts on all social order. "Economy of scale" refers to the efficiency advantages of large-scale production. However, the Left misunderstands this to mean that the government can make any particular good cheap by producing it at scale through subsidy. Well, that's not how the real world works. You can subsidize the diamond-mining industry all you want, but no amount of "economy of scale" will ever make diamonds cheap. It will make them cheaper, of course, but not cheap. That is because the scarcity of diamonds is a fundamental physical fact of our planet (as far as we can tell).

Oil, on the other hand, is not scarce. It's a relatively abundant resource. Oil isn't cheap because the mean oil tycoons have built so many oil rigs. Rather, so many oil rigs have been built because there is enormous demand for oil, and oil is an abundant resource. In addition, the potential-energy density of oil is high, so the cost-per-unit-energy of harvesting it is low. It's not just low, it's really low. The relative cost of harvesting solar, wind, etc. have come down due to technological advancements, but they are still nowhere near oil and will not be for the foreseeable future. You can subsidize these "alternative energy" sources until your eyes cross, but that will not change the fundamental physical facts of our environment.

[A Son of Liberty]

Current energy supply meets current demand. If demand grows, supply will grow to meet it. If the demand is for green energy, then that is what will be supplied.

This is true.

It has nothing to do with the current scenario, of course. And of course, you being not an idiot, know this.

A command economy distorts the free market conditions you've described above. Mandating a certain demand upon the power grid is a very different thing than an organic growth in demand, isn't it? Isn't it, @TheCount?

[pcosmar]

The demand for "green" energy predates current climate policies,

Alternatives were available or being developed,,but stifled.. long before "green" propaganda started..

I have wanted to break the Chain of wasteful addiction since 1976.. and I drove a Fleetwood Cadillac at that time.

I have been advocating for Hydrogen since then.. and the Big Players are just now going in that direction.. more from Long range cost analysis than Political agendas.

The change over is getting to people that hate change.

[pcosmar]

EVs can't work

That is what they told Elon Musk..
and he got a lot of Resistance.. but has PRODUCED.. several cars,,and Delivered Semi-Trucks to 2 Fleets.

I see his cars every day,, they are almost common.

[acptulsa]

This is true.

It has nothing to do with the current scenario, of course. And of course, you being not an idiot, know this.

A command economy distorts the free market conditions you've described above.

Yeah, but saying something nebulous, which could apply to either command or free markets, where it's abundantly clear by the context of the conversation that (not being a dullard, as you pointed out) he's talking about the one, then pretending he was talking about the other, is one of his favorite trolls.

I suppose some might think it mean of us to take away his victim card. But I don't care. How about you?

[pcosmar]

@Anti Federalist

Check out "Aptera".. Disregard and Ignore the "green" propaganda.. and look at it from an Engineering standpoint.

It is designed with Max Efficiency in mind,,and does 0-60 in 3.6.

https://aptera.us/

Been watching development since it had a small gas motor getting 200 mpg.

It is very close to Production.

Affordable and Built to Last. and a Right to Repair as policy.

[TheCount]

A command economy distorts the free market conditions you've described above. Mandating a certain demand upon the power grid is a very different thing than an organic growth in demand, isn't it? Isn't it, @TheCount?

Of course. But saying that it's different is not the same as saying it's impossible or infeasible. And the economy doesn't care if it's organic growth or not.

Command economies and regulated economies are still economies. The principles of supply and demand still work exactly the same, just with one more factor involved - a finger on the scale on one side or the other.

[TheCount]

Alternatives were available or being developed,,but stifled.. long before "green" propaganda started..

I have wanted to break the Chain of wasteful addiction since 1976.. and I drove a Fleetwood Cadillac at that time.

I have been advocating for Hydrogen since then.. and the Big Players are just now going in that direction.. more from Long range cost analysis than Political agendas.

The change over is getting to people that hate change.

Windmills and water wheels predate 1976.

[TheCount]

Another hallmark of the Left. They learn one thing about economics, and suddenly they are experts on all social order. "Economy of scale" refers to the efficiency advantages of large-scale production. However, the Left misunderstands this to mean that the government can make any particular good cheap by producing it at scale through subsidy. Well, that's not how the real world works. You can subsidize the diamond-mining industry all you want, but no amount of "economy of scale" will ever make diamonds cheap. It will make them cheaper, of course, but not cheap. That is because the scarcity of diamonds is a fundamental physical fact of our planet (as far as we can tell).

What in the $#@! are you talking about? I didn't say anything about economies of scale. The main driver for the downward trend in price of renewables is technology. A few % more efficiency out of solar cells or batteries or flywheels or (insert related tech here) affects the profitability of "green" energy. Much of what's currently possible wouldn't have been able to break even let alone make a profit 20 years ago. Every component was just too inefficient.

It's no different than, say, fusion. Right now you have to put more energy into a fusion plant than you get out the other side. A future advance may change that. If it does, then we'll be having this conversation all over again about yet another energy revolution.



Economies of scale matter regarding the power generation itself. Right now we're using millions of tiny generators to move cars around. Your car engine is hilariously inefficient compared to a power plant. It's orders of magnitude cheaper to make the HP-equivalent of your car in a natural gas plant vs. your car's engine.

