For all that Democrats at the state and national level want to force adoption of them, electric cars are no panacea to solving the “climate change crisis” those same Democrats claim will kill us all.
Peter Zeihan explains why.
“A lot of major auto manufacturers are scaling down their plans to make electric vehicles. Ford and GM have both suspended, well, cancelled plans to build a couple new facilities for battery and EV assembly. No changes to their internal combustion engine vehicle plans.”
Tesla production is also slowing. “They’re going to suspend and maybe even cancel the plans for the gigafactory that they were going to be building in Mexico, although that’s very TBD.”
“From an environmental point of view most EVs are at best questionable.”
“The data that says they’re a slam dunk successes assumes that you’re building the EVs with a relatively clean energy mix and then recharging it with 100% green energy, and that happens exactly nowhere in the United States.”
“The cleanest state is California they are still 50% fossil fuel energy, and they lie about their statistics, because they say they don’t know what the mix is for the power that they’re importing from the rest of the country, which is something like a third of their total demand. And the stuff that comes, say, from the Phoenix area in Arizona to the LA Basin which is something like 10GW a day, which is more than most small countries, is 100% fossil fuel.”
“More importantly on the fabrication side, because there are so many more exotic materials and because energy processed to make those materials is so much more energy intensive, all of this work is done in China, and in most places it’s done with either soft coal or lignite.”
“You’re talking about an order of magnitude more carbon generated just to make these things in the first place compared to an IC [integrated circuit, AKA computer chips]. And that means that these things don’t break even on the carbon within a year. For most you’re talking about approaching 10 years or more.”
But Zeihan is leaving the most important variable out of this equation: The smug sense of satisfaction and moral superiority American leftists feel when driving these cars. Isn’t that worth all those extra coal plants?
Number 2: Materials. “These vehicles require an order of magnitude more stuff, more copper, more molybdenum, more lithium, obviously, more graphite. And the energy content required to put those in process is where most of the energy cost comes from.”
“If we’re going to convert the world’s vehicle fleets to these things, there’s just not enough of this stuff on the planet. I’m not saying that we can’t build on in time, but that time is measured in decades.”
“Supposedly we need 10x a much nickel on all the rest. So the stuff just isn’t there. So even if this was an environmental panacea, which it’s not, we would never be able to do it on a very short time frame. You’re talking a century.”
They’re also way more expensive. “This is not a vehicle that’s for most people.”
“And that’s before you consider little things like range anxiety. I’ve rented an EV. It’s real. There just aren’t enough charging stations.”
“EVs are building up on the lots and people just aren’t buying them without absolutely massive discounts and the discounts are now to the point that the whole industry is no longer profitable even with the subsidies that came in from the Inflation Reduction Act.”
“1% of the American vehicle Fleet to EVs, and it looks like we may be very close close to the peak.”
Not every one of his points hits home (there are, in fact, lots of overpriced gas powered cars and trucks sitting on dealers lots, as a lot of YouTube channels will show you), but he’s mostly correct.
Our conservative estimate is that the average EV accrues $48,698 in subsidies and $4,569 in extra charging and electricity costs over a 10-year period, for a total cost of $53,267, or $16.12 per equivalent gallon of gasoline. Without increased and sustained government favors, EVs will remain more expensive than ICEVs for
many years to come. Hence why, even with these subsidies, EVs have been challenging for dealers to sell and why basic economic realities indicate that the Biden administration’s dream of achieving 100% EVs by 2040 will never become a reality.
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 2nd, 2023 at 8:25 PM and is filed under Regulation, video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
“You’re talking about an order of magnitude more carbon generated just to make these things in the first place compared to an IC [integrated circuit, AKA computer chips].”
Umm, IC means Internal Combustion when your talking about EVs and ICs.
[…] service, and UN General Assembly defends murderous Cuban dictatorship once again BattleSwarm: Electric Cars: No Panacea Behind The Black: The Netherlands signs Artemis Accords, Space Force awards SpaceX and ULA new […]
It’s a little hard to hear, but he said “ICE” (Internal Combustion Engine).
