Unsold Electric Cars May Be Signaling A Death Spiral For The Auto Industry.

Endless government subsidies to encourage EV sales seems unable to sway the logical thinking and the numerous concerns of the average citizens to buy into EV’s.

Published August 1, 2023, at Heartland Institute  https://heartland.org/opinion/unsold-electric-cars-may-be-signaling-a-death-spiral-for-the-auto-industry/

Ronald Stein  is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”

With new EV inventories beginning to increase on dealer lots, the auto industry has many challenges such as locating the buyers that may have serious concerns about a wide range of issues related to EVs including:

  • driving range,
  • vehicle reliability,
  • price,
  • the availability of electricity for the buildout of the charging infrastructure,
  • charging time,
  • the cost and lifespan of batteries and their environmental impact,
  • the actual impact EVs will have on reducing carbon emissions,
  • the growing statistics about uncontrollable fires of lithium batteries in EV’s,
  • problems with battery recycling and end-of-life management,
  • concerns that the EV free ride of usage of highways and not paying fuel taxes is about to end with the Vehicle Mileage Tax (VMT), i.e., more costs for the EV owners of the future,
  • concerns that home chargers are destined to follow the UK and be on separate meters so that EV charging will be at higher rates to help stabilize the electrical grid, again more costs for the EV owners of the future.

Another problem for the automobile industry is convincing the buyers that its ethical, moral, and socially responsible to buy an EV, especially since most of the exotic mineral and metal supplies to build the batteries are being mined in developing countries with limited environmental regulation nor labor regulations.

Interestingly, the 2021 Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations – Helping Citizens Understand the Environmental and Humanity Abuses That Support Clean Energy does an excellent job of discussing the lack of transparency to the world of the green movement’s impact upon humanity exploitations in the developing countries that are mining for the exotic minerals and metals required to create the batteries needed to store “green electricity”. Complimentary to the book is a  2-minute clip from Michael Moore’s 2020 documentary film, Planet of the Humans, that’s been viewed by more than 14 million, that illustrates how so-called green electricity is made.

As the future is fast approaching, virtually all the automobile manufacturers, through government mandates to reduce the emissions of their fleet of vehicles, are going all-in to only manufacture EV’s in the coming years. To meet low emissions for their fleet of vehicles, we’re most likely going to see fewer and fewer hybrids as the auto industry manufacturers need to eliminate the gasoline engines in hybrids to meet those lower emission targets.

The problem is that manufacturers are loading up the “supply chain” with EV’s on dealer lots, but they’re not seeing the “demand” for EV’s coming from the public. The current EV ownership profiles of the elite owners are that they are:

  • highly educated.
  • highly compensated.
  • multi-car families.
  • low mileage requirements for the families’ second car, i.e., the EV.

Current EV owners are dramatically different from most of the vehicle owners. Unlike the profile of current EV owners, many are single-car owners, and most of the potential car buyers are not as highly educated, nor as highly compensated as the elite EV owners. Mandating a change to EV ownership and forced austerity may face a rebellion from those that need affordable vehicle transportation.

Historically, internal combustion engine (ICE) car sales in America are upwards of 55 million annually with about 15 million or 27 percent being new and 40 million or 73 percent being used car sales.

With a total of 50 to 55 million ICE vehicles being sold annually for new and used, it’s obvious that the auto industry and the economy has been benefiting and prospering in the used ICE car market.

To date, the EV industry has virtually no used car market! In addition to the constant EV charging challenges, who wants a used EV that may soon need an expensive battery replacement?

With about 73 percent of all car sales being that of used combustion engine cars, the lack of a resale market for EV’s may be a major problem for the auto industry.

Since most states lack the year-round temperate climate that Californians enjoy, the distribution of EV ownership throughout the nation should be a concern to the auto industry. With 40 percent of the EV’s in America being in California, that leaves the other 60 percent being among the other 49 States, or approximately 1+ percent per State.

  1. To support the State’s EV growth,California imports more electricity than any other US state,  more than twice the amount of Virginia, the second largest importer of electricity. California typically receives between one-fifth and one-third of its electricity supply from outside of the state.
  • The other 49 states have virtually non-existent EV charging infrastructures, and a few of them may be exporting their electricity to California!

With the supply of electricity not keeping abreast of the growing demand, the UK is ahead of most of the world, protecting its grid with Smart Chargers, and setting up Separate Meters for the EV charging users to pay for a new grid!

  • As of May 30, 2022, in the UK, new home and workplace chargers being installed must be smart” chargers” connected to the internet and able to employ pre-sets limiting their ability to function from 8 am to 11 am and 4 pm to 10 pm.
  • In addition to the nine hours a day of downtime, authorities will be able to impose a “randomized delay” of 30 minutes on individual chargers in certain areas to prevent grid spikes at other times. 
  • The UK Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021 came into force on June 30, 2022. All home installed electric vehicle chargers are required to be separately metered and send information to the Smart meter data communications network. Potentially this legislation allows the electricity used for charging EVs to be charged and taxed at a higher rate than domestic electricity. The technology enacted also enables the rationing of electricity for EV charging because the government can decide when and if an EV can be charged, plus it also allows the EV battery to be drained into the grid if required.

As new EV inventories on dealer lots continue to rise, there are bumpy roads ahead for EV penetration into the lifestyles of the common folks.

Ronald Stein, P.E.
Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure
Energy Literacy website
Ronald Stein (energy consultant) Wikipedia page

For more on EVs go to our ClimateTV page

4.8 41 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 3, 2023 10:12 am

“… a wide range of issues related to EVs including:”

Much faster depreciation of used EVs comparing with ICE cars. Who wants a used EV?

Reply to  Someone
August 3, 2023 10:46 am

“Who wants a used EV?”
Not me – don’t want a new one either. It doesn’t fit my lifestyle.

EVs also have a higher insurance costs and very few places will repair one after an accident.

An indicator of how well a vehicle is selling is the ‘days on the dealers lot’
60 days is considered normal, far less for a ‘hot, in demand’ vehicle.

EVs are currently at 92 days on the dealer lots.

My guess is that anyone who wanted to virtue signal with an EV, already has one.

KBB has a study that 63.3% of EV buyers stayed electric with their next vehicle.
26.3% went back to gasoline.
10.4% purchased a plug in hybrid EV
Energy institute states the EV is a second vehicle in 90% of homes, with 60% of those being a SUV, truck or minivan AKA a larger, less fuel efficient vehicle.

