It seems like all the smart people have made up their minds that the future of automobiles belongs to electric vehicles. In August 2022, California, by regulation, adopted a ban on gasoline-powered cars by 2035; and in September 2022, New York promptly followed with its own ban, also by regulation, and also set for 2035. And at the federal level, in 2021 the Biden Administration ordered that all agencies move toward 100% procurement of electric vehicles, also by 2035. Meanwhile, by means of a thicket of regulations — from vehicle mileage standards to pollution caps and more — the administration overtly seeks to force manufacturers to convert their lineups to EVs as fast as possible.
So, are electric vehicles about to sweep the country and become the dominant form of transportation? I bet against it. This is just a specific instance of the general principle that it is always wise to bet against central planning of the economy. EVs may be a successful niche product for a small number of wealthy consumers, but the idea that they will fully replace gasoline powered cars in short order is the dream of central planners, who think they can implement their dream by coercion. Central planning never works, and won’t work this time either. The reason is that the would-be central planners don’t know enough, and can’t ever know enough, to put together all the elements to make a fully functioning economic sector.
Mark Tapscott has an interesting piece today at PJ Media titled “Three Huge Reasons Why Electric Vehicles Will Never Dominate American Roads.” Tapscott’s reasons are all good ones, which I would summarize as (1) despite vast government subsidies and rebates, EVs are still far more expensive than gasoline-powered cars, (2) even with greatly increased sales, the existing gasoline-powered cars will not go away and will still be on the road and the dominant vehicles in 2035 and even 2050, and (3) the increased amounts of necessary minerals for the batteries, from lithium to nickel to cobalt, are never going to materialize. Key quote:
[All the] federal tax credits are available to help obscure the fact that EVs remain extremely costly for consumers and offer unproven maintenance and reliability records. No wonder that, despite the immense pressure being put upon consumers to buy EVs, they still only make up about seven percent of all new-vehicle purchases.
Let me generalize from that. The current automotive sector of the economy represents thousands of elements coming together via private markets to satisfy customer demand. Each of the elements falls into place because someone perceives an opportunity to make money by providing that element. As just one example, gas stations don’t exist because the government ordered them up, but because entrepreneurs perceived that they could make money by building the stations and buying the pumps and making gasoline available at that location at a price that would cover all costs and allow for a profit.
Contrast that to what is now supposed to happen for electric vehicles. The government is allegedly going to be paying for some half a million charging stations around the country. Maybe that’s happening, but I don’t notice any of them around where I live. And why does the government have to do this? If the demand were there, entrepreneurs would already be installing the stations. It turns out that the stations are quite expensive to construct (at least the “fast charging” variety), and then you can’t really mark up the electricity that has to be purchased from the local utility. So it has to be done with government subsidy.
And in the next step, the same thing happens with the charging stations that happens with every other government-ordered business: the stations break down, and since no one makes more money to be sure they keep running, they don’t get fixed. Among many, many articles on this subject, here is one from August 2022 at The Verge, headline “Electric vehicle owners are fed up with broken EV chargers and janky software.”
JD Power surveyed 11,554 electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid vehicle owners from January through June 2022 for its second annual Electric Vehicle Experience Public Charging Study. Despite big growth in the number of public EV chargers in the US, EV owners say the overall experience still sucks.
Well, check out the state of elevator operations or plumbing in the New York City Housing Authority projects. This is how socialism works.
Similarly, who has the incentive to be sure that there is sufficient electricity on the grid to recharge all the EVs when the owners want to charge them? In the gas car arena, oil companies make big money by finding and refining and delivering the product to the places where the customer wants to buy it. Over in the EV arena, the same jurisdictions like New York and California that presume to order up an all EV fleet also organize their grid on a central planning/regulated price model. Reliable fossil fuel power plants are ordered to be closed, and replaced with intermittent wind and solar generation. The all-knowing regulators then order that everything shall be electrified, and somewhere the little people are supposed to respond and make it happen, without any appropriate economic incentive. We shall see.
