Althouse: "Flanked by executives from major automakers in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump said the Transportation Department would significantly weaken fuel efficiency requirements..."

December 3, 2025

"Flanked by executives from major automakers in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump said the Transportation Department would significantly weaken fuel efficiency requirements..."

"... for tens of millions of new cars and light trucks. The administration claimed the changes would save Americans $109 billion over five years and shave $1,000 off the average cost of a new car. The Biden administration’s stricter efficiency standards were designed to get more Americans to go electric. But Mr. Trump said they 'forced automakers to build cars using expensive technologies that drove up costs, drove up prices, and made the car much worse. This is a green new scam, and people were paying too much for a car that didn’t work as well.'"

From "Trump Returns to Gasoline as Fuel of Choice for Cars, Gutting Biden’s Climate Policy/The president said he would weaken Biden-era mileage standards, which were designed to increase electric-vehicle sales, calling them a 'scam'" (NYT).

97 comments:

Humperdink said...: Love this!; 12/3/25, 5:23 PM
Achilles said...: A step in the right direction I guess.

He really needs to start hammering home how the Government is the source of the affordability crisis and how the Democrats caused it with bullshit regulations like this.; 12/3/25, 5:23 PM
Jupiter said...: "significantly weaken". Not "relax". Or "reduce".; 12/3/25, 5:25 PM
Achilles said...: Jupiter said...

"significantly weaken". Not "relax". Or "reduce".

Inflammatory. You are a racist.; 12/3/25, 5:28 PM
R C Belaire said...: The problem is that with EVs, the dogs didn't much care for the dogfood. ICE vehicles are a well-known commodity and by and large that's what drivers want. Early adopters have their EVs, and if those vehicles were more cost-competitive with ICE vehicles the story would be different in terms of fuel regs and broader acceptance.; 12/3/25, 5:32 PM
tcrosse said...: The other problem with EVs is that the electric grid can't support their widespread use. As the techies say, they're not scalable.; 12/3/25, 5:35 PM
buwaya said...: This is one of those costs of government called unfunded mandates. These aren't recorded in budgets so get missed in calculations of the burden of government. There was a lot more talk of this in the 1980s and 90s, but is rarely discussed anymore.
Btw a lot of the perception of socialism in European public policy vs the US is the US relies much more on regulation, unfunded mandates, hiding that burden. Much of US regulation is even more hidden, imposed by legal risk not explicit policy. Most of the rest is pensions, which is a heavier cost in Europe due to the older population.; 12/3/25, 5:43 PM
n.n said...: Also, safely and environmental (e.g. Green) features that are neither, but increase the cost of acquisition, maintenance, and insurance, and reduce the sustainable viability of the machine.; 12/3/25, 5:43 PM
buwaya said...: EVs are very scalable. It just requires some investment in infrastructure. The fuel cost is much lower, gallons of gas vs kilowatt-hours, even if public policy mandates expensive electricity.
Infrastructure costs here arent huge, its just a matter of who is being made to pay for it, which ox is being gored.; 12/3/25, 5:48 PM
Peachy said...: "Significantly weaken" - says the Soviet-D hack press

I think people like the hybrid idea. (even tho - the aged out battery is still scary to think about in terms of cost)
Unless you can afford a Tesla..
People want choice. Choice is best.; 12/3/25, 5:52 PM
Peachy said...: No one ever talks about re-charging stations and the energy they use.; 12/3/25, 5:53 PM
Mason G said...: "and if those vehicles were more cost-competitive with ICE vehicles"

You don't have to offer subsidies to buyers for products that are competitive, by cost or any other metric.; 12/3/25, 5:54 PM
Aggie said...: NPR covered this with their usual nose-in-the-air grounding. CAFE standards are imposed fleet wide, and the first few iterations from Jennifer 'Leave It In The Ground' Granholm, if you recall, were completely untenable. A carmaker's fleet might include EV's, but it spans all the way to medium duty trucks. This move by Trump just represents a return to sanity. A lot of Americans actually use their vehicles. How are they supposed to fit 4 child seats in a box the size of a roller skate? Answer: Have 2 kids. How is a rancher supposed to pull his gooseneck cattle trailer? Answer: Convert your ranch to wildlife refuge.

