Categories
Right Angle

Universal Electric Car Myth Debunked: One Smoldering Tweet Follows the Math

The environmentalist’s electric vehicle Utopian future is entirely reliant on the one thing environmentalists refuse to accept — wide-spread nuclear power generation.

Universal Electric Car Myth Debunked: One Smoldering Tweet Follows the Math

In one smoldering Tweet, a guy follows the math to debunk the idea that the electric car will replace the internal combustion engine. The environmentalist’s electric vehicle Utopian future is entirely reliant on the one thing environmentalists refuse to accept — wide-spread nuclear power generation.

Bill Whittle, Scott Ott and Stephen Green create 5 new episodes of Right Angle each week — on for Members-only — thanks to the support of those Members. If you’ve been enjoying these for free, we invite you to enjoy the full experience by becoming a Member.

Video below hosted at Rumble.

Listen to the Audio Version

87 replies on “Universal Electric Car Myth Debunked: One Smoldering Tweet Follows the Math”

I worked in the electric utility industry for 30+ years as an electrical engineer. Much of that time in “Resource Planning,” or as we called it in the old days, “Generation Planning.” My personal goal, and in the early days, the goal of the electric utility, was to produce and deliver electricity as cheaply as possible to our customers. This was to keep America’s business and industries competitive in the world marketplace. Towards the end of my career, the green movement began to drive up the cost of production from both existing fossil plants (via expensive, and power hungry emission controls) and “new” more green production methods. I have to live here too, so never wanted to “trash” where I live with pollution, BUT there are tradeoffs and diminishing returns on how clean “clean” can be.
Electricity is both generated and consumed in REAL TIME, as storage on a utility scale is very very expensive. Most natural resources are NOT dispatchable, i.e. they cannot be called upon to generate power EXACTLY when it is consumed. In addition, electricity from a utility is AC (alternating current) and nearly all renewables, save for hydro, including battery storage are DC (direct current). Many windmills are wild AC, not stable 60 hertz (as needed in the USA). As a result, this DC and/or wild AC must be converted to stable 60 hertz before being connected to the electric grid for distribution and consumption. This conversion adds cost and complexity to production and distribution.
Finally, when I was in the business, the lead time for a nuclear plant was AT LEAST 12-15 years for sighting, engineering, permitting, equipment contracting/procurement, construction and final testing. So, good luck with building nuclear plans fast enough to charge millions of electric vehicles!!

Generating the power is not the problem.
We currently use about 4200 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year. 3.2 trillion miles at 0.3 kWh/mile yields an additional 960 TWh. Our installed capacity is roughly 1.1 terawatts: running flat out, it would deliver roughly 9600 TWh/year. Generating the power to replace petroleum-based motor vehicles would be a challenge, but not an insurmountable problem.
If we further assume that the power stations that supply the 1.1 terawatts have a working life of 70 years, we would need a new gigawatt of power generation to replace an aging gigawatt every 23 days… even without changing our vehicles.
This bit of math may have bloodied the unicorn, but didn’t kill it.
I’d like to see an analysis of the power distribution issues with widespread use of electric cars. What happens when every home in America gets a device that uses more electricity than everything else in the house combined, and then runs it for eight hours every day?
For my part, while I love the concept of an electric vehicle, I wouldn’t buy one. At least not until we get highways fitted with third rails.