Lets blame adoption of EVs on the average buyer- a middle aged white male, making over $100k US (ref: InspireAdvancedTransportation)

EVs are ageist, racist, misogynistic, and aporophobic. /sarc/

Bryan A
Reply to  Someone
August 3, 2023 10:48 am

This is true, Teslas lose almost 50% of their value in just 5 years. They lose far more value yearly than the typical ICE owner spends on fuel yearly.
It costs.around $50 to fill a 10 gallon tank. If you fill up every 2 weeks you spend $1,300 on fuel yearly. The Tesla S loses between $8-10,000 in depreciation yearly.
Even if you fill up weekly fuel only costs $2,600 per year
Even if you have an SUV and get really scrappy mileage, the 20 gallon tank filling weekly only costs $5,200 yearly, half the depreciation of the Model S or X

Reply to  Bryan A
August 3, 2023 11:02 am

So true!

Anyone doing an honest appraisal of the real cost of EV ownership must factor in the accelerated depreciation.

A bit like where LCOE gets dishonest about including necessary stand-by from coal or gas plants.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Mr.
August 3, 2023 9:29 pm

There’s another cost factor I had never considered until yesterday, when a talk radio host and ex-Tesla owner listed the reasons why he gave up EVs for good. One that I had never heard before was the issue of tires. Because of the considerable weight of the Tesla, it goes through tires very quickly. He had owned his Tesla three years and had had to buy three new sets of tires! I owned my Tundra pickup for 15 years, and after 175,000 miles, had only had to buy two new sets of tires. The second set still had a good 40,000 miles left on them when I sold it.

Bryan A
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
August 3, 2023 9:55 pm

Yep the added battery weight wears out tires after <20,000 miles
The Tesla model S battery weighs an impressive 1200 lbs but the model X fuel tank weighs in at a whopping 1700 lbs.
For something really impressive, the Tesla Semi 850KWh battery weighs in at 4570kg or about 10,000 lbs quite a weighty addition considering a traditional Diesel Semi weighs 17,000 lbs total.
A 10,000lb EV Semi fuel tank considerably reduces the amount of cargo that can be carried over a 95lb – 55gal diesel tank.

Now someone is sure to point out that the weight is for an empty tank (the battery pack is the fuel tank the electrons stored in it is the fuel) filling the tank with 55 gallons of diesel adds 412 lbs so a full 55gal diesel tank weighs about 500lbs compared to the 850KWh EV fuel tank at 10,000lbs (1/4 ton vs 5 tons)
That’s about 4-3/4 tons less cargo capacity to maintain road weight and dead heading will still be like carrying 5 tons of cargo when empty

Reply to  Bryan A
August 4, 2023 11:59 am

There’s a lawsuit being started in Europe over false advertising. According to the plaintiffs, that even with those massive batteries, Tesla’s don’t get the range advertised.

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
August 5, 2023 8:14 am

In the fine print…”Your actual range may be throttled”

Unfortunately no-one ever gets the EPA estimated MPG either.

Reply to  Bryan A
August 3, 2023 11:16 am

With an average $0.35 per kWh rate for charging at Tesla supercharger stations (once the freebie allowance is exhausted) and at other for-profit commercial EV charging stations, the cost for 85 kWh (a “fill ‘er up” charge from near max allowable depth-of-discharge on a 100 kWh battery pack, which will take you about 300 miles under the best of circumstances) will cost you about $30.

In comparison, today’s typical mid-size gasoline ICE autos get about 30 mpg, so at today’s average price of about $3.80 per gallon for regular unleaded gas, the total cost to go those same 300 miles as does the EV would therefore be about (300/30)*$3.80 = $38.

Yeah, an EV can save you some coin per mile driven, but those saving won’t offset the up-front price differential of buying an EV versus a comparable ICE, nor will they offset the inconvenience of the long charging times for EVs compared to the 5 or less minutes it takes to “fill up” an ICE auto.

Bryan A
Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 3, 2023 2:10 pm

Definitely, if Electricity Generation were priced as it was in 2000 11¢/KWh EVs would be far more affordable… if only we could go back to an all FF grid and drop Costly Free Renewables

Reply to  Bryan A
August 4, 2023 2:51 am

Comparing depreciation to fuel costs is apples and oranges.
Depreciation exists for all new cars. I notice there were not numbers put forward for just how much faster EVs depreciate vs. regular cars; the reality is that a high end luxury car (which Tesla basically is selling against) depreciates enormously.
Back when I still bothered owning a car – I would buy 3 or 4 year old S8 Audis. These were $110K sticker price vehicles which I would get for $25K to $40K = 64% to 77% depreciation.
Even today – I see 2019 Audi A8s listed on Ebay Buy It Now for under $40K vs. $90K list price for new ones – well over 50% depreciation.
Depreciation is lower for a Toyota Camry – I see 2019 Camry SE sold for $17500 vs. new price of ~$29K – but this is simply a completely different car category.
There are plenty of reasons NOT to own an EV – depreciation is not obviously the biggest one since the average car on the US road is ~12 years old now. The recent article about Tesla systematically overestimating range and pushing off customer complaints is a far bigger issue: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/27/23809751/tesla-ev-range-estimate-anxiety-algorithm-full-charge
And of course, the accompanying class action lawsuit…

Reply to  c1ue
August 4, 2023 12:03 pm

Yes, all cars depreciate, but electric cars in general, especially the Teslas depreciate faster,

The issue is not fuel cost or depreciation, it is cost of ownership, which includes both.

Reply to  Someone
August 3, 2023 12:42 pm

Who wants a new one?!

Bryan A
Reply to  Energywise
August 3, 2023 4:38 pm

If I lived in the UK I certainly wouldn’t. Not if I could wake up to a depleted battery because the GRID needed the energy overnight.

general custer
August 3, 2023 10:29 am

Another problem for the automobile industry is convincing the buyers that its ethical, moral, and socially responsible to buy an EV, especially since most of the exotic mineral and metal supplies to build the batteries are being mined in developing countries with limited environmental regulation nor labor regulations.

That didn’t keep anyone from buying the tobacco products of the eastern US tidewater in the 18th and 19th centuries. If operating mines anywhere could be profitably done with picks and shovels it would be done in that manner in the developed world as well. As soon as materials for batteries are required in sufficient amounts dazzling machinery will be put to use digging the stuff up. It’s cheaper that way.

Reply to  general custer
August 3, 2023 11:06 am

Cotton was a $200M export in 1860, right before the civil war.