We are left with the virtual death of the V8, with substitutions of multi-turbo, smaller, high-revving engines. Answer: Buy more engines, but new trucks. Or, the larger vehicles that are now hybridized with small engines and electric motors in the drivetrain, to provide acceleration when demanded. Did I mention our new monthly service plan? The dealerships are rubbing their hands.

A return to sanity. Stellantis announces plans to resume making V-8s. Oh no. NPR paints a picture of the automakers standing in the Oval Office as Trump engages with the press, as if this is a picture of some kind of grand corporate conspiracy. Meanwhile, the soccer moms and ranchers are saying Thank God, at last an end to this seemingly endless supply of attacks on consumers, gas stoves, water heaters, CAFE standards, pipeline moratoriums Oh Look ! Gas under $2.00.; 12/3/25, 5:57 PM
Gospace said...: buwaya said...
EVs are very scalable. It just requires some investment in infrastructure.

So answer this. How far in the future is it when I can hop into an EV and travel 1000 miles with one ten minute or less refueling stop?

Until that time EVs are useless for me. I an do that in any of the 3 hybrids I own. Regardless of temperature conditions.; 12/3/25, 5:59 PM
bagoh20 said...: Who else can do what Trump does at his age, and do it every. singe. day? I though this was the hardest job in the world. He makes it look like fun, plus golf.; 12/3/25, 6:01 PM
bagoh20 said...: AI says: "All your charger are belong to us."; 12/3/25, 6:03 PM
James K said...: “EVs are very scalable. It just requires some investment in infrastructure.”

Hey, if EVs can compete (without subsidies or CAFE requirements) with ICE cars, more power to them. But it seems they can’t. CAFE requirements are like low-flow shower heads, low-flush toilets, LED light bulbs, and all the other nonsense inflicted on us by our betters. We should be able to decide how we want to spend our hard-earned money.; 12/3/25, 6:04 PM
Clyde said...: Good. Nobody asked for Biden's CAFE standards. The American people believe in liberty, not government coercion and control. If people want to buy electric cars and take on the inconveniences that may come with them, that's their business. But don't force it on us.; 12/3/25, 6:04 PM
buwaya said...: Yours is an edge case. Compare vs spending half as much per mile, and overall lower TCO over the long term due to mechanical simplicity.; 12/3/25, 6:07 PM
Christopher B said...: Trump's comments resonate with climate-deniers.; 12/3/25, 6:08 PM
bagoh20 said...: With enough spent on infrastructure anything is possible. You could even replace all the fire hydrants with digital ones that dispense sparkling water rather than that old fashion city tap stuff.; 12/3/25, 6:09 PM
Clyde said...: Besides the problems with EVs that others have already listed, there is also the fact that vehicle range falls dramatically in hot or cold weather, when it is necessary to run the air conditioner or the heater. No, thank you.; 12/3/25, 6:10 PM
bagoh20 said...: I never met anyone who denies there is climate.; 12/3/25, 6:10 PM
buwaya said...: If it were not for high tarriffs and regulatory barriers China's electric car maker BYD would take over the US market. $15,000 or less for a new commuter car.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_Seagull; 12/3/25, 6:15 PM
hawkeyedjb said...: 12/3/25, 6:04 PM
buwaya said...
“Yours is an edge case.”

Not really, not in the western United States. Long distance travel is actually quite inconvenient in an electric vehicle. But for short and medium-distance travel, without a need to recharge, an EV makes sense. My wife owns one, it’s a wonderful in-town car, but I would never take it out on the highway. In the future that will change, but for now an EV is a local car. No doubt the calculation is different in Europe.; 12/3/25, 6:17 PM
Breezy said...: It’s just common sense. Thankful.; 12/3/25, 6:19 PM
hawkeyedjb said...: By the way, the TCO is not that great with an electric car. At this point, they are generally far less reliable than gas cars. Our EV has spent an inordinate amount of time in the shop, and there is no way we would consider owning it out-of-warranty.; 12/3/25, 6:22 PM
Larry J said...: Achilles said...
“A step in the right direction I guess.