Inside EVs on January 18 reports that EVs had a big increase in sales and market share in the U.S. in 2022, going all the way to a 5.8% market share, after only a 3.1% share in 2021. The article somehow omits to mention how much of the sales increase was driven by the latest rounds of massive government subsidies. I have no doubt that the 5.8% can increase somewhat further over the next few years, particularly as government subsidies turn into a gusher. But ultimately a successful economic sector requires market incentives at all levels of the food chain. EVs don’t have that, and they almost certainly never will — except in the highly unlikely event that consumers suddenly decide that the advantages of EVs are so great that they are willing to pay double and more for a car. I’ll place a solid bet that market penetration of EVs will stall out at a low level well before 2035.
The latest Costco flyer has a brief article on car tires. A sidebar article about electric vehicles notes:
The sidebar notes the Michelin tires they sell have stiffer rubber compounds and robust structures to help offset the 20% greater wear.
So, as I see it, EVs require tougher, thus more expensive, tires. Since the tire manufacturers aren’t likely to manufacture EV-only tires, that expense will be applied across their entire line, thus increasing the cost of tires for us ICE vehicle drivers.
But us ICE drivers will get more miles out of our tires. That might offset the cost.
That’s a good point! I hope you’re right.
Stiffer rubber on a lighter car means less handling capability and more stopping distance due to less friction.
Which means more accidents!
What will plow the roads in winter, plow the fields for food, or transport people swiftly across country when we electrify everything?
How big will a D-9 Cat be with a battery with equivalent energy of its diesel?
Then there’s the Oz NEM grid currently running on 79% fossil fuels with wind at 14% at night meaning any EVs charging are really external combustion engined cars.
AEMO | NEM data dashboard
The climate changers are going to have to get a wriggle on with grid firming storage if that’s to change. Dreamers and fantasists.
The change from ICE to EV is not only going to be a change of motor and energy store. Not even a change in energy filling stations. The nature of batteries and charging means the idea of having a vehicle each which sits around doing nothing most of the time is going. We can’t have as many batteries as there are cars now – not enough copper, lithium, etc. So EVs are going to have to be used 24/7. This means car sharing. When you want to drive somewhere, go to the pool park where your charged car will be waiting for you.
So in other words “You will own nothing, be stuck in a 15 minute bubble, and be happy”.
Yeah, right; good luck selling that vision of the future.
There is an aspect of the comparison of free-market funding and placement of fueling stations vs government operations not mentioned by the Contrarian.
A government station, with no competition, will mindlessly continue it’s narrowly defined and mandated “mission” come “Hell or High Water with no incentive to innovate processes or to change business focus. (e.g. US Postal Service, Amtrack etc).
More that a decade ago, gas station owners realized that the narrow margins on the sale of gasoline (because of competitive pressures) were not sufficient to maintain a profitable business.
So initially some “maverick” realized that by combining gas sales with a 7-11 convenience store they could make ends meet. It did not take long for the industry to follow, such that today’s gas stations typically have many more pumps than they used to and clearly are profitable by virtue of how many new stations are continuing to pop up in new locations.
Can you imaging what we would have today if say by EO Obama had “federalized” all gas stations and put the administration of gasoline vending under central leadership and government worker operation?
used to be having a drivers license was a status symbol for kids ; now not having a drivers license is cool . combined with rising prices and faltering wages maybe auto sales overall will decline ? this would certain please the woke and wef types
So I doubt central planners considered what would happen if they ban the sale of gas powered cars. If this absurd policy actually comes to pass in California there would be a surge in used car prices and used cars from all the other states would be imported to meet demand. Welcome to Cuba.
What’s nice about the USA is that each state is an experiment. If California bans ICE, and makes cars in general hard to use, it will drive some people and business away, but it will attract others in. I’d love to live somewhere where I don’t need a car, and can cycle or scoot or train or carpool safely. But if that’s not you, there’s always Texas I suppose.
I keep hearing people talk about not needing a car. When pinned down they always resort to “I can use Uber” or “I can rent a car”. There isn’t any place *anywhere* you can live without a vehicle, even if it is just going to the local clinic because of the flu. Not many clinics in the high density downtown areas of large cities!
well, those who live in the big cities can probably get by without driving/renting/ubering a car, as most things they want are in easy walking distance and public transportation (bus/train) is a viable option. Anyone who lives outside the big cities, on the other hand, are simply lying to themselves if they believe they don’t need a car.