As long as the buyers get the product cheap, the method used is excused or even encouraged. Move the items through a couple of shell corporations and place a rainbow sticker on it and it’s fine.

Either the EV buyer is unaware of how those metals and minerals are mined, or they don’t care.

general custer
Reply to  Cyberdyne
August 3, 2023 8:29 pm

If you were sitting on a valuable ore deposit would you get a mob of illiterates with picks and shovels to exploit it or would you buy a piece of machinery that could move thousands of yards of overburden with one man operating it? Don’t bother to answer, everyone knows how it works. The guys that use human labor to mine any minerals will be run out of business by their mechanized competitors.

Reply to  general custer
August 4, 2023 2:33 am

You clearly haven’t worked in Africa. 🤣

Reply to  general custer
August 4, 2023 10:20 am

The un-intended effects of using technology – back to the cotton example, this from the National Archives:

“While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for enslaved labor to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for enslavers that it greatly increased their demand for both land and enslaved labor”

It’s an easy search for ‘cobalt mining child labor’, or ‘cobalt refining uyghur slavery”

Either people don’t know, or they don’t care – which are you?

Reply to  Cyberdyne
August 4, 2023 1:45 pm

Another thought: gemstone mining in Africa and human rights abuses

Reply to  general custer
August 4, 2023 12:10 pm

Big mechanical machinery requires a pretty extensive support network to continue working. Everything from skilled mechanics to a supply chain for fuel and parts.
For much of Africa, neither of these exists.

John Hultquist
Reply to  general custer
August 3, 2023 1:41 pm

 Bob Newhart – Tobacco video (Sir Walter Raleigh phone conversation)

general custer
Reply to  John Hultquist
August 3, 2023 8:34 pm

Sure, it’s a funny skit but in fact many fortunes were, and still are, being made in tobacco and even more in coffee. What’s the point?

Reply to  John Hultquist
August 4, 2023 3:09 am

It was the other way round. Coffee was taken to America by Europeans.

Reply to  general custer
August 4, 2023 2:32 am

That will end in physical conflict between manual labourers and mechanisation. In Africa it is surprising how fast “dazzling machinery” is reduced to scrap metal.

Reply to  Streetcred
August 4, 2023 12:14 pm

In Europe laborers would damage automated weaving looms by tossing their shoes (known locally as sabot) into the machinery.

Reply to  general custer
August 4, 2023 2:32 am

Breathtakingly ignorant of the realities of lithium (and metals) mining needed for batteries and alternative energy.

August 3, 2023 10:33 am

Among other issues, I will not park an explosive thermal device in my garage.

Reply to  Shoki
August 3, 2023 10:47 am

. . . invites the question of how you feel about parking that same “device” in garages at airports, hotels/motels, shopping malls, work and business locations, museums, civic centers, etc., etc.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 3, 2023 10:59 am

Wait until the hydrogen cars show up, when all stored energy is released almost instantly.

How will those not be categorized and regulated as a potential terrorist device?

Reply to  Cyberdyne
August 3, 2023 6:33 pm

At least with hydrogen cars you won’t see the fireball coming…

Reply to  Shoki
August 3, 2023 12:43 pm

But next doors will still ignite your home when it self combusts

Reply to  Energywise
August 3, 2023 1:30 pm

There’s some distance to the neighbor and his aspiring drummer kid.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Shoki
August 3, 2023 3:12 pm

When I was a kid in about the third grade, my teacher wanted to introduce the class to musical instruments, and told each one of us to pick out a musical instrument we were interested in.

I picked a drum and went home and asked my dad if he would buy a drum for me. He said. “Absolutely not!”

I was a little disappointed, but later in life I saw his point. 🙂

Pat from Kerbob
August 3, 2023 10:42 am

Story Tip!!!!
The Alberta government has announced suspension of approvals of renewables projects above 1MW.
Common sense starting to take hold.


“Nathan Neudorf, minister of affordability and utilities, says the move is in response to rural concerns about development on agricultural land, the effect on scenery, reclamation security and system reliability.”
Missed opportunity as they should have specifically called out energy cost increases due to our increased renewables.

Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
August 3, 2023 10:54 am

Ummm . . . you sure about the 1 MW figure that you quoted? That sounds so incredibly low that I can’t imagine anyone attempting to make a business-go of a “renewable project” of that de minimis output, or even 10 times that.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 3, 2023 1:52 pm

1MW was what I heard, would allow small solar installs on homes and yards I guess, but nothing covering any scale.
It’s not that they will never approve more again, looks like they will take a much closer look at all such proposals to account for many factors besides fake emissions reductions.

I think such approvals should only come if the proponent installs back up themselves and can guarantee supply quoted over 95% of the time.
If you can’t guarantee power, no approval.

Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
August 3, 2023 1:05 pm

Aren’t individual wind turbines rated at more than 1MW?

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  MarkW
August 3, 2023 1:53 pm

Yes, no one builds commercial ones smaller than that as far as I know.

I assume this means small private solar can go ahead, everything else will have to pass many years.

It’s about time.

Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
August 4, 2023 2:37 am

I’ve just finished travelling though Mediterranean Europe, wind turbines along coastal ridges have destroyed many ancient and scenic coastal landscapes.

Bryan A
August 3, 2023 10:43 am

Self immolation is a major issue in both affordability and insurability especially when Insurance is a requirement
If your insurance company refuses to underwrite a policy for an EV or refuses a claim for a home fire caused by an EV, then EVs become a major issue in themselves

Reply to  Bryan A
August 3, 2023 6:31 pm

The Australian regulation for household battery installations requires that the battery location be fire separated from living areas. That usually means a separate garage or fire separated cabinet.

BEVs are building an unwanted reputation as a severe fire risk. No informed person would garage a BEV in a fire connected location to their living area.

It is only a matter of time before a BEV sets fire to a shopping centre car park. The automatic sprinklers would likely accelerate the fire.

Reply to  RickWill
August 3, 2023 10:35 pm

“BEVs are building an unwanted reputation as a severe fire risk.” NTSB compiled the following statistics:
Hybrid fires per 100k vehicles sold: 3,474.5
ICE fires per 100k vehicles sold: 1,529.9
EV fires per 100k vehicles sold: 25.1

This does not address the likelihood that battery fires are harder to put out or may burn hotter. It does make it clear that we hear about almost every EV that catches fire and we hear nothing about the other two types of vehicles. Also, most ICE fires I witnessed personally involved poor mechanical work by an amateur (myself included in my youth). Not much work you dare do on an EV power train. That can be a lot of voltage!