He really needs to start hammering home how the Government is the source of the affordability crisis and how the Democrats caused it with bullshit regulations like this.“

For this year’s elections, Democrats ran on “affordability”. However, the biggest part of the affordability crisis is that we have far more government than we can afford. Not only is the government too expensive, but the policies and regulations make everything more expensive. How much of the increase in housing costs due to supply and demand issues? Government regulations hamper building more housing quickly, while letting in some 20 million illegal immigrants drove up demand for housing. The cost of complying with government regulations makes everything more expensive, even if the benefits gained are marginal.; 12/3/25, 6:25 PM
Achilles said...: buwaya said...

If it were not for high tarriffs and regulatory barriers China's electric car maker BYD would take over the US market. $15,000 or less for a new commuter car.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_Seagull

Reasons:
1. Car manufacturers in the US face massive regulatory burdens imposed by our government.
2. Our Government charges a 25% surcharge on hourly wages inside the US.
3. Our government imposed rules that only allow a few car manufacturers to exist.
4. The Chinese government uses slave labor to build those Electric cars.

On a level playing field US entrepreneurs could be just as if not more efficient than China.

But the Democrat party including Mitch McConnell and other Democrats pretending to be Republican have been destroying US productivity on behalf of globalist Oligarchs.; 12/3/25, 6:39 PM
Kakistocracy said...: Why achieve big things when you can achieve very minor things?

It's not like any car model in the US stands any chance of being sellable anywhere else with the possible exception of some Gulf petro--states. This is actually more like a death knell for US Auto industry than a chance at revival.

When is he bringing back leaded gasoline?; 12/3/25, 6:40 PM
Michael Fitzgerald said...: Christopher B said...
Trump's comments resonate with climate-deniers.
12/3/25, 6:08 PM

LOL! That's racist.; 12/3/25, 6:41 PM
Achilles said...: Christopher B said...

Trump's comments resonate with climate-deniers.

It is important to the climate change cult to never deal with any actual arguments or deal with any real science.

Especially now that nobody gives a shit about "Climate Change" as it is obviously something only stupid people believe in.; 12/3/25, 6:42 PM
Old and slow said...: Batteries and charging infrastructure are still not as good as the could be, but for 99% of drivers, range is simply not an issue. The vast majority of trips are short, and even if you were driving 1000 miles in a single run (very unlikely) you would sure as hell want to have a couple of rests. What will really accelerate the adoption of EVs autonomous vehicles. Soon enough, anyone manually driving will be considered odd.; 12/3/25, 6:51 PM
Joe Bar said...: If this gets rid of the stupid "auto-start," I'm all for it.; 12/3/25, 7:00 PM
Mason G said...: "Climate-deniers"?

I've never met anyone who denies that the climate exists. How about you?; 12/3/25, 7:11 PM
narciso said...: Skydragon deniers more like returning the auto industry to an affordable and reaponsible pivot; 12/3/25, 7:17 PM
narciso said...: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/12/03/does-the-global-sea-level-rise-have-a-sinusoidal-variation-part-2/; 12/3/25, 7:19 PM
JRoberts said...: Will these new federal CAFE standards over ride the more strict CARB standards or will the radical climate cultists in Sacramento continue to set the default national guidelines?; 12/3/25, 7:21 PM
Original Mike said...: The fuel efficiency standards were always a travesty. Politicians don't have the balls to apply them to individual vehicles so they apply them to the fleet and expect automakers to figure out how to sell cars people don't want. Trump has saved their bacon.; 12/3/25, 7:24 PM
Kakistocracy said...: Could it be that Trump is placating his fossil fuel donors? Seems that this is the likely scenario. The public wants fuel efficient vehicles.

Trump is ceding the global market to China. His cabinet should travel more in Asia and note the cars folks drive. Over time, China will dominate EVs even in this country as the combustion engine fades away.

Simply put, this will be the end of American auto exports. No one will be buying ICE autos when electrics with 700+ mile range exist.; 12/3/25, 7:25 PM
Original Mike said...: "Yours is an edge case."

