February 13, 2024
When auto (even EV driving) enthusiast Rowan Atkinson – Mr. Bean to his fans – last June wrote in The Guardian that there are “sound environmental reasons” why “keeping your old petrol car may be better than buying an EV,” he was vilified as a eco-traitor.
Atkinson had added, “We’re realizing that a wider range of options need to be explored if we’re going to properly address the very serious environmental problems that our use of the motor car has created.” These include, he said, hydrogen fuel cells and synthetic fuels that would extend the lives of older vehicles long after governments are demanding they be scrapped.
Atkinson, who has a bachelor’s in electrical and electronic engineering and a master’s in control systems, urged Britons to “look at a bigger picture” to include greenhouse gas emissions during the manufacture of electric vehicles and to evaluate the whole life cycle of motor vehicles.
Relying on a dash of common sense, Atkinson noted that pushing so heavily so soon for EVs that have major flaws will result in “millions of overweight electric cars with rapidly obsolescing batteries.” Technologic developments with hydrogen and synthetic fuels, which can power existing internal combustion engines, may prove a better long-term solution. For one reason, the owners of the world’s 1.5 billion ICE vehicles could continue enjoying them.
For sharing his insights, Atkinson was immediately smacked around by snarky reporters and EV “experts.” Simon Evans, deputy editor at Carbon Brief, slammed Atkinson for not adhering to Carbon Brief’s own “evidence” from years back stating that EVs cut “planet-warming emissions” by two-thirds on a life cycle basis and calling EVs “an essential part of tackling the climate emergency.”
How dare he?
Michael Coren, writing in the Washington Post, portrayed Atkinson as an iconoclast clinging to his petrol car, lampooned hydrogen and synthetic fuels as expensive and impractical, and compared ICE vehicles to hobby horses. Coren argued that “making every car burn [hydrogen] is not a good idea,” yet implied that forcing every driver to buy an EV is a very good idea.
Eight months later, though, the detractors who had hoped to make Atkinson an example of a troglodyte were singing a different tune, in the wake of a collapse in the British EV market.
Mr. Bean was condemned in the House of Lords by the Green Alliance as “partly at fault for ‘damaging’ public perceptions” of EVs and as a dangerous enemy of Britain’s drive to Net Zero. The Guardian, which published Atkinson’s tome, was accused indirectly of failing to adhere to “high editorial standards around the Net Zero transition.”
[Translation: ONLY glowing reports on EVs are acceptable public speech.]
It couldn’t have been the exorbitant cost of auto insurance for EVs, their tendency to catch fire and burn for days, or the high cost and long wait times for parts and repairs – or the long waits at charging stations to plug in and wait for enough charge at least to reach the next destination. Nor could it be that people are uncomfortable enriching China as their own auto companies face bankruptcy? No – it was allowing someone to publicly question the rush to electrification.
Halfway around the world, Toyota, which “lagged behind” its major competitors in ditching their ICE vehicle fleets for all-EV production lines, “is riding a windfall of hybrid vehicle sales on its way to posting projected net profits of more than $30 billion.” While Ford lost $4.7 billion trying to create an EV market, dropping its net profit to just $4.2 billion, Toyota now appears to be in better financial shape than its American and European competitors.
Over a year ago, then-Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda had cautioned that the EV transition would “take longer than the media would like us to believe.” Ford, GM, Stellantis, and many other automakers worldwide played nice with the political and financial giants while Toyota’s management stepped away from the rhetoric, looked at the numbers, and chose a commonsense approach to the evolving world auto marketplace.
The company did sell 15,000 pure EVs in the U.S. in 2023, but they also sold 40,000 plug-in hybrids and more than 600,000 non-rechargeable hybrids out of total U.S. sales of 2,248,477 vehicles, a 6% increase from 2022 levels. Ford fell short of its goal to produce 300,000 EVs a year by 2023 and has revised its earlier forecast of 2 million EVs by 2026. Worse, Ford now expects to lose as much as $5.5 billion on EVs in 2024.
Over in Europe, Volvo just announced it is withdrawing support for its marquee electric vehicle Polestar and hopes to sell its 48% stake, possibly to a Chinese buyer. Just days earlier, Polestar had cut 450 jobs, about 15% of its workforce.
Elsewhere in Europe, EV sales are expected to decline in 2024 in Germany, Europe’s largest auto market, and Renault just scrapped plans to spin off its Ampere EVs, blaming a lack of interest from investors and a slowdown in sales.