Recently bought a new (leftover 2020) Chevy Bolt for under $20K. Don’t generally buy new cars and never an electric, but the dealer was offering over $17K off and Massachusetts kicked in a check for $2500. My average range is about 250 miles and the car is comfortable, roomy, quick and fun to drive – albeit kinda dorky-looking, hence all the discounts. I didn’t buy it to be green. I bought it because I expect the cost per driven mile to very cheap. Repair & maintenance costs will consist of tires, wiper blades and eventually suspension work as bushings and shocks wear out. Driving in regen mode, which is actually more convenient, means you hardly ever use brakes. Almost all charging is done at home using a $400 wall charger I installed. Based on my electricity costing 15 cents per kWh I calculated the cost per mile to be the equivalent of paying $2.75 per gallon of gas and getting over 100 miles per gallon.
We still have a gasoline-powered minivan for longer trips because the charging infrastructure is still pretty spotty.
Building enough electrical generating infrastructure is another matter. I ran the numbers you presented and got similar results. Put another way, Americans currently use around 4,000 tWh of electricity per year. 3 Trillion miles at 1/3 kWh per mile translates into an additional 1,000 tWh of electricity, or an additional 25% above what we already consume. Easily done if we finally get our act together and build nuclear plants.
Electric cars are NOT particularly environmentally friendly when you look at the mining of materials that go into one – lithium, neodymium, etc. as well as the bulk generation of electricity. PragerU has a great video on this. But the “fuel” and maintenance costs are pretty compelling.

The problem with this mathematical analysis is the presumption that our Wise Masters expect there to be a similar amount of driving once they have forced internal combustion engines off the roads and switch to electric vehicles. In fact, the amount of miles (ok, Kilometers) driven would, by necessity plummet.
The Plebs have no need to drive when you have Stimmy checks, Netflix and Amazon. On the rare occasion you do need to go out, call an Uber.

You could have around 37PWh (petawatt hours, that’s 1000 terawatts) of energy per year with offshore wind power around the coastal USA; and solar just along the current US road network (ie alongside roads, and in the areas at major junctions) would be able to supply 36TWh (terawatt hours, that’s 1000 gigawatts) per year.

Total installed offshore wind turbine currently sits at approx 15GW*. The largest offshore turbine peaks at 15MW*. So we’d need to build 1000 of the largest to get double the installed base. To get to the TW level, build a cool million of the current largest turbine. Not including replacing the ones that reach end of life before the millionth gets built.
*Source: Siemens Gamesa website: Self-proclaimed largest provider of offshore wind turbines.

Kennedy had a real world military and political threat which drove the “To the moon in a decade” mandate.
Few people buy the global warming nonsense.
Every Democrat wants to be the JFK that they would hate if he were still alive.

Just the other night, while taking my shower, I was solving some of the world’s problems (don’t you do that while showering?) and thought of how I would testify to Congress about something so simple as the calculations for line loss in high power electrical lines coming from all their proposed new energy “plants” into the power grid. It’s really a simple set of mathematical calculations. But then I realized that there probably is not a single engineer, let alone an electrical engineer, let alone a power engineer, in Congress, or on one of their Congressional staffs. My point being that the idiots we have elected to Congress have no concept of that which they are proposing – which you mentioned in your comments – but also, they don’t give a sh*t because they will never, ever, be held accountable for their lack of intelligence. And in the meantime, we have dumbed down our public education system so that if you are proficient in math and physics these days, you are considered to have “white privilege” and exhibit “systemic racism”. If our society does not get rid of the incompetence of our government, we surely are doomed. And I fear my grandchildren and great grandchildren will never be able to do the things that I have done in my life, let alone have the kind of life I have had. I’ve told their parents they are responsible to make up for the shortcomings of our education system, public or private, so that their children can excel in life. But if one cannot teach Congress to understand a simple concept like line loss, then what hope do we have that they would understand something like thorium reactors?

Thorium? Isn’t that a magic pixie dust that will mutate our progeny and solve the world’s problems? </s>

I once tried to explain to someone on a congress critter’s staff why there is a difference in voltage on transmission lines for long distances and the voltage that gets consumed in residential and industrial applications. Why didn’t we just “do everything” at 480V? It is very difficult to have conversations with such people, who consider themselves to be very, very smart (insert Fredo joke here) but can’t understand a simple phrase like, losses are proportional to the current squared. And really don’t understand the implications of the simple phrase. Ah, well.

I think we’ll see Virtual Power Plants with most residential and commercial areas, using solar. Stick it on the roofs of homes and businesses and essentially share it locally, reducing the need for transmission and building in resilience to regional blackouts, and balancing the grid at other times.