Says the man from Spain. Try them in cloudy, cold Wisconsin.; 12/3/25, 7:25 PM
Danno said...: Joe, the auto start/stop rule was discarded a few months ago. I don't know if the manufacturers have changed their processes to eliminate them.; 12/3/25, 7:26 PM
rehajm said...: Who are all you diaper donning cannonball runners who can’t stop a few minutes for a charge and a trip to the loo? And why don’t you move closer to where you need to be?; 12/3/25, 7:49 PM
rehajm said...: Seriously, I own two evs- a golf cart and an early 70s resto mod with some Tesla batteries in the boot. I was close to buying a Rivian but the lawyers effed it up. I’m happy with 0-60 in 2.5sec if it cones from a hypercar or the family shed. To each his own…; 12/3/25, 7:52 PM
john mosby said...: Would the manufacturers want to eliminate auto stop/start? A starter that gets used 20 times a day vs twice has to get replaced 10 times as often, no? Business for the parts and service departments, and royalties from whoever makes the parts at NAPA and Pep Boys. CC, JSM; 12/3/25, 7:53 PM
rehajm said...: Hoovie supposedly single-handedly killed the electric f150, or so Ford tells it…; 12/3/25, 7:54 PM
rehajm said...: You old coots will never give up that fear when your car turns off at a stop light…; 12/3/25, 7:55 PM
Paul said...: As long as the clean air standards are kept, fuel efficiency can go down.; 12/3/25, 7:55 PM
MadTownGuy said...: "This is a green new scam, and people were paying too much for a car that didn’t work as well.'

Sometimes, Trump unfiltered says what needs to be said.; 12/3/25, 8:03 PM
Wilbur said...: The mere use of an epithet like "climate denier" evinces a lack of desire to even consider dealing with the subject on a disputable basis.; 12/3/25, 8:05 PM
chuck said...: Could it be that Trump is placating his fossil fuel donors?

He is demonstrating that his IQ is over 100. You wouldn't understand.; 12/3/25, 8:07 PM
Rusty said...: rahajm @ 7:52

I'm looking at a 1962 T Bird. Black on red with the 390 M motor. Of course it's in pieces and the interior is in another T Bird but the body had no rust and all the top hydraulics are there.
The M motor had three carburators.; 12/3/25, 8:12 PM
bagoh20 said...: How many EVs and their infrastructure would exist without the rest of us paying people to buy them when they wouldn't otherwise? In other words, how successful would they be without it being forced on those with different choices, because that's the real level of success, and acceptance? All this while he rest of us pay additional taxes for not buying them.
It's a lot like saying Somalis have been very successful in America. It's true, but at what cost to the rest of us, and that cost was not voluntary on our part.; 12/3/25, 8:26 PM
Wince said...: Linguistically, people are focusing on the verbs: “weaken, relax or reduce.”

What matters is correcting the noun object: “government mandates” instead of “fuel efficiency requirements.”; 12/3/25, 8:31 PM
buwaya said...: In most use cases for most people in the world EVs are perfectly satisfactory. The Western US IS a special case, and applies to rather few people even in a US context.
Which is why EVs are taking over, and economies of scale are being applied bigtime. Most costs of production and operation anywhere are government imposed, no matter if its ICE or EV.
This all was a climate scam, back when startup/conversion costs were significant, but now, globally, its becoming straight economics. Elon Musk for one understands this perfectly well, thats why he's trying to recover capital from Tesla.; 12/3/25, 8:31 PM
Rabel said...: Greta's gonna be angry.; 12/3/25, 8:32 PM
Mason G said...: "In most use cases for most people in the world EVs are perfectly satisfactory."

How about we let people decide for themselves what they consider satisfactory?; 12/3/25, 8:34 PM
buwaya said...: "
How about we let people decide for themselves what they consider satisfactory?"
Sure, certainly. I do not prescribe, I predict.; 12/3/25, 8:42 PM
buwaya said...: Electric vehicles are inherently simpler is the other long term cost driver, besides cheaper fuel.; 12/3/25, 8:43 PM
Curious George said...: "buwaya said...
Electric vehicles are inherently simpler is the other long term cost driver, besides cheaper fuel."