EV sales in the United Kingdom also flatlined in 2023, prices for used EVs fell sharply, raising questions about their residual value. Even EV-friendly Switzerland admits it will take at least 20 years to fully electrify its fleet; while EVs and hybrids today comprise about 30% of Swiss new car sales, these vehicles amount to less than 4% of the total national fleet.
Oil and gas companies are getting the message, too. BP, which once billed itself as “Beyond Petroleum,” has been encouraged by an activist investor to reduce its investments in renewables and recommit to oil and gas. A major reason – oil and gas investments in recent years have boomed while investments in renewables have faltered. Bluebell Capital Partners asserted that BP’s commitment to renewable has left its stock price undervalued by 50% compared to ExxonMobil and Chevron.
President Biden’s demand that the U.S. comply with his EV mandates was dealt a major blow last month, when auto rental giant Hertz, heretofore the nation’s largest fleet operator of electric vehicles, announced it was selling all 20,000 of its EVs and not buying any more. The company cited high repair costs and weak demand for EV rentals. Karl Bauer of iSeeCars.com, noting that mainstream consumers were already hesitant to buy and EV, said “the larger impact of the Hertz EV fire sale is the perception hit to the technology.”
The fictional Mr. Bean is known (and revered) for his original and often absurd solutions to problems and his total disregard for others while solving them, and for his pettiness and occasional malevolence. Had the British press mocked Mr. Atkinson for a Bean-like performance, the climate emergency propagandists might have laughed him off successfully.
But they are not able to laugh without derision.
The real Mr. Atkinson, like the decision makers at Toyota, is espousing commonsense wisdom such as “don’t put all of your eggs in one basket.” Extending the lifespan of existing vehicles, even with currently high-cost hydrogen or synthetic fuels, is far better for the environment than junking them for electric vehicles that require diesel fuel to power charging stations.
If, as we are told, EV batteries will soon be smaller, cheaper, and stronger, that day has not yet come. Just as likely, the cost of hydrogen and synthetics will also drop significantly, and those fuels can power existing ICE vehicles. Most of all, if there truly was a “climate emergency,” diplomats would be quicker to end military conflicts and ending the rush by China and India to build more and more coal-fired power plants (needed, of course, to charge EV batteries).
What Mr. Bean and Toyota are truly saying to the world is that mandates – government deciding what can and cannot go to market – and the huge subsidies that go along with them (which would be unnecessary in a true emergency) are at war with the wisdom of the market, which relies on true public opinion as to what is best for the consumer.
Duggan Flanakin is a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who writes on a wide variety of public policy issues.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hydrogen? Really?
Solving hydrogen embrittlement and leakage problems might be possible, but even LH is insufficiently dense to be practical as a fuel.
Oh, I don’t know… it worked fine for the Space Shuttle, didn’t it? 🙂 “Launch in T-30 minutes, honey… I’ll start filling the ET! Check the launch window conditions!”
It did work for the Space Shuttle, but damn the cost. It was a government program after all. It was not an economic choice. Space X, for example, does not use hydrogen because of its high cost. Their first rockets used kerosene and newer ones use methane. The have never used hydrogen, probably because of the cost.
Not to mention practicality
In case it wasn’t obvious, my comment was a bit of a joke 🙂 I find it entertaining to think about what a family car would look like (and cost) if it were designed using the same sorts of design (and lack of cost) constraints that the Space Shuttle was built under.
Easy to fund anything (sensible or not), when one has unhindered access to other people’s money.
“RP-1 (alternatively, Rocket Propellant-1 or Refined Petroleum-1) is a highly refined form of kerosene outwardly similar to jet fuel, used as rocket fuel. RP-1 provides a lower specific impulse than liquid hydrogen (H2), but is cheaper, is stable at room temperature, and presents a lower explosion hazard.” Wikpedia
But boy , does it burn when a spillage catches fire
The Russians never used LH2 until the 1980s
Which is kind of the point for a rocket fuel.
The Saturn V first stage used RP-1, a highly refined form of kerosene, mostly because it is much denser than hydrogen and therefore doesn’t need the gigantic fuel tank that the Space Shuttle needed.