I am all for solar in places that make sense. Every home in the desert Southwest should use solar. When homeowners in Minnesota are subsidized to install solar, that is a “mal-investment” of tax dollars and personal finances.

Our governmental system was set up (in the 18th Century) to favor lawyers as elected representatives. At the time, lawyers weren’t the (generically) scum of the earth that they are now. I would argue that the feedback loop between the US government and the legal profession are the root of most of the world’s problems.
I know it is pie in the sky, but a “great reset” back to 1789 and make a few adjustments. A new constitutional congress could do this. Constitutional Amendments we like (1-10 etc) could be rolled into the updated constitution, those that were a mistake or poorly written (13, 14, 17, 19) could be corrected or removed.

My brother-in-law used to work in R&D for General Motors. One day he showed up at my house with an experimental prototype fuel-cell powered Pontiac Apache. I know they’re god-awful ugly, Pontiac probably couldn’t sell it so they donated the chassis, body and interior to R&D as a write off and a way to get rid of it …

We went for a ride, me driving. Bear in mind that a hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicle is an electric vehicle with its own, onboard electrical generating plant. It was OK, good acceleration and handling though nothing impressive about it except …

The price. My brother-in-law told me that prototype probably cost somewhere north of $1 million to get it in the configuration I drove. It was easily the most expensive car I’ve ever operated.

He estimated that if GM continued down the path of fuel cell powered vehicles it would be 15+ years before the cost got into the range of what an “average” person could afford. I told him that it would be ten years or more after that when I could afford to buy a used one. Which easily put my possession of a vehicle like I had just driven more than 25 years away. A third of a lifetime.

Even if/when electric vehicles become predominant it will still be quite a few years before I can afford a used one. I’ve only ever bought one new vehicle in my life, it was the first car I owned all by myself and a 1976 Chevrolet Monte Carlo. I learned my lesson about depreciation and wiping my butt with a big wad of money when I drove it off the lot. In fact, I didn’t even get to use that big wad of money for hygienic purposes, it just disappeared by magic.

I would love to own an electric vehicle. When they come up with one that will go 300 miles without recharging and that I can charge up in 5 minutes (These are the statistics for my current, used Jeep. 300 highway miles on a 20 gallon tank and 5 minutes to fill the tank) and after such vehicles have been on the market for 5 – 10 years so I can afford one. I’ll buy it.

I’m not holding my breath, I’ll most likely have died of old age by then.

I have nothing against electric vehicles, gas turbine powered vehicles, or any other power source conventional or not. All I care about is the economy to own and operate (and obviously not to a fine degree for that either, I drive a freakin’ Jeep FFS) and will it take me where I want to go? That’s it. No ecological considerations, no political-social concerns, nothing but that. If I have something that fits that bill and I can afford it, I’ll drive it and never think twice about any of the rest of those things.

I’m hoping that with extended lifetimes on the powertrain, that electric cars will surpass the 100/200k that a petrol or diesel car would last and therefore contribute to an extended supply of depreciating yet still usable electric vehicles in the second (third, fourth, fifth) hand market.

That’s a valid hope but again, I doubt I’ll live long enough to own a used electric vehicle that meets the specs I stated are necessary for me to even consider one.

I grew up in a northern tier state where weather can be a life-or-death matter. So I never let my fuel level get below half a tank, I run on the top half of the tank. It’s at half right now and I’ll fill it up tomorrow when I get tractor diesel, boat gas and lawnmower gas at the same time. It would be great for me to be able to plug in my vehicle and always have a “full tank” when I leave home, but that full tank needs to take me as far as a full tank of gasoline does or I won’t even consider it. It does me no good at all to have a full charge if that full charge will only take me half as far, or less, than a full tank of gas would.

The thing EV proponents never talk about is redundancy: If you get rid of all fossil fuels, what do you do in case of a prolonged power outage? Now, if you have no electricity, you can still drive someplace where there is power, or start up your gas-powered generator. In an all-solar powered world, you’re basically scr*wed.