They have less parts, but require more specific service sources. You're not going to get help from the local garage. And with skyrocketing electricity costs, including now with all these data centers going up, the "fuel costs" of EV's are getting closer to ICE. Add that states are losing one of their primary revenue sources that pay for the roads...a gas tax. Many have already imposed extra fees of EV's to compensate, and will continue to because EV's are heavier that ICE vehicles and put more wear and tear on raods.; 12/3/25, 9:28 PM
buwaya said...: Electricity costs aren't "skyrocketing"
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_03; 12/3/25, 9:38 PM
buwaya said...: "You're not going to get help from the local garage. "
Wait.; 12/3/25, 9:39 PM
chuck said...: What I am interested in are self driving cars. I'm not getting any younger and if I live long enough they could be very useful. Heck, I'm tempted now, but don't think we are quite there. Give it a few more years.

I did an 1600 mile road trip last summer, a self driving electric car would be a good solution. I only wanted to drive 300-400 miles a day and 80 mph is faster than it used to be.; 12/3/25, 9:49 PM
Achilles said...: EV's are super simple. We have built one. Because of their torque curve you don't really need a transmission unless you are a serious drag racer or towing serious weight. Even then multiple motors is usually a better solution. You don't need engine oil or water pumps.

Charging stations are much easier to set up and install and maintain than gas stations.

The future is EVs. Especially when we start installing Nuclear Power generators en masse.; 12/3/25, 9:49 PM
Hey Skipper said...: Here is a very in depth, detailed, study of what the EV transition entails, sponsored by the IEEE.

The author is all in on climate catastrophe, to the point of advocating limits on life activities.

It is a very long read.

And not a happy one for EV advocates.

Just one example: distribution transformers, the ones that supply groups of houses, have a design lifetime of about 23 years. With full EV — less than three years.

There are something like 35 million of them in the US. Scalable isn't the concept leaping to mind.

(Working from several year old memory, but if the numbers aren't exact, the magnitudes are.)

The typical interstate service plaza has 12 pumps, and no waiting for a pump. Based on my own calculations regarding range and refueling/charging time, to avoid waiting for a charger, 160 would be required. Per service plaza.

I live in Boise. Here is a list of all the destinations you can reach with an EV from here:; 12/3/25, 10:06 PM
Mason G said...: "I live in Boise. Here is a list of all the destinations you can reach with an EV from here:"

I'm in Nampa. We're not a destination?

Don't answer that. ;-); 12/3/25, 10:14 PM
Hey Skipper said...: I'm in Nampa. We're not a destination?

I should have been more clear — I meant the Boise Metroplex.; 12/3/25, 10:42 PM
Mason G said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/3/25, 10:51 PM
Mason G said...: "I should have been more clear — I meant the Boise Metroplex."

Even Melba?

That's okay, it was a joke. And I know exactly what you mean about how far you have to go to get to somewhere else from here. I used to drive to SoCal to visit family- nearly 900 miles- and the biggest city on the way was Winnemucca (population 8,000 or so).; 12/3/25, 10:53 PM
n.n said...: Green is not scalable with Green resources, a blight on their environment. EVs have limited utility and a large environmental footprint. The scientifically unsupported assertion of anthropogenic climate change forced by so-called "greenhouse gasses", is an effective regulatory arbitrage schemes worth trillions in equivalent and inclusive economic leverage.; 12/3/25, 10:58 PM
Skeptical Voter said...: Buwaya says that EVS are only a problem in the Western US and that doesn't really affect many people. Well 40 million people living in California sounds like "many" to me.; 12/3/25, 11:11 PM
Hey Skipper said...: Mason G: I know exactly what you mean about how far you have to go to get to somewhere else from here. I used to drive to SoCal to visit family- nearly 900 miles- and the biggest city on the way was Winnemucca (population 8,000 or so).

I still do. Five hours to Elko, the last four empty. Another couple to Ely, even emptier than the previous four. Overnight in Ely. Next day, four more hours of vast expanses of nothingness to Vegas.