Oh – I’m not interested in EV. Too cold at my altitude, too many rough dirt roads. We don’t see EVs in our neighborhood at all for more than a few months.

Reply to  Ex-KaliforniaKook
August 4, 2023 5:39 am

EV fires are an example of the likelihood being low but the consequence substantial. The hybrid statistics are interesting – is combining a petrol system and a higher voltage electrical system in the same vehicle also multiplying the fire risk? – that’s what the numbers seem to suggest.

Reply to  Ex-KaliforniaKook
August 4, 2023 8:16 am

Hybrid fires per 100k vehicles sold: 3,474.5
ICE fires per 100k vehicles sold: 1,529.9
EV fires per 100k vehicles sold: 25.1

I would be very interested in similar statistics for fires by spontaneous combustion. Also curious about the total damages per fire, to the vehicle, surroundings, and cost of fire control.

Reply to  Tony_G
August 4, 2023 12:20 pm

Most car fires are from collisions.
Hybrid and ICE cars are driven a lot more per year than are EVs. The type of driving is also different. Hybrid and ICE are likely to be taken onto the highways, while EVs are mostly for driving around town.
Finally the average fleet age for EVs is much younger than either of the other two.

August 3, 2023 10:43 am

Question of the day:

“Would you buy a used EV from “global boiling” salesman António Guterres?”

Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 3, 2023 11:46 am

No, but I might buy one for him!

Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 3, 2023 12:44 pm

No – Antonio needs help, he’s obviously struggling

Coeur de Lion
August 3, 2023 10:54 am

If the idea is city air purity, what is being done about lorries? I don’t suppose the morons care a toss about the van and pickup businessmen whose livelihoods will suffer – but LORRIES? The big 12 wheel sort. Electrify? Biofuels? Here in UK they come from all over Europe. Thousands of them. I’ve asked my Member of Parliament. No answer from her. Arts graduate

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
August 3, 2023 12:45 pm

Just look at the air quality map on the DEFRA website – the whole UK has very low air pollution levels

The Real Engineer
Reply to  Energywise
August 3, 2023 1:29 pm

And the London tube is much greater and should be shut down!

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
August 3, 2023 1:06 pm

If you want to tackle air pollution, cars and trucks should be very low down on your list of priorities.

August 3, 2023 11:00 am

Yet another reason to avoid EVs:

“The UK Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021 came into force on June 30, 2022. … The technology enacted also … allows the EV battery to be drained into the grid if required.”

Tim Spence
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 3, 2023 11:58 am

And a refund of 10c pops up on your mobile, if you’re lucky.

The Real Engineer
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 3, 2023 1:35 pm

Unfortunately for the legislators, the interface cannot do that! Pity really, I would love to see all these cars

August 3, 2023 11:09 am

There are a limited number of households that have multiple vehicles and can afford an EV. Hence the government plans to require EVs only or regulate away gassers. Those plans should be the end of many political careers.

Reply to  kvt1100
August 3, 2023 1:11 pm

Here in the US, the EPA has proposed a new rule requiring gas/diesel powered cars to get at least 66 mpg by 2032. My little 2 door FIat, that seats 4 as long as the two in the back seat haven’t graduated grade school yet and a manual transmission, gets 50 miles per gallon.
And I am a very careful driver, I coast when I can and I’ve learned how to time the lights in my neighborhood so that I rarely need to come to a full stop.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
August 3, 2023 2:46 pm

F—–g idiots.

“We’re not banning them.”

[Subtext: We’ll just regulate them out of existence. ]

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
August 4, 2023 5:27 am

Looks like the Trudeau defence in relation to covid. His words, more or less (relying on memory here) were “We didn’t force anyone to do anything, we simply enabled them to do the right thing”

August 3, 2023 11:44 am

Highly educated buyers is disingenuous in the extreme. They degrees in gender studies, art, social studies, some law. Which means they could hurt themselves with a screwdriver. I’m an engineer, some of my friends are engineers, architects, doctors, business owners of sundry types, and none of them will buy an EV. I believe we are more usefully educated than these EV buyers.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  slowroll
August 3, 2023 3:29 pm

We’ve seen the damage the ‘highly educated” can do.

Highly educated isn’t all it’s cracked up to be in many cases, especially in the last 20 years.

Reply to  slowroll
August 4, 2023 2:44 am

Agreed, they confuse what is meant by “education”.

Reply to  slowroll
August 4, 2023 5:52 am

It is true that academic attainment and good sense are quite different things. But don’t forget that without suitably qualified & experienced engineers and scientists there would be no EVs.

Rud Istvan
August 3, 2023 11:49 am

Higher initial cost.
Faster depreciation.
Higher insurance.
Range limited.
Whats not to like about EVs? (/s)

Bryan A
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 3, 2023 12:13 pm

Not to mention you can cook your hotdogs on the way home from the store

Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 3, 2023 12:50 pm

Just wait till insurers really cotton on to the self combustion risk – your car & home insurance will rocket – even if you don’t have a battery car, your neighbours could well torch your home if it combusts

bruce a kopitz
August 3, 2023 11:50 am

The entire scope of EV problems is now coming into popular focus, as evidenced in this article and the following comments. Once the circulation of this information is complete, current EV’s are doomed. They are the type of product that Soviet factories used to produce, like the two-cycle Trabant automobile. A detestable car, but coveted by the communist populace because the government allowed no alternatives. Biden and his ilk cannot remove the alternatives from our nominally free economy, though they have restricted our fuel, driving prices up. and wasted our taxes by subsidizing EV purchases and “green” energy installations. Because of our market options, at least two reactions will be observed: 1) EV sales will stabilize at a low level, insufficient to insure the continued existence of major auto manufacturers. and 2) used IC vehicles will continue to rise in value, at a rate congruent to the efforts of our federal government to suppress their production.

As we all know, the market should decide this issue, and when technology improves, and an electric car can be built without the deficits accruing to current models, the market will favor it, and it will sell well. Till then, I look out across my lake every morning and see the brand new home that recently replaced one built only about ten years earlier. The first home burned to the ground recently because the homeowner replaced his lawn tractor battery with a lithium-ion type. Soon thereafter, the lithium battery flared out in his attached garage, igniting the structure, nearly killing his children, and destroying his entire estate. The loss including the family cars, chattel and provision of temporary living quarters for over a year was well north of 2 million dollars. No thank you.

John the Econ
August 3, 2023 12:09 pm

So the potential market for EVs is less than our central planners would like? No problem. They’re already working to basically outlaw ICE vehicles through unachievable emissions and mileage standards.