The purpose of mandating electric cars isn’t to save the planet. It’s to make them so unaffordable it keeps them out of the hands of us “little people”. That way, only the elites will have them, and we peasants will know our place.

What about the classics? If the lefties want to get rid of the gas cars/trucks, then what do they expect us to do with the classic muscle cars and like my three 70’s square body Chevy trucks? There’s a lot of money involved in restoring these and I guess we are supposed to just through them away? Grr.

I don’t think anyone is going to ban classic cars from being driven; just from being sold new. I see it more how horses went from transport to limited recreational use. If you can afford to keep a horse you can ride it on the roads; likewise with classic petrol/diesel cars.

Hey, Scott Ott… Those “Charging Stations” next to the Physically Handicapped Parking Spaces are NOT actually “Charging Stations.”

Those are Parking Spaces for the MENTALLY Handicapped… 🙂

You mean a calculation like: the holes between the fibers in any facemask short of an N95 mask are many, many times larger than a virus, so that the virus passes right through them without hindrance?

Or how about: the gaps around any face “shield” or facemask short of an N95 mask are gaps many times bigger than the holes between the fibers in the masks themselves, so that a virus passes right through them with every breath you take?

… and even more ludicrous is making people like me wear a face mask of any sort. I have a beard. A cotton or other fiber face mask is purely ornamental on me, it does nothing at all. Even an N95 mask won’t work on someone with a very full beard.

Sorry Scott, the charging stations, the air, and everything is _not_ free.

It may be at no direct charge to you, but there is no free lunch.

The theater has to pay their electric bill, so the movie goers will pay for the power. The service stations of old had to buy those air pumps, so their cost was figured into the gas (and service) prices.

Are we talking about the Federal subsidies for electric cars coming from tax dollars?

The amount of power needed in the calculation is based on the current number of miles driven.

I would asume the people pushing for this are envisaging a future where private car ownership is much, much more restricted. I don’t know how it will be achieved, but the social credit idea could be part of it. Very high energy prices could be another method, as could having to demonstrate a need to own a car.

“I’m sorry sir, our information indicates that your area is well covered by Uber.”

“But what about when I want to visit my sister 400 miles away?”

“For journeys in excess of 50 kilometers you can get an Uber to the train or coach station.”

With the principle of draconian givernement restrriction to save lives now established, the number of traffic related deaths might be added to the ecological imperative to justify coercing those who cannot be pursaded to abandon their cars.

Remember, you’ll own nothing and be happy.

Tesla owner here – many of the “free” charging stations genuinely are free, and it’s not what you think: Essentially many office parks and such need to keep their power steady, so they’re over-buying their power anyway. Which means they have excess capacity that they can use to charge electric cars, and the only thing they have to do is put up a pretty cheap charging station and then they get to advertise off of it! The downside of these stations is that when you’re using them the power supply is pretty unreliable – as you might imagine in such a situation – and so sometimes it takes forever to charge. So you get what you pay for.

And if everyone only had electric cars?
What energy source is being used to create electricity?
Electric cars then are down line of the source and thus subject to entropy.
Freight. Electric semis?
I don’t see the overall viability of electric cars.

Oh, I’m not trying to argue the overall point. Just explaining how there are so many “free” charging stations.

They might be free to the person charging their car, but someone is paying for it and not just the corporation. There are peripheral costs to those who don’t choose to be a party to gratis electricity for elites.

I imagine we could look at some scenarios, like the one Ian mentioned but probably not the movie theater kind, similar to the “free” food that is given away by restaurants and super markets to the various homeless and soup kitchens. It is free in that it was already paid for and cannot be sold further.

If a business has to buy power in blocks and will be wasting power it otherwise won’t use, then it can give it away and the “cost” to the consumer is both the variability of the charging time and the advertising attention the user pays to the location. If there are multiple competing locations for parking (and the situation discussed isn’t an employer of the consumer) then it would also serve as a loss leader to get people to that location instead of the competitor. As far as employers proving power to charge employee cars, that is probably both a tax write off and a listed compensation item that would offset the cost of the extra power, turning it into a net benefit possibly or at least a not-as-negative loss.