So, your California doesn’t need a car? Where do you live? If you think anywhere in Kali doesn’t need a car, you are deluded.
“ I’d love to live somewhere where I don’t need a car”
Then you obviously wouldn’t love living anywhere outside of a big city.
“and can cycle or scoot or train or carpool safely”
Well, that leaves out the big cities as well. Not much “safely” with the homicide and crime rates that most of the major cities have been experiencing lately.
I just drove the 1,000 miles from Anderson, IN to Daytona Beach, FL. Saw only one EV, a Tesla, all that way.
Lots of good reasons it’s not going to happen.
The biggest one being “the product sucks.” EVs have inadequate range that gets worse when you need it most, take eons to get to 80%of that overstated range relative to ICE refueling, and self-ignite into inextinguishable fires.
I’ll drive ICE cars till I’m dead.
Slightly off-topic but it might cause a smile:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/p-o-ferries-spends-230m-on-hybrid-ships-that-cannot-be-charged-at-dover-or-calais/ar-AA17XypW?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=675cbd29e305457ba693cb47ce2d2584&ei=5
So P&O sack 800 employees to save costs then spend £285m in China on part – electric powered ships that cannot be charged at either end of the ferry route for which they were purchased. What was that about green industry creating millions of new jobs ?
How long would it take to recharge, I wonder? I have never been on a cross channel ferry, but I have been on the Isle of Wight ferries many times as my brother lives over there. Those ferries stay in port long enough to offload, refuel and reload, then they’re off on the return journey as they have a schedule to keep, rather like a bus service.
The “Green Dream”.
The reality will be if the grid goes “green” (pinwheels and mirrors) and cars and trucks and railroads and ships and planes go “green”, No one will go anywhere on 4 wheels. No produce or products from more than a few miles away. (15-minute cities?) No need for passports unless you’re willing to take a long walk. (Who will be able to make your bicycle to peddle across the border?.)
My thoughts on EVs is they will end up being a niche type of vehicle, not unlike a motorcycle or a rag top convertible. Or perhaps like a sports car….. There will always be people who will buy these kinds of vehicles (and always have) but they will never be the dominant type of vehicle. They will be more popular in some places than others, for mostly obvious reasons.
All of these vehicles have their fans, despite their drawbacks. But also, pretty much everyone who has one also has a down to earth practical vehicle that they drive to work every day. The motorcycle, the convertible, the sports car and the EV stay in the driveway or garage all week and only come out when the weather is nice and their owners just want to tool around town…
Some things I’ve noticed about EVs in my area (mostly Teslas at this point, as they are easy to spot). One, I only see them in the “nicer” parts of town and only parked in higher end shopping areas. Two, I can’t say I’ve ever seen anyone with a Tesla have children or pets along for the ride. Never seen one waiting to pick up junior at the local school in the afternoon….
This tells me that they are very much like the aforementioned vehicles – in other words, they aren’t the good old family car. And IMO, they (not just Teslas, but other EVs as well) never will be. They will always be second (or third) vehicles. John Q Public will drive his Honda or Toyota ICE car to work every day and take the Tesla out on the weekend when the weather is good.
Even if they somehow miraculously get cheaper, their limitations will still render them as niche vehicles.
If 2019 Tesla M3 buyers are now grappling with serious depreciation problems trying to update(vis a vis Toyota hybrid owners) there’s more signs of niche market for EVs in the Antipodes. The second drop of Hyundai EVs has realised buyer fatigue-
Tech chaos with Hyundai’s latest EV drop left nearly half Ioniq 5s and 6s unsold (thedriven.io)
Then there was the final delayed arrival of the BYD Atto3 SUV pre-orders into Oz last year with the longer range version coming in under $50k drive away. A cheap rival for the similar earlier MG ZSEV before a price rise of $3k for new year orders. However in NZ where the BYD had been introduced much sooner it’s clear what happens once early FOMO disappears at the cheapest end of the EV market-
BYD offers free home chargers in NZ as EV demand appears to weaken (thedriven.io)
Tsk tsk the Chinese aren’t cutting quality corners in order to get the price of EVs down to more affordable levels are they?