Meanwhile, the market for EVs will remain largely the very affluent and able/willing to virtue signal to the tune of near 6-figures for a 2nd or 3rd car.

As long as the capabilities of EVs are oversold, people will be disappointed. In their current state of evolution, EVs are still no where near direct replacements for conventional automobiles, and placing charging stations all over the place will not change that.

Nobody (beyond those who wish to do so for their eco-vanity virtue signaling) who regularly requires that their car travel more than 100 miles a day is going to seriously consider an EV, even if charging stations are available anywhere. So placing charging stations all over really isn’t going to make EVs substantially more popular than they are. Not going to happen.

EVs are optimal for repetitive daily commutes of a finite distance; a scenario where a user can confidently leave home with a full charge, drive it to work or errands during the day safely within its range capability, and return home to recharge again overnight. Nobody is going to be satisfied with a car that they must constantly monitor for range and then find a place to charge, and then wait a half-hour or longer for it to do so. Not when a conventional auto can for a fraction of the price travel 2 or 3 times the distance and can be refueled in 5 minutes.

If you are an apartment or condo dweller who does not have assigned parking where your EV can charge overnight, then charging your EV is going to be a pain. EV ownership is probably not for you.

EVs will only retain popularity with short-range commuters or for wealthy people considering a 2nd or 3rd car. EV evangelists who are overselling the EV’s capability is doing their movement a disservice, and are actually discouraging EV adoption.

Writing Observer
Reply to  John the Econ
August 3, 2023 1:13 pm

return home to recharge again overnight

See above – a fair chance that it not only won’t charge overnight – but will have whatever charge you had left from the day siphoned off to support the overloaded grid.

John the Econ
Reply to  Writing Observer
August 3, 2023 1:47 pm

Yup. They’re gonna deny owners the few advantages that EVs had, even after their high cost.

Reply to  John the Econ
August 3, 2023 1:17 pm

What are they going to do with apartment dwellers who don’t have their own parking spaces?
Are they going to mandate assigned parking spaces and require that every parking space come with a charging station that is somehow locked so that only the assigned renter can use it?

If so, what is going to happen when the average rent goes up by $200 to $300 a month to pay for it?

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  MarkW
August 3, 2023 1:45 pm

“They” don’t care.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
August 3, 2023 3:35 pm

Yeah, not their problem. They are focused on saving the world, don’t you see. They don’t want to get sidetracked by the small stuff.

John Hultquist
Reply to  MarkW
August 3, 2023 1:54 pm

I believe the plan is to have the charger recognize the auto-battery and add the cost of the electrons to your credit card or some new account. [Note: read that somewhere; no first hand knowledge]

John the Econ
Reply to  MarkW
August 3, 2023 1:59 pm

In the name of fostering more “affordable housing”, Progressives are calling for the end of zoning requirements that mandate parking at new housing developments to save developers money. So assigned parking is to become a thing of the past. The operative theory is that apartment & condo dwellers will have to make due cruising for available high speed charging stations that we’re spending billions of dollars to put everywhere. Or, just give up on automobile ownership altogether and ride the bus.

Frank @TxTradCatholic
Reply to  John the Econ
August 3, 2023 4:32 pm

“…just give up on automobile ownership altogether and ride the bus.”

Exactly. That is, in fact, the ultimate goal.

B Zipperer
Reply to  Frank @TxTradCatholic
August 3, 2023 7:52 pm

Or we end up living our entire life within walking/biking distance of home, just like feudal times. Serfs & peasants all over again.

Reply to  B Zipperer
August 4, 2023 12:39 pm

Serfs didn’t have bicycles. In fact that didn’t have much that was made from metal. We will probably be back to that as well.

Frank @TxTradCatholic
Reply to  John the Econ
August 3, 2023 4:30 pm

Excellent analysis.

Rod Evans
August 3, 2023 12:17 pm

Here in the UK electric vehicles are the preserve of the company car user and government funded officials. Everyone who is purchasing their own vehicles from their own pockets are not buying EVs.
The second hand market will ultimately decide the fate of battery powered cars. If there is no after market for the company car users to drop their cars into then the whole concept falls over.
Let’s not even mention battery fires and the incoming restriction of where a battery EV will be allowed to park and/or charge.

Reply to  Rod Evans
August 3, 2023 1:43 pm

Although inferred from some of these comments, the most serious problem with EVs is hardly mentioned. With so many car sales being for used cars replacing other used cars, the resale value becomes top-priority. And as the EV mileage builds up, the need for a new battery increases to the point where the EV resale value is nil. To most car buyers, this will put an absolute block on their EVER wishing to purchase an EV. Whole industry collapses and disappears. Naturally!

August 3, 2023 12:31 pm

This article is as twisted as the worst of the green propaganda:

“The Tesla Model Y topped European sales for both traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles in September as well as battery electric vehicle (BEV) ones. The Model Y beat the 2nd-place little Peugeot 208, an ICE vehicle probably costing about one-quarter of the [Tesla]” Forbes Dec 7 2022

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  jlgh
August 3, 2023 1:44 pm

Subsidized Ev vs infinite regulation and taxes on ICE.

Level field, no onerous taxes, no subsidies, Ev sales collapse instantly.

Eventually we run out of money, as the German greens are starting to admit, they are accelerating into the chasm.

John Hultquist
Reply to  jlgh
August 3, 2023 2:03 pm

Without context, the above is meaningless.
The Peugeot 208 is a supermini, so has limited appeal and the price range is from £16,065 – £23,145. Barely enough space to carry home groceries — if you can afford groceries.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Hultquist
August 3, 2023 3:38 pm

Yes, we always need that perspective. Thanks for providing it.

Richard Page
Reply to  John Hultquist
August 3, 2023 6:09 pm

The context is that Tesla has been on an aggressive sales campaign in Europe – increasing deliveries of the model Y and model 3 whilst slashing their prices by up to £8,000 in the UK and slightly more in Germany. Tesla are doing a similar thing in the Chinese and Asian markets; slashing prices and increasing deliveries in a desperate bid to increase demand after producing 34,000 more cars than they sold in 2022.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  jlgh
August 4, 2023 4:38 am

Why is “September” significant? Eco-Fascists must be taught “cherry picking” as an “alternative” course to statistics.

August 3, 2023 12:40 pm

Very good. Remove all subsidies and the problem is solved. Government is the problem not the solution.

Reply to  Bob
August 3, 2023 1:19 pm

Subsidies and mandates.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bob
August 3, 2023 3:40 pm

“Government is the problem not the solution.”