Note that Zeihan is an environmentalist… as he likes to say, he’s a “Green who can do math”. Unfortunately, he’s reluctant to promote nuclear, even as he quietly recognizes its value in some of his presentations.
Three vexing EV issues that Mr. Zeihan does not discuss:
1) EVs are much heavier than ICEVs. While the electric motor(s) are a bit lighter than combustion engines and their transmissions, the battery packs are an order of magnitude heavier than equal range fuel tanks filled with gasoline or middle distillate fuels. There is a real additional energy cost to shlepping this extravagant weight, and the physics of guiding and stopping much heavier EVs will add many thousands of road deaths on American highways each year.
2) Current EV battery chemistries are subject to “thermal events” (a polite fiction for devastating fires) which defy current firefighting technology. This fire risk exists both during charging and operation. NHTSA has been mute on the fire risk of EVs, which is telling. EV advocates believe that solid state sulfide electrolyte chemistry batteries (i.e. Toyota – Idemitsui Kosan) will reduce fire risk, but this technology not yet been proven in service.
3) EV batteries are fragile. Taken together with their great mass, they are subject to damage during minor collisions which require their replacement. Collisions which would not affect ICE powertrains in the slightest. No repair is possible.
Since EV batteries represent more than 50% of the value of EVs, this will explode automobile insurance rates. Those excess EV insurance costs are now being transferred to ICEV operators. That accounting sleight of hand will not be available if EVs ever become a significant portion of the vehicle fleet. And solid state electrolyte batteries, the great hope of the environmental wackos, will likely be even more fragile than the liquid electrolyte lithium ion batteries on the road today.
Zephaniah forgot to mention slave labor in mining and manufacturing, and that’s raciss. As for math, Barbie says it’s hard, so it’s raciss and sexist. I bet they left that out of her movie.
We are driving my son’s EV-a little Chevy Bolt he got in the divorce. (It was her car but she got the big SUV because the dog needed the space and he didn’t care.) He’s driving our 2007 BMW convertible. A much better fit for him. The Bolt is a great little station car. We do most of our errands in it around town. It is cheaper than the gas cars we have and we don’t go out of town with it – wouldn’t think of it. We recharge it at home with no extra charging point added – just use the 110 outlet. We’re retired so that isn’t an issue. I would not have bought an EV – even though it works for our current life. Our gov has declared New Mexico will be a green state and has mandated EV sales of an outrageous percent. NM is a poor, sparsely populated state. She is insane. And a tyrant to boot. We are from NM and retired here – should have considered Texas a lot harder than we did…
In the SF Bay Area commute one sees a vast fraction of electrics, mostly of course Teslas, but a fair number of all the others as well. That’s why this story is not a surprise:
The end game is that they don’t want you driving at all, but rather living in 15-minute prisons instead.
It would have been far more preferable to direct research into development of renewable liquid fuels (ethanol and other alcohol variants) with better net energy, rather than electric vehicles with all the drawbacks stated in this blog entry–but that would have been too easy.
370H55V above nails it. There is no plan whatsoever — never was, never will be — to provide a 100% 1:1 replacement of ICE personal transportation with EVs. The plan is to relegate most of us present kulaks and future zeks to the bus, the bike, and Shank’s mare. There will be EVs enough (and sufficient infrastructure, maybe) for the nomenklatura.
Going 100% Green is for those people who cannot do math. Math is of course racist.
“You’re talking about an order of magnitude more carbon generated just to make these things in the first place compared to an IC [integrated circuit, AKA computer chips].”
Umm, IC means Internal Combustion when your talking about EVs and ICs.
[…] service, and UN General Assembly defends murderous Cuban dictatorship once again BattleSwarm: Electric Cars: No Panacea Behind The Black: The Netherlands signs Artemis Accords, Space Force awards SpaceX and ULA new […]
Damn. I’d thought I had math properly nailed down as ‘sexist.’ I’ll adjust my NewSpeak lexicon accordingly.