If we were to be press ganged into EV utopia, almost all of the western two thirds of this country would become unreachable.

Not Green New Deal, Green Leap Forward.; 12/3/25, 11:12 PM
Hassayamper said...: What I am interested in are self driving cars. I'm not getting any younger and if I live long enough they could be very useful. Heck, I'm tempted now, but don't think we are quite there. Give it a few more years.

I took my first ride in a Waymo a few weeks ago. It's mature technology. The driving was impeccable. Waymo claims 85% fewer crashes causing injury than with human drivers.; 12/3/25, 11:16 PM
Yancey Ward said...: If EVs are the future, then they will win out no matter what we do with CAFE standards.....right?; 12/3/25, 11:22 PM
buwaya said...: EVs will win out long term, yes.; 12/3/25, 11:58 PM
buwaya said...: The overwhelming majority of the CA population lives in the Bay Area and LA basin conurbations, not on say the I5 (Central Valley).; 12/4/25, 12:00 AM
buwaya said...: https://electrek.co/2025/12/01/toyotas-15000-electric-suv-hit-china/; 12/4/25, 1:14 AM
Blackbeard said...: "The future is EVs. Especially when we start installing Nuclear Power generators en masse."

Except that the same forces that are pushing for BEVs are also stridently anti-nuke, anti-hydro, anti-natgas, ets.; 12/4/25, 4:48 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Americans rejected the EV switch being forced on them before the technology and environmental impact of the change were known in full. It was another government scam/powergrab based on the global warming scam: a manufactured “crisis” that leftists used to again try and fundamentally change America.

Not to mention the absolute ecological disaster the “green” movement has created worldwide.; 12/4/25, 5:15 AM
Leland said...: Noted authoritarian significantly weakens government regulation.; 12/4/25, 5:30 AM
Leland said...: In other news, TSLA up 50 basis points since I bought back in.; 12/4/25, 5:33 AM
buwaya said...: "stridently anti-nuke, anti-hydro, anti-natgas, etc."
Yes, you must eliminate these people, for a host of other reasons as well.; 12/4/25, 6:13 AM
Jaq said...: I like my electric car, but it's not for everybody, and it's stupid to imagine that they ever could be. I have a garage where I can charge it, I don't drive that many miles a day, and for what I use it for it's great, but! I have a gas car too for the days that the EV won't cut it. But you know what, as much as I like the EV, there is no way if I had to pay the non subsidized price for it, it would be worth it.; 12/4/25, 7:54 AM
boatbuilder said...: It's not like any car model in the US stands any chance of being sellable anywhere else with the possible exception of some Gulf petro--states. This is actually more like a death knell for US Auto industry than a chance at revival.
You really are an economic moron. Do you think all of those auto manufacturers are building new plants in the US so they can sell cars overseas?; 12/4/25, 7:54 AM
Achilles said...: Blackbeard said...

"The future is EVs. Especially when we start installing Nuclear Power generators en masse."

Except that the same forces that are pushing for BEVs are also stridently anti-nuke, anti-hydro, anti-natgas, ets.

That is a pretty easy way to determine good and evil isn't it.; 12/4/25, 7:59 AM
Jaq said...: I think that in theory, EVs are the way to go for a city like LA, or even NYC, but until you can solve the charging problem, they will not fly for most people. People forced to use street parking, for example. Even if nuclear fusion becomes a reality, which it might, how do you charge your car on the street? Those charging cables are heavy copper, and you know what? You can cut them, strip them, and sell them to get your next fix.

We had a guy who had a cordless sawzall and he was working parking lots stealing catalytic converters and selling them to buy some drug or other, until we change the way we deal with stuff like this, it's just not going to work.; 12/4/25, 7:59 AM
Jaq said...: Remember when Joe Biden killed the Twin Metals mine? A lot of metals that are needed to build EVs left in the ground to please the same people trying to force us all into EVs.; 12/4/25, 8:02 AM
dbp said...: CAFE standards are classic government micromanagement and while it's good that Trump is moving them in the direction of sanity, a better move would be complete elimination.