Short and sweet.

August 3, 2023 12:42 pm

Motorists are doing the world a massive favour by rejecting battery cars – untold child labourers will be saved a horrible, toxic existence, many highly hazardous fires and the resultant collateral damage will be averted, National Grids will be spared the embarrassment of failing to charge them, roads will last longer, bridges and car parks won’t collapse under the weight – all in all, a win/win

August 3, 2023 1:02 pm

Interesting info not widely publicized:

Battery-powered EVs (BEVs) are not as environmentally-friendly—as “green”—over their life cycle as climate alarmists and bureaucratic planners would like you to believe.

” . . . establishing a national average for life cycle carbon emissions is a good way to start. The baseline assumes a vehicle is a small utility vehicle and runs for 200,000 miles over its life time. The ICEV operates on E10 and the BEV has a 300 mile per charge range and is powered by a utility system that reflects the average carbon intensity of the U.S. grid. Under these generic conditions, a BEV delivers nearly 41% fewer tons of carbon over its lifetime than a comparable ICEV. Meanwhile, a typical HEV delivers nearly 29% fewer tons of carbon. (These results are comparable with other LCA’s presented in other reputable studies.)”
(my bold emphasis added)

And I have attached a chart that immediately followed the above-quoted text at the referenced URL.

Worded slightly differently: BEVs have a life-cycle “carbon footprint” that is 59% that of a comparable ICE vehicle.

Richard Page
Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 3, 2023 6:35 pm

Yeah. Those are the standard and much hyped EV industry figures that are doing the rounds. Unfortunately they underestimate the manufacturing emissions by a large factor and overestimate the lifetime of an EV by a remarkable factor as well. Given that the extraction, processing, international transport and manufacturing of EV/battery components are incredibly carbon emissions heavy, the emissions there are far, far more than ICE vehicles. They also assume that an EV and an ICE vehicle will have a similar lifetime which is simply not true – ICE vehicles can usually go through 2-3 owners in their lifetime of at least 12-20 years. An EV will usually have a lifetime the same as its battery, about half of an ICE vehicle, despite some manufacturers extravagant claims. Your figures are heavily biased.

B Zipperer
Reply to  Richard Page
August 3, 2023 8:16 pm

This MIT report agrees more with Richard’s take: BEVs won’t break-even to an ICE till driven 50,000 – 80,000 miles depending on the source of the electricity for the BEV and from a CO2 standpoint. It compared a Tesla S to a comparably equiped Toyota Camry ICE driven 150,000 miles; ie total life cycle (including recycling at end-of-life).
And TYS’s report seems to assume the battery will last 20 yrs – very unlikely.

Bryan A
Reply to  B Zipperer
August 3, 2023 10:33 pm

EVs take a lot longer than 80,000 miles to break even. For example…
A new Tesla Model Y costs $56,000 – 60,000
A new Chevy Equinox costs $26,000 – 30,000
Difference being about $30,000 more for the EV.
Fuel costs about $4.00 per gallon About 7,500 gallons of gas.
So the EV costs as much as the ICE PLUS 7,500 gallons of gas.
The Equinox gets about 26mpg so 7,500 gallons will take you 195,000 miles before costs equalize.
Depreciation then subtracts even more from the value and increases any potential “break even” date

Reply to  Richard Page
August 4, 2023 9:29 am

“Your figures are heavily biased.”

Not my figures . . . I provided you the source of the information I posted.

Bryan A
Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 4, 2023 10:01 am

Yeah but who wants to starve a biosphere comprised of carbon based lifeforms dependent upon carbon based energy to flourish

Even the president needs CARBON
Everybody I know needs some CARBON
Some people die and kill for CARBON
Nobody admits they need CARBON
Some people are scared of CARBON

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
August 4, 2023 10:12 am

comment image
comment image
comment image
comment image
That little C in the middle of those proteins is Carbon and those proteins make up our DNA. Carbon (CO2) is essential in the atmosphere and limiting its presence is placing a limitation on life

Richard Page
Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 5, 2023 4:12 pm

If you post EV industry propaganda figures, then you own that post. It’s no good blaming the source when it was you that searched for it, failed to do due diligence in searching for more accurate sources, then posted a statement with a link with those heavily biased figures. Rather than passing the buck, how about doing a better job next time?

Reply to  Richard Page
August 6, 2023 8:53 am

Uhhh . . . I didn’t “blame the source”, I just cited it.

Likewise, I never “passed the buck”.

But thank you for your advice to do “a better job next time” . . . I’ll give that all the consideration that it deserves.

BTW, didn’t you fail to do due diligence by not searching for and posting “more accurate sources” to refute the article that I referred to?


Yes, I do own my post and stand by it pending anyone offering better/refuting data.

Bryan A
Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 3, 2023 10:07 pm

What about grid sourced FF generated supercharger recharging and the CO2 produced to supply the electrons? Most all Grid sourced electrons are FF generated ‘lectric-city

Reply to  Bryan A
August 4, 2023 9:34 am

Yeah, how about that.

From the source that I quoted:
“. . . the BEV has a 300 mile per charge range and is powered by a utility system that reflects the average carbon intensity of the U.S. grid . . .”
(my bold emphasis added)

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 4, 2023 1:08 am

This assumes that battery efficiency will not deteriorate over time, whereas the reality is that as the battery ages it will gradually give less and less range, and will not hold charge for as long as a new vehicle. Battery capacity can be depleted by 50% or more after 5 years, dependant on how many “fast charges” it has had, whether or not it has been garaged it’s whole life and temperatures it has been operated in. Battery performance drops off a cliff in winter.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 4, 2023 4:42 am

Then there’s reality. Only in rare occasions will the BEV ever reach that mythical “range,” since said “range” is calculated under a set of conditions completely detached from the real world.

Alan Millar
Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 4, 2023 7:21 am

You do know those figures are rubbish don’t you?

They assume that EV’s are charged using the average grid mix, they aren’t, they use 100% fossil fuel generated electricity.

This can be demonstrated easily to anyone with half a brain. So even you should be able to get it eventually, if you think really really hard!

Take the UK, a country that has a lot of installed wind and solar.

Currently, at this precise moment, the UK has a 31 gigawatt demand. Wind is supplying 4.4gw and solar 5.7gw (will be zero in a few hours).

The UK always uses 100% of its available wind and solar at any one time and balances the demand load by way of its gas and coal generators, currently supplying 12.5gw. (includes Drax). The rest is nuclear (again always utilised 100%) and imports.