I would imagine that movie theatres are doing this as a pure loss leader to get people into the business and also as a long term social adjustment just the like airlines and many other service providers did with a number of items that are not charged a la carte. People will certainly bemoan the time of “free charging stations” just like the guys did over “free air” but drivers will pay all the same.

I didn’t hear about the gas shutdown until I listened to the podcast. The fact that gas prices shot up only hits me once a month.
Do I not drive or use public transportation? No, I drive to work on the other side of Spokane every weekday. My car is a Ford CMAX Energi. It runs on both gasoline and electricity. An because of that I tank up with 20 miles worth of electricity every day and most of it out by the end of the day. Its convenient. Its efficient. Once a month, whether it needs it or not, I take less than $20 and fill up with gasoline. I’m good for another month. If I’m out long with errands or driving long distance that consumes the battery, it switches over to gasoline like most cars. Even when running on gasoline it gets 38 to 40 mpg.
I thought it was a great idea! It meets the demand for reducing emissions yet keeping the ability to go cross country without having to stop for hours to recharge. But don’t think me some hippy or environmentalist. I’m a capitalist. I paid $31,000 for the car brand new in 2015. It saves me an average of $7,000/year in gasoline I don’t buy. The car paid for itself already in the savings so that now its all gravy.
Unfortunately, the CMAX is no longer being made because sales have gone down. The knuckle dragging environmentalists like their gas guzzeling vehicles that they use every day except when they go out to protest how cars are killing the environment.
One can’t understand why the populous hasn’t figured it out. Capitalism can lead us to wherever we choose to go.

This is what I’ve been telling people for years. People have NO idea how much power would be needed to power all-electric cars. Or even how much power it takes to do … well anything. Right now, nuclear is the only currently available technology to produce the amount we’d need without producing carbon.

Solar and wind are nice, I’ve got nothing against them as supplements – in fact, I think they’re kind of cool. But people are kidding themselves if they think we’re going to get enough power out of them without covering the planet in solar panels and windmills.

And that discussion needs to include disposal of solar panels, wind turbine blades, and batteries when they reach the end of their lives.

Exactly, it is called “cradle to grave” scoring. From the need to mine lithium for batteries to the proper, safe, fully “green” recovery of all elements for all the green systems. Nuclear waste may seem clean until you find that it may take 50,000 years before the waste product from day one is considered moderately safe for the environment. Now add and compound that by the new plants and exponential waste development. Do you want that buried/hidden in your children’s future school yard. Nothing is free, everything cost, and everything alters/damages something to be created. The “green” waste piles are kept out of sight and out of public discussion. From the piles and piles of expired solar panels sitting in multiple football fields of land. Then to the massive wind turbine blades being put into the landfills. Nothing is perfectly clean, and denying the cost just pushes it off on future generations. There are options and improvements, but denying the issues involved in all the systems only causes poor choices and even poorer repercussions.