BYD Atto 3’s discovered with worrying rust issues – YouTube
We’ll see with your expensive ECEs climate changers as you can’t subsidise everyone into them along with their refuelling stations-
Can Electric Car Charging Be A Business? (forbes.com)
Dreamers and fantasists or stop hogging the bong.
Last time I drove US 54 from Las Cruces to Santa Rosa NM there was snow on the ground. It is a long, lonely stretch of road passing through desert. No way in hell any sane person would take an EV out on that road in those conditions.
In fact the only place I see EVs on the road are near population centers or in the places where there are reasonable short runs between them.
IOW the very people signaling their ” climate virtue” by driving an EV are in fact doing the opposite because, the places most use their EVs for their daily commutes and errands have public transportation!
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/broken-machines-long-waits-reality-charging-electric-vehicle/story?id=97389275
Many redditors agree:
https://www.reddit.com/r/technews/comments/11dcj9k/electric_vehicle_drivers_get_candid_about/
Once gas vehicles are banned or gasoline gets prohibitively expensive ($5/gallon aucks byt is not prohibitive), central planners won’t need to worry about lack of resources for car batteries… for the “good of the planet” they will ban private car ownership (or make it wicked expensive, which essentially makes it non-existent) for most individuals and will tell you to use the “awesome” public transit system they have created… taking away your freedom is a feature, not a flaw.
I am quite reluctant to post about EVs, which is a shame because I own one and know quite a bit about them. However, EVs are a topic that makes people say ridiculous things both pro and con, and I don’t have the energy for the silliness.
So, are you going to post something or not?
I don’t own one. For where i live (north Mojave Desert) I think an EV is pretty limited. I do see a thin stream of them going through (actually, I see them sitting at the chargers) on their ways north or south on I395. And, of course, for every EV I see heading through there are 99 ICE vehicles doing the same. I have a second home up in the (cold) mountains that I split my time at. I figure on a warm day a Tesla could make the round trip. But not much further, and I like to go further. Or I go out to Panamint and Death Valley, and other places that you can’t take an EV without some careful consideration. I could drive any *ANY* car around locally. Traffic is light, and there are lots of well off locals driving old beaters around town. I would rather flog an old Hilux around than a new 50K+ EV.
So, does my situation fit into your experience?
I consider EVs to be niche vehicles, but the niche has expanded as the batteries have gotten larger. Your description of your circumstances sounds like you’re not a good candidate for one. I’m not the EV salesman. If you don’t want one, you shouldn’t be required or pressured into having one.
My longstanding complaint is with both sides for treating this as a cause. To me, they’re just cars with a different system for moving them. I’m not stupid enough to even begin to think of denying the politics, yet my point remains.
EVs are viable for most urban areas, and to some extent in rural areas. I don’t see them as total replacements for gassers unless and until the chemistry changes to dramatically improve battery energy density — at a reasonable cost. Reduced range with loads, hills, and cold, can be solved through more energy density.
I don’t expect that to happen for the foreseeable future, but we shall see. Bottom line: EVs aren’t saviors or the devil. They’re simply battery-operated cars with electric motors. The large majority of the commentary is ridiculously overheated and foolish.
Kartik Gada would beg to differ. Cheers –
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuRX67CJhaOT98Jdjh85CEQ/featured
A quick session with ChatGPT (Assistant) reveals that to electrify the cars for just the US, we would consume the entire lithium mining output of the entire earth for the next 40 years (!). And this assumes lithium is used for nothing else. It also reveals that each state will need two new nuclear power plants to provide the needed electricity bump. I used averages, so these were very back-of-the-napkin calculations, but I was allowing Assistant to use very conservative numbers. I didn’t even bother to include the carbon costs of all this new mining and construction. What a crazy delusional world we live in.
The weird thing was, when Assistant gave me these numbers, it knew how bad this is, and it editorialized that perhaps there would be advances in technology to vacate this sorry reality. For example, it said that “sustainable mining” might make the difference. Gads.