So if we unplugged all the EV’s, what would happen to the electricity generation?

Well let’s say EV’s are putting 1gw of demand on to the grid, if we unplug this goes away and what would the UK’s generation mix be now? Well it always fully utilises all available wind and solar, so they would still be generating 4.4. and 5.7gw respectively. Gas and coal generation would fall by 1gw as this is what the UK uses to balance demand and generation, so this would fall to 11.5gw.

Plug the EV’s back in wind and solar stay the same but coal and gas generation rise by the same amount as they demand i.e. 1gw. The EV’s are using 100% of fossil fuel generation and will do so until the grid is nearly 100% renewable supplied, which will be the 12th of never.

Reply to  Alan Millar
August 4, 2023 9:47 am

“They assume that EV’s are charged using the average grid mix, they aren’t, they use 100% fossil fuel generated electricity.”


From the source that I quoted:
“. . . the BEV has a 300 mile per charge range and is powered by a utility system that reflects the average carbon intensity of the U.S. grid . . .”
(my bold emphasis added)

So, not an assumption but a flat out statement of their study criteria.

In any event, please cite the name and location of any large scale electric grid—one, say, supplying electricity to 1,000,000 or more customers—anywhere is the US that currently delivers “100% fossil fuel generated electricity” (your words).

If such a grid exists, one wonders how all EVs use it exclusively.

Alan Millar
Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 4, 2023 10:16 am

I suspected you would be too thick to understand the example I gave.

Keep re-reading the example and you never know, it might come to you about why EV’s use 100% fossil fuel generated electricity, notwithstanding the actual generation mix at any one time.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 4, 2023 12:50 pm

So, not an assumption but a flat out statement of their study criteria.

Say what? Do you even know what the words coming off your keyboard mean?

All you have done is list the assumption that the study uses, IE the power used to charge the car will have the average US mix. Alan has demonstrated why this a bad assumption.

Reply to  MarkW
August 4, 2023 2:07 pm

I can only gently suggest that you read the full article available at the URL I posted (https://www.transportationenergy.org/resources/the-commute/life-cycle-carbon-emissions-of-electric-and-combus ) and then get back to me.

As for Alan “has demonstrated . . .” (hah!), I asked him to cite an example of any large scale electric grid in the US that provides “100% fossil fuel generated electricity” (his words) to supply the electricity that he asserts is the only type used to charge EVs. This means he must identify a grid that doesn’t mix in electricity coming from nuclear, hydroelectric, solar (including home solar-generated electricity fed into the grid) or wind turbine sources.

It is no surprise that I haven’t received a response from Alan to this simple request . . . perhaps you’d like to take a stab at it since you appear to “know what the words coming off your keyboard mean.”

I’ll wait for your reply . . . but not all that long.

Reply to  MarkW
August 6, 2023 9:05 am


It’s no surprise that I haven’t heard back from either you or Alan Millar regarding my specific request . . . you have met my expectations.

Reply to  Alan Millar
August 4, 2023 4:51 pm

You make this statement:
“The UK always uses 100% of its available wind and solar at any one time and balances the demand load by way of its gas and coal generators, currently supplying 12.5gw. (includes Drax). The rest is nuclear (again always utilised 100%) and imports.”
(my bold emphasis added)

But then your turn right around and ignore the fact that nuclear is almost always supplying nearly its nameplate capacity for electrical generation into the grid on a continuous basis . . . nuclear is not throttled up and down in the manner in which gas- and coal-fueled power plants and imported electrical power are.

Therefore, at any instant in time, a significant part (about 15% on average of the UK’s power; ref: https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0687/ ) comes from nuclear, which of course is not a fossil fuel source.

Your example also fails by the simple fact that EVs are not plugged in only when wind or solar are not supplying electrical energy into the grid . . . you have a logical fallacy there.

Back to the US, about 18% of its total grid-distributed electricity comes from nuclear power plants.

Now, you were saying something about “half a brain” and “thinking really hard”? . . . please do carry on . . . it’s quite entertaining.

Alan Millar
Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 4, 2023 7:32 pm

How thick can one person be?

Yes, the UK utilises 100% of its nuclear output all of the time, as it does with wind and solar.

This leaves a shortfall to the demand, notwithstanding any EV’s. The shortfall is covered by fossil fuels.

So, fossil fuels are covering a large amount of shortfall before a single EV is connected. When you connect EV’s, 100% of the consequent additional load has to be covered by additional fossil fuel generation, there is no more wind, solar or nuclear that can be connected, it is already being utilised 100%.

Again!! 100% of EV charging is by fossil fuels.

Is this finally sinking in?

Reply to  Alan Millar
August 5, 2023 7:03 am

No. What you are asserting is nothing more than a breakdown in logic.

When an EV is plugged into a grid-supplied energy source (yes, even in the UK) it has no way of determining at that time what mix of solar, wind, nuclear and fossil fuel is in the mix of electrons flowing to its battery.

Likewise, the grid has no way of determining how much if its daily variation in total demand is due to EVs being charged versus other overriding factors, especially time-of-day usage variations.

Again, EVs can be plugged into a grid at any time, 24/7/365.

Perhaps you imagine there is a Maxwell demon-type device on all EV chargers that only accepts FF-generated electrons and rejects those electrons generated by all other power sources feeding the grid?

Even if that: no, your argument is NOT “sinking in” because it is simply absurd.

Any further discourse with you on this subject would be pointless. Good luck to you.

August 3, 2023 1:05 pm

Re: Cars and Fires …

The big picture

US fire departments responded to an estimated 212,500 vehicle fires in the United States during 2018. These fires caused an estimated 560 civilian deaths; 1,500 civilian injuries; and $1.9 billion in direct property damage.

Vehicle fires accounted for 16 percent of the 1.3 million fires reported to US fire departments. Vehicle fires also caused 15 percent of all civilian fire deaths and 10 percent of all reported civilian fire injuries.

In 2018, only fires in one- and two-family homes claimed more lives than vehicle fires. Vehicle fires caused 4.5 times the number of deaths as nonresidential structure fires and 1.6 times the number of apartment fire deaths.


Tesla fires get headlines. IC fires are so common that they seldom get headlines.

I know, more IC cars than EVs. Cars can be dangerous. All cars.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  rovingbroker
August 3, 2023 1:40 pm

But you can put out an ICE fire
And the smoke while not healthy is also not toxic poison like a lithium battery.