Quite aside from the logistic and economics of charging them, I stand by what I said a little over 2 years ago. April 1, 2019, on a site called Quora, replying to a question about the “Green New Deal”:
Let’s look at actual reality for a minute, okay?
“Get rid of fossil fuels”:
No fossil fuels means no commercial flights. It means no plastics industry. It means no space flight.
No plastics means no modern automobiles. It means no synthetic clothing. It means no aerospace industry. It means no telecommunications industry. It means no smartphones and no internet. It means no medical device industry. It means no IT industry. It means no modern healthcare.
No commercial flights means Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and every other US possession normally reached by air is effectively on its own. It means events like Hurricane Maria become far more devastating than they already are.
No aerospace industry means no satellites. That means no GPS, no TV signals from overseas.
“Cow farts”:
If the beef industry dies, cow farts will just be replaced by pig farts or chicken farts, unless people stop eating meat altogether. So the government will force everyone to become Vegan. No milk, no butter, no cheese, no eggs. Whether you want it is beside the point, the industries that produced those as a side effect are now GONE.
“Remake the US infrastructure”:
The short version is that the US government becomes the employer of more people than every private sector business in the US combined. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, becomes a government dependent. And between this and “a living wage for everyone, including those unable or unwilling to work,” the assets of EVERYONE (except for Democrat politicians, of course. Note that AOC thinks they should get a raise) must be stripped to pay for it all, and in all likelihood won’t be nearly enough.
THAT’s the reality. Demanding that the GND proposals be made to happen in the real world will involve the people implementing it becoming something between Josef Stalin and Pol Pot. How many tens of millions of Americans are you willing to murder to make your utopian vision come true?
You want to debate and discuss things? Fine, let’s. But so far not one single supporter of the “Green New Deal” has acknowledged ANY of the above issues, much less proposed EVEN ONE solution for any of it. If you’re going to ignore all the problems associated with your proposal, or treat them as if they don’t exist, or worse, treat them as if they aren’t problems at all but FEATURES, you have no right to be surprised, much less complain, when actually sensible people treat you as if you’re criminally insane.
Want to be taken seriously? Fine, propose solutions to the above problems in comments below. Downvotes with no suggestions are nothing but the equivalent of a two-year-old pitching a fit because he can’t fill up on candy instead of having dinner.
***
And in a later comment specifically concerning electric cars (April 3rd):
For a simple example, take electric cars. Do the batteries in current electric cars require synthetic plastics for insulators in their manufacture? I don’t know, but if they do they won’t be available in an economy with no fossil fuel industry.
No plastic insulation for wiring.
No epoxy for circuit boards.
No synthetic rubber for tires, etc.
No fiberglass body panels.
No plastics for dashboards, instrument clusters, etc.
No synthetic fabrics for seats, carpets and headers.
No synthetic padding for seats and dashboards.
What are you going to make the air bags out of? Parachute silk?
No synthetic oils for lubrication of moving parts.
The list goes on and on. Just what I have listed means that the engineering has to be rethought from the ground up, because replacing the above with non-synthetics has pretty much doubled both the weight and the cost of producing it. It will have to be much more than twice as powerful to compensate for that doubled weight, and it will have to be marketed to a completely different demographic at over $100k a pop.
Do you begin to see what I mean? The devil is in the details, and this plan was apparently written by people completely ignorant of those details, willing to pretend that they don’t exist, or actually consider them to be features, not bugs, but aren’t quite stupid enough to openly admit to that.
***
These are problems that could be thought up off the top of my head by someone who has no degrees and is not an engineer. And that’s before we even begin on the infrastructure needed to support them. Actual infrastructure, not leftist “let’s call everything we want to do ‘infrastructure,’ and then pass an infrastructure bill to get it all!” infrastructure.

There was a short video several years ago (might be the same time frame) that followed a guy around and eliminated everything that came as a byproduct of the fossil fuel industry. I tried to find it but could not. It was very enlightening.

Another issue is that lithium and other metals needed for batteries must be mined using large, heavy machines that run on fossil fuels.

It depends on the mine. I know that some mines are looking at all electric production and depending on the mine type the fuel can actually be nearly free.

Some mines are up on hills with the delivery at the bottom of the hill; and so the energy produced by a full dump truck rolling down a slope is about the same as the amount required to drive the empty vehicle back up the slope.

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/08/26/edumper-electric-mining-truck-self-charging/

Well the example you linked is a quarry, not a mine. That may seem like nitpicking, but unlike a quarry, in most “mountaintop” mines the ore has to be brought up to the surface before being taken down to somewhere else. That may not do away with the saving, but will certainly lessen it.
And then on the other hand there are open pit mines, where the physics used to power the ore truck you referenced would actually work against you. It’s full when it’s coming up out of the hole, and empty when it’s going back down for another load.