It’s a little hard to hear, but he said “ICE” (Internal Combustion Engine).
Note that Zeihan is an environmentalist… as he likes to say, he’s a “Green who can do math”. Unfortunately, he’s reluctant to promote nuclear, even as he quietly recognizes its value in some of his presentations.
EV’s are the Holy Grail of the Climate Doom Cult. Mere facts will not dissuade them from their beliefs.
Three vexing EV issues that Mr. Zeihan does not discuss:
1) EVs are much heavier than ICEVs. While the electric motor(s) are a bit lighter than combustion engines and their transmissions, the battery packs are an order of magnitude heavier than equal range fuel tanks filled with gasoline or middle distillate fuels. There is a real additional energy cost to shlepping this extravagant weight, and the physics of guiding and stopping much heavier EVs will add many thousands of road deaths on American highways each year.
2) Current EV battery chemistries are subject to “thermal events” (a polite fiction for devastating fires) which defy current firefighting technology. This fire risk exists both during charging and operation. NHTSA has been mute on the fire risk of EVs, which is telling. EV advocates believe that solid state sulfide electrolyte chemistry batteries (i.e. Toyota – Idemitsui Kosan) will reduce fire risk, but this technology not yet been proven in service.
3) EV batteries are fragile. Taken together with their great mass, they are subject to damage during minor collisions which require their replacement. Collisions which would not affect ICE powertrains in the slightest. No repair is possible.
Since EV batteries represent more than 50% of the value of EVs, this will explode automobile insurance rates. Those excess EV insurance costs are now being transferred to ICEV operators. That accounting sleight of hand will not be available if EVs ever become a significant portion of the vehicle fleet. And solid state electrolyte batteries, the great hope of the environmental wackos, will likely be even more fragile than the liquid electrolyte lithium ion batteries on the road today.
“Welcome to the party pal.”
– John McLane
Zephaniah forgot to mention slave labor in mining and manufacturing, and that’s raciss. As for math, Barbie says it’s hard, so it’s raciss and sexist. I bet they left that out of her movie.
We are driving my son’s EV-a little Chevy Bolt he got in the divorce. (It was her car but she got the big SUV because the dog needed the space and he didn’t care.) He’s driving our 2007 BMW convertible. A much better fit for him. The Bolt is a great little station car. We do most of our errands in it around town. It is cheaper than the gas cars we have and we don’t go out of town with it – wouldn’t think of it. We recharge it at home with no extra charging point added – just use the 110 outlet. We’re retired so that isn’t an issue. I would not have bought an EV – even though it works for our current life. Our gov has declared New Mexico will be a green state and has mandated EV sales of an outrageous percent. NM is a poor, sparsely populated state. She is insane. And a tyrant to boot. We are from NM and retired here – should have considered Texas a lot harder than we did…
[…] Battle Swarm– Why Electric cars suck! […]
In the SF Bay Area commute one sees a vast fraction of electrics, mostly of course Teslas, but a fair number of all the others as well. That’s why this story is not a surprise:
https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/firstever-major-us-metro-area-hits-50-electrified-vehicle-regi.html
The map in that story is basically the higher income zip codes in an overall high income region.
Battery Electric Vehicles are a rich persons vehicle choice.
The end game is that they don’t want you driving at all, but rather living in 15-minute prisons instead.
It would have been far more preferable to direct research into development of renewable liquid fuels (ethanol and other alcohol variants) with better net energy, rather than electric vehicles with all the drawbacks stated in this blog entry–but that would have been too easy.
370H55V above nails it. There is no plan whatsoever — never was, never will be — to provide a 100% 1:1 replacement of ICE personal transportation with EVs. The plan is to relegate most of us present kulaks and future zeks to the bus, the bike, and Shank’s mare. There will be EVs enough (and sufficient infrastructure, maybe) for the nomenklatura.