If the cure is worse then it’s not a cure

Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
August 3, 2023 4:35 pm

It is very rare for an IC car to catch fire while in the garage. Not so rare for EVs to do so.
Insurance companies don’t recommend that IC vehicles be parked 15 feet away from other vehicles while awaiting repairs after an accident.
There are no instances of IC cars being banned from parking decks.

Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
August 4, 2023 9:05 am

ICE fires can usually be extinguished with less than 500 gallons of water. EV fires can’t be extinguished even with 30,000 gallons, 3x more than a house fire.

Reply to  rovingbroker
August 3, 2023 4:33 pm

You know that your figures don’t portray what you claim, yet you still present them. Doesn’t say much for you.

As to your car that all cars are dangerous. So what, everything is dangerous when mis-used.

As u say there are more IC’s than EVs, way, way more. That alone is sufficient to explain most of the difference.
You can also include the fact that the average age of the IC fleet is much older and are driven more when compared to the EV fleet. Two more factors that you chose to ignore.

Finally, very few IC fires start in the fuel tank. Almost all of them are caused by accidents or shorts. Last time I checked, EVs get involved in accidents, and have wiring.

So, in the end, did you actually have a point, or were just upset that EVs were being criticized?

August 3, 2023 1:15 pm

This situation is a great demonstration of the unsuitability of pressing central planning onto as large an economy as the sale and use of motor vehicles. The Arrogancies who convinced themselves that wind/solar power = cheap energy, and commenced legislating the end of reliable energy BEFORE any pilot plants had proved themselves, fully deserve whatever unpleasantries the car-dependent peasantry can inflict on them. No sympathy, Your Arrogancies!

Reply to  insufficientlysensitive
August 4, 2023 12:53 pm

Central planning works moderately well at the level of the individual. That is I decide for myself what I want and am going to do.
At any level of complexity above the individual, central planning breaks down rapidly.

Dennis Gerald Sandberg
August 3, 2023 1:33 pm

The “Common Folks” were never the target market for BEV’s. Early on the top 25% income earners may have appeared possible. The new reality is more like 10%. Government insistence that BEV’s are the only alternative is simply forcing the “common folks” to abandon private transportation in urban areas and rural people being tied to a very limited bus schedule for essential travel. Ugh!

August 3, 2023 1:43 pm

My prediction was that Ford going heavy into EV’s would be their Bud Light moment. They’re building what the gov’t and the elites want not what their customers want.

Reply to  gunsmithkat
August 4, 2023 12:54 pm

At least nobody at Ford has gone on the record insulting anyone who doesn’t want to buy EVs.

Tom Abbott
August 3, 2023 3:03 pm

From the article: “To date, the EV industry has virtually no used car market! In addition to the constant EV charging challenges, who wants a used EV that may soon need an expensive battery replacement?”

Who wants a used EV that might have sustained damage from the previous owner, damage which might make the EV prone to catch on fire?

August 3, 2023 3:08 pm

I hope these obscenities go the way of the Edsel. Anyone who has thought through the entire issue would not want anything to do with these clunkers (waiting to be). But then many of us clearly see right through the objective of our overlords who want to see people unable to afford these things, unable to charge them, so we don’t travel very much. Then people will move to very dense urban settings because of their inability to travel very far, if at all. Then we will easily be controlled.

Frank @TxTradCatholic
Reply to  spren
August 3, 2023 4:37 pm

Broke the code, you did.

Gregg Eshelman
August 3, 2023 7:39 pm

Soon it will be “The government drained your car battery overnight is no excuse for being late to work.”

August 3, 2023 9:20 pm

Yes it’s very obvious in Australia now the Tesla FOMO factor is gone the used Model3 market is collapsing in price. With Model3s first hitting our shores in 2019 there’s now over 545 used ones for sale on Carsales alone as many come off leasing and asking prices dropping.

With expected average 60,000kms on the clock and 4 years old for the base model they’re battling to get $40k for them privately when they paid $66500 plus ORC (largely States stamp duty) originally. If they’re wanting to flip them for the latest ModelY they’re clearly not being offered even $40k trade-in for them as they’re almost all private seller listings. You’re starting to see the odd very low km one advertised for $41-42k and a deal gets struck and it disappears.

Compare that with a 2019 Toyota Rav4 hybrid and you’re almost getting back what you paid for it as Toyota can’t satisfy global demand. Here’s the latest July new car sales out of interest and note the cheap Chinese MG ZS ICE shopping trolley on the list now-
VFACTS July 2023: Record new-car sales, Ford Ranger number one, MG ZS third – Drive
8-9% car finance rates don’t help the expensive EV cause particularly if they not tax deductible like dual cab utes.

August 4, 2023 1:38 am

Even the UAW smell a rat. Link from a lefty rag….Biden’s push for electric cars alienates longtime union allies (axios.com)
These guys aren’t academic pinheads, they know how machines work. They know down deep EVs are going to bankrupt GM and Ford as they can’t compete on price with East Bidenstan outfits like BYD among other factors. This whole aspect could blow up in “union” guy Zhou Xi-Den.

Reply to  missoulamike
August 4, 2023 1:40 am

To finish blow up in his face as soon as next year.

August 4, 2023 6:14 am

Lets not forget all of the insurance issues like price and tendency to total vehicles that have damaged batteries. Then there are the charging issues like the tendency to spontaneously burst into flames. EVs have been banned from many parking structures for this reason. Safety now says you have to charge an EV (include E-bikes) outside away from structures.

G Yowell
August 4, 2023 6:55 am

EV sales in California continue to grow through 2 quarter sales in 2023 and now represent 21% of new vehicle sales – state & federal incentives are major factors. EV sales growth beyond 16-18% of new vehicle sales is an important threshold, which was just crossed this year. This threshold represents the fraction of purchasers that buy significantly above the median price car. In Ca EV sales are now entering the more price conscious buyers. History suggests a decline in future EV sales for California.

Ca EV Sales.png
August 4, 2023 8:16 am
August 4, 2023 9:02 am

Even a loaner car is dangerous.

It was a Benz. Makes you wonder how many of these were also on the burned car carrier ship.

story tip

Homeowner questions EV safety after fire destroys her Nocatee home – YouTube

Andy Pattullo
August 4, 2023 10:45 am

Green energy and EV mandates are a bear trap for policy makers that they seem highly inclined to jump into head first. This self destructive behaviour demonstrates the Darwinian nature of political life. The few with common sense may be the only survivors in the end. The struggle for the rest of us is the very long time it takes to see the just outcomes that should be on the horizon now.

Verified by MonsterInsights