This is exactly why oil refining isn’t going away any time soon. Plastics are a simple necessity in modern life. Over time ideas are emerging to recycle or use alternative materials, but for now it’s going nowhere even if petrol and diesel see a decrease for personal transportation.

Scott was absolutely right about the government trying to force the American people to do something. Carter learned this when trying to force the U.S. to immediately switch to the metric system.
And yes, soon businesses will be charging for the charging.

Dr. Emmet Brown has the solution, with help from Mr. Coffee ….it’s the Mr. Fusion device creating 1.21 GigaWatts! But where can we find DeLorean?

Years ago, I am thinking late 80s early 90s, when the first big push for wind turbines came out, an engineer did the same type of back of the envelope calculation for the number of wind turbines required to supply the east coast of the united states. He stated his assumptions and showed his work as published in either Design News or Machine Design.
The result was a grid of wind turbines from Maine to the tip of Florida 100yds apart and 20 deep (IIRC). Forget about the time needed to build them or the hazard to shipping or the maintenance required. The point he was making was it was a ridiculous number but if that what was wanted, better get busy.
The wind farm off of Martha’s Vinyard is still not built.
And now we can’t build regular nuclear plant’s much less the thorium reactors that Steve mentioned.
If Jeff Bozo and Bill Grates-on-my-nerves really wanted to leave a legacy, they’d take their billions and work on thorium reactors. They could start putting them in the poorest countries. Then I might take them serious when they speak of taking care of the least of us.

Yes, but the US already consumes app 4 Billion MegaWatt-hours of electricity each year. That’s without all cars being rechargeable.

Yes. They want all of us on our knees in front of a government official, begging for a handful of grain, with no other place to find it.

They still are if you wear a mask and use a tow truck to make a withdrawal. 😉

Yup. It looks like the federal government is promoting the very same behavior that it’s guilty of performing: theft.

TANSTAAFL!! You know that!
And as Frédéric Bastiat told budding economists, the smart economists also looked for the things not seen or readily apparent when judging the merit of a given policy or practice (aka unintended consequences).

Steve, the modern left does not want us to have affordable abundant energy. They don’t want us to have comfortable lives plenty of food and consumer goods. They want us living like medieval serfs.

You are correct. This tyrannical trend began in the 1960’s when the leftist environmentalist whackos were protesting the nuclear power industry and logging. These autocratic morons want the serfs to need to burns cow feces for heat.

Our betters need nannies, gardeners and cooks.
Ones that won’t be gettin’ uppity.

None of those freaks would ever hire the likes of me, because I’d shove all of the garden rakes up their collective nethers.

Followed by the leaf rakes, shovels, hoes, pitch forks, lopers, weed eaters, chain saws, lawn mowers, garden tillers, hedge clippers, etc. etc. etc.

There should be plenty of room. Have you seen the sizes of the trunks on some of those lazy, narcissistic pi…?

See now. That’s being “uppity”. The don’t like that in their employees servants

That’s MISTER Uppity to those who don’t know me. Do ya wanna help me reuse garden rakes as suppositories? It could be entertaining.

Well, we built Liberty ships faster than the Germans could sink them. So maybe we could build power plants powered by <s>coal</s>, <s>natural gas</s>, <s>Nuclear</s>… windmills! That’s the ticket!
Huh. HTML tags don’t work here.

The HTML tag <s> or <strike>? Just highlight the desired text and use the strikethrough control at the bottom of the comment editing window. Third from the left in my Chrome browser, it’s an “S” with a horizontal line through it. Like this. Isn’t that what you were trying to do? If not, sorry, my bust.

That’s “Mr. Spock.” Spock was as much of a doctor as Dr. Jill Biden

As of today, there are more than 1500 downvotes on that SkyNews video by middle eastern terrorist bombers and their acolytes who are bent upon the destruction of the Jews and all liberty-loving Westerners. I advocate that Israel should permanently and violently eliminate the threat of those Hamas cockroaches. God knows the current USA White House will do no such thing, because it contains nothing but cowardly fools and wannabe dictators.

Leave a Reply