The problem is getting the power from the plant to your car, storing it, etc. You lose energy at every step. As technology gets better you lose less.

Oil, on the other hand, is not scarce. It's a relatively abundant resource. Oil isn't cheap because the mean oil tycoons have built so many oil rigs. Rather, so many oil rigs have been built because there is enormous demand for oil, and oil is an abundant resource. In addition, the potential-energy density of oil is high, so the cost-per-unit-energy of harvesting it is low. It's not just low, it's really low. The relative cost of harvesting solar, wind, etc. have come down due to technological advancements, but they are still nowhere near oil and will not be for the foreseeable future. You can subsidize these "alternative energy" sources until your eyes cross, but that will not change the fundamental physical facts of our environment.

The fundamental physical fact of our environment is that it takes a vast amount of money, energy, and time to take crude from the ground and put it in your car's gas tank. If getting each unit of energy to your car would be cheaper as electricity, hydrogen, or Mountain Dew, then eventually that alternative method would become viable or dominant even absent subsidy.

[TheCount]

You're arguing the government position. And the government position is, everyone must.

Please point out where I advocated that.

[acptulsa]

Please point out where I advocated that.

Still trying to pretend I put words in your mouth, so you can play your little victim card? Why don't you just point out where I said you advocated anything at all?

I said you argued the government position, and in the context of the conversation, that's exactly what you did--government can put its fat thumb on the scale and supply will magically appear (never mind that consumers will have to foot the bill for development). You argued that position, end of sentence. I did not say you advocated it. Indeed, I said just the opposite, that you were nebulous, so you could provoke the reaction you were trolling for and play the victim card. You don't be nebulous by advocating. It's possible to be nebulous while regurgitating the argument. But you can't do that and advocate, too.

So here's your backfire, and I hope you enjoy it. Why don't you stop putting words in my mouth, troll?

[nobody's_hero]

When automobiles were invented, the government did not immediately order all horses to be slaughtered. But that seems to be the equivalent of what they're trying to do today.

[ClaytonB]

It's no different than, say, fusion. Right now you have to put more energy into a fusion plant than you get out the other side. A future advance may change that. If it does, then we'll be having this conversation all over again about yet another energy revolution.

Well, nuclear power has been viable for many decades, it is used to great advantage in France, but we have a big scam surrounding that, so the real reason it's "inefficient" is, as always, politics. Gotta love how DC ruins literally everything.

Economies of scale matter regarding the power generation itself. Right now we're using millions of tiny generators to move cars around. Your car engine is hilariously inefficient compared to a power plant. It's orders of magnitude cheaper to make the HP-equivalent of your car in a natural gas plant vs. your car's engine.

Energy-efficiency is only a means to an end. A parade is a massive energy-sink, but we put on parades because people enjoy them. It is human ends which are the final measure of "efficiency". This is what the Borg-mind Left cannot comprehend. The real problem with petroleum vehicles, for the Left, is that they empower the individual. And all of that self-determination doesn't promote the Woke Borg Hivemind....

... eventually that alternative method would become viable or dominant even absent subsidy.

... And Other Fairy Tales

[acptulsa]

... And Other Fair Tales

I know you weren't trying to say fairy tales. People live happily ever after in fairy tales. Nobody lives happily ever after in planned economies.

Oh, wait, you're right. He said, absent subsidies. Hm. Once upon a time, er... Must have been before recorded history, because I can't find a single real world example.

[Occam's Banana]

Energy-efficiency is only a means to an end. A parade is a massive energy-sink, but we put on parades because people enjoy them. It is human ends which are the final measure of "efficiency". This is what the Borg-mind Left cannot comprehend. The real problem with petroleum vehicles, for the Left, is that they empower the individual. And all of that self-determination doesn't promote the Woke Borg Hivemind....

Shut up and eat your crickets, prole.

[ClaytonB]

I know you weren't trying to say fairy tales. People live happily ever after in fairy tales. Nobody lives happily ever after in planned economies.

Oh, wait, you're right. He said, absent subsidies. Hm. Once upon a time, er... Must have been before recorded history, because I can't find a single real world example.

Dang typo. Edited.

[acptulsa]

Dang typo. Edited.

You typed it right. Autoincorrect is to blame.

Dang the coders. Present company excepted, of course.

Remember when autoincorrect didn't presume to change anything, it just made suggestions? Those were the good old days. If Mark Twain had all the modern inconveniences when he was writing all that regional dialect in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, his computer would have landed on the lawn--along with all the pieces of the window.

[ClaytonB]

Shut up and eat your crickets, prole.

1 McCricket coming right up, super-size with soyfries and a Mt. Dow...

[Anti Federalist]

@Anti Federalist

Check out "Aptera".. Disregard and Ignore the "green" propaganda.. and look at it from an Engineering standpoint.

It is designed with Max Efficiency in mind,,and does 0-60 in 3.6.

https://aptera.us/

Been watching development since it had a small gas motor getting 200 mpg.

It is very close to Production.

Affordable and Built to Last. and a Right to Repair as policy.

The fact that it has onboard ICE charging changes the whole game.

VW was ready to introduce a diesel/electric true hybrid, using Siemens control systems (which I am very familiar with), almost ten years ago now, that got 200 mpg.

The government killed diesels, and here we are.

Thanks for the link, I'll check them out.