Guest Post by Eric Peters
Tesla has been making electric cars for sixteen years – since 2008, when the first Lotus sports car converted-to-battery-power came out. Since that time, Elon Musk – the company’s principal and founder – has been promising that all the money he’s been taking (italicized to make a point of the fact that Tesla’s business model depends fundamentally on various iterations of coercion) would be used to finance the eventual development of affordable EVs for the masses.
Just wait!
They’ll be here any day now. . .
Kind of like that “breakthrough” in battery technology we’ve been hearing is coming for the past 30 years and counting. And maybe it is coming. The problem is the other half – figuring out how to recharge a battery (any battery) in a couple of minutes, the same amount of time it takes to fill a gas tank – remains a problem. One that won’t be solved unless a way can be divined to transfer extremely high voltage from source to portable storage device (i.e., the battery) in just a few minutes without burning everything to the ground.
Maybe. But is it likely? Is it probable?
Probably not.
So even if you have a battery with a realistic 400 mile range – meaning that’s how far it’ll actually power the EV in realistic driving scenarios – you’d still have to contend with weekly waits of 30-minutes plus to recover a partial charge at what they pie-in-your-face style “fast” chargers. These aren’t as slow as home chargers. But to call them “fast” is another iteration of the etymological abuse so deftly practiced by the Left. And it is the Left that is the driving force behind this pushing of EVs.
Anyhow, Tesla – Musk, himself – promised that EVs would elaborate like other electronic things, such as computers, that were expensive when they first came out but became less so over time as the technology became less expensive and economies of scale came into play.
But there is a hair in the soup that is almost never mentioned – probably because it pricks the proverbial balloon and that would let out all the hot air. It is that electronics didn’t depend on government, as electric vehicles do. There was a market for computers – and VCRs and microwaves – that drove down costs over time. There isn’t much of a market for EVs. They are being made chiefly because there are mandates that induce their manufacture.
These mandates, in turn, drive up the value of Tesla stock. It’s not much of a risk to invest in something the government is pushing. This gives the simulacrum of success. But it’s all false because it’s built on lies.
And now another one’s come true.
Reuters reports that Tesla – that is, Elon – is no longer pretending it will use the money it has been taking for the past sixteen years to finance the development of the “$25,000” EV Tesla and Musk have been swearing on a stack of Satanic Bibles is just around the corner. It was to have been the Model 2 – as contrasted with the company’s least expensive offering, the $38,990 Model 3.
Which is as expensive, almost, as BMW 3 Series sedan (more expensive, when you count the cost of the “long range” battery, without which a Tesla 3 touts a maximum range of 270 miles, which greatly limits how far you can drive because of how often you must stop – and wait.)
“Tesla has canceled the long-promised inexpensive car that investors have been counting on to drive its growth into a mass-market automaker, according to three sources familiar with the matter and company messages seen by Reuters.”
So much for the “master plan” touted by Musk – back in 2006 – that “called for manufacturing luxury models first, then using the profits to finance a “low cost family car.” Now it’ll be luxury-priced models only, which has always been the plan. The real master plan being to undo everything Henry Ford did more than 100 years ago.
And what Ford did was to undo the for-the-rich-only business model that defined the car business before he came along and simplified the car down to its basic components, mass produced them inexpensively and thereby made it possible for the workers who made Model Ts to be able to afford to buy the cars they made. His business model did not depend on subsidies and mandates to prop up the sale of Lincolns – with a promise to eventually use the profits to finance the development of the Model T.
Yet Musk is held up as a kind of latter-day Ford – which is almost as absurd as naming the overweight, battery-powered devices sold by his company after Nikola Tesla, an electrical-engineering genius who would have been appalled by the elitist wastefulness of devices dragging around a third or more of their own weight in batteries to keep them going – but not for long. Tesla – the man – was into the transmission of electricity wirelessly. The antithesis of the tethered devices being sold using his name.
The Reuters piece says that “Tesla did not respond to requests for comment” – but after the story was published, Musk posted on his social media site X that “Reuters is lying (again).” But about what, exactly? Reuters says that Musk “did not identify any specific inaccuracies.”
Apparently, the money Elon has taken in via his grift will be used to finance robo-taxis – a “segment Musk has envisioned as the future of mobility.” Instead of buying cars, you’ll pay to ride in them.
That’s a promise you can believe, too.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Administrator
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.theburningplatform.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.