If the government is concerned about climate change, they should promote a massive build-out of electric generation capacity, particularly atomic power. 1. That's domestic production of a good/service. 2. It encourages other industry, since electricity is a major cost, especially data centers. 3. If electricity is sufficiently cheap, more people will want electric vehicles, so you don't need tax incentives.; 12/4/25, 8:03 AM
Jaq said...: "Buwaya says that EVS are only a problem in the Western US"

He should come to New England and drive from Burlington, VT to Boston on a cold day, over the mountains, running his heater and defroster and dealing with the performance hit the low temps make on battery performance.; 12/4/25, 8:06 AM
Not Illinois Resident said...: Well hoohaa! Always marvel at all the electric vehicles toodling around town, driven by smug owners who think they're somehow "saving the environment" by offloading their electrical generation elsewhere - like in Indiana. Best car models on market are in Prius series; let's have more hybrid cars that run on both gas fuel and battery charge. Hopefully car manufacturers will stop making the beastly oversized SUVs and outrageously overpriced luxury cars, and we all by the Prius-version of the Model T. That certainly would go towards "save the planet" in a more effective and thrifty manner.; 12/4/25, 8:07 AM
Jaq said...: At --22F, your EV will not start, but I guess the solution is a heated garage... hmmm. Once electricity is "too cheap to meter" as we used to say about nuclear, then that won't be a problem.; 12/4/25, 8:08 AM
Not Illinois Resident said...: Trump should do same to zoning codes that regulate single-family construction projects. Mandate inclusion of 800 SF single-family starter homes for every residential zoning district across nation. Housing shortage is due to steep housing construction costs, which are driven by ridiculous zoning and building code requirements. These overly-restrictive nonsense code issues cause projects like LA's $800,000/unit "affordable housing" developments intended to rehouse homeless people.; 12/4/25, 8:11 AM
Jaq said...: One of the funniest things about my EV is that at 6K mile intervals, it starts an annoying warning that I have to go to the dealer for "service" which amounts to rotating the tires, and the tires are my responsibility anyway, but the reason for this is that the business model of dealerships depends on the "oil change" revenue. Since it's a lease, I go along, but if I owned it, I would find a way to disable that warning. The only reason that it is a lease is that otherwise, I could not have qualified for the subsidy that made the car worth the money.; 12/4/25, 8:15 AM
Jaq said...: "Housing shortage is due to steep housing construction costs,"

Where are those tens of millions of illegals that Biden let in living? Mangers?; 12/4/25, 8:16 AM
Jaq said...: This is not a news bulletin, but hybrids are the answer. Those freight trains you see pulling massively heave chains of rail cars loaded with freight? Diesel electric. They are coming out with new hybrids that operate by the same principles. Even a plug in hybrid like the one that BMW puts in its 740, that only operates electrically up to 35 mph, still offloads the energy draining acceleration from a dead stop from the gas engine. My friend's plug in hybrid operates for 50 miles on a charge, and she charges it off of a 110 v socket, and it works fine for her.; 12/4/25, 8:28 AM
boatbuilder said...: Let us recall that the supposed goal of forcing us all to drive EV's and to scrap our ICE vehicles was to "save the planet" by lowering "carbon" emissions from petroleum.
There are still many billions of gallons of (relatively) cheap oil sitting in the ground (and more deposits being discovered all the time). And the price of oil will go down if and when demand drops due to developed nations switching to nuclear (if and when). Are the "developing" nations going to pay a premium for non-petro (or coal) energy, or are they more likely to utilize cheap and abundant oil?
The answer is obvious. That oil is going to get used.
So lets evaluate EV vs. ICE on the merits, without the "saving the planet" BS.; 12/4/25, 8:31 AM
Rusty said...: buwaya said...
"Electric vehicles are inherently simpler is the other long term cost driver, besides cheaper fuel."

Not really. In reality you've traded mechanical problems for electrical ones. All systems break down. I think you'll find that even electrical systems will start to show their weakness at about the same rate as mechanical ones. Motor bearings instead of timing chains.; 12/4/25, 9:26 AM