All of what you say is correct so far as I know. But there are more problems related to hydrogen. Measured by volume, it contains a fraction of the energy in an equal volume of methane and a much smaller fraction compared to an equal volume of gasoline. It is difficult (that means expensive) to compress and much more difficult to liquify. As an automotive fuel, about 12 semi-tractor trailers of compressed hydrogen would be required to deliver to a fuel station as now done by one truck of gasoline. And the station would need a hydrogen compressor to off load the truck.
I bet solving those problems, if possible, will be extremely expensive.
Another issue with Liquid H2 is that the storage vessel must be kept at the liquid H2 temperature for several reasons. First is loss of H2 just to cool the vessel when LH2 is introduced to a warm system. Second is thermal contraction of the metal when it is cooled to 20°K (-253°C) causes stress in the metal and NASA has stated that LH2 vessels can only undergo about 9 such cycles before they fatigue and have to be replaced. And LH2 storage vessels are definitely not cheap. So vehicles cannot use LH2 and must use compressed H2 at about 10.000 PSI storage pressure. Not a real consumer friendly solution.
10,000 psi hydrogen tank in a car would add a bit more excitement to traffic accidents
I wonder how much strain going from 10,000 psi down to near zero and back again, puts on that tank.
Even if it’s possible, why?
Emitting CO2 offends Gaia! Or was it 350.org?
We should do everything possible to offend 350.org ! 🙂
Yes!
They need to change their name to 425 org, as 350ppm is in the rear-view mirror.
And definitely can’t just be used in any current consumer ICE vehicle. Nor, to my knowledge, can any bio-mass “synthetic” fuel, either (which are net energy negative, in any case).
Nor is hydrogen an energy SOURCE, because being the Elizabeth Taylor of Elements,” it must first be “divorced” from whatever it is “married to” before it can be compressed, stored, pumped and burned (with plenty of leakage losses along the way).
Hydrogen is an energy SINK, not an energy SOURCE. Conservation of energy guarantees it will always be so.
There is a very practical hydrogen compound – gasoline.
How much of the energy in gasoline comes from the hydrogen, and how much from the carbon?
The energy is in the chemical bonds so that’s not a meaningful question.
If we take iso-octane, C8H18, it has 18 C-H bonds and 7 C-C bonds. Heat of combustion is ~5460kJ/mol. The C-H bonds have a dissociation energy of about 400kJ/mol, while the C-C bonds are around 375kJ/mol. Burning creates 9H20 plus 8CO2. The CO2 has a heat of formation of ~394kJ/mol, while the water is ~286kJ/mol.
7×375=2,365, 8×394=3,152 net -787
18×400=7,200, 9×286=2,574 net 4,626
It’s the hydrogen that dominates.
Oh yeah, natural gas which is mostly methane correct
Methane burns fine for me . .
Like your comment, obvious to most of us, but perhaps not to the climate paparazzi . .
As I may have mentioned before, when I was working as an engineer I got involved in the then exciting design of the platform to support the hydrogen fuel cell systems being developed by Ballard. It was seen as the bright future for powering vehicles, so the company I advised, as a consulting engineer, worked on many components, which resulted in a viable platform (it is essentially the basis for cars like the Tesla). But then someone in Detroit did the math on the costs of hydrogen and its availability, so funding stopped and we had to find other work (our leader went on to design waste gates for stealth aircraft).
As always, it was the cost of hydrogen that stymied the project, and at the time a viable battery was not available (the best was NiCad). It seems there still is no viable source of hydrogen available, especially if the thought is to make it by hydrolysis (from industrial wind), so it remains a pipe dream, especially given the ability of car manufacturers to produce very efficient ICE motors (thank California).
It actually is becoming obvious that the EV dream was a fantasy, so much so that the #1 tower climber and environmental Minister in the Trudeau government has now stated that they are not the answer. Who would have thunk it?
This is why I used to keep a slide rule on my desk. To slap some sense into the brain of engineers who are clueless. Ask what kind of f’ing engineer are they and what experience do the have?
I can make all the cheap hydrogen you need. Sure it might be slightly radioactive.
Of course if you combine the H2 with some carbon you get a very safe fuel. I wonder if nature already does that?
A good professional steel one, I hope? The cheap student ones would break too easily on some of those hard heads.
(Still have mine from 40+ years ago – one thing that I’ll still be able to do if/when the next Carrington Event comes along is compute a hyperbolic cosine. For what it will be worth…)
“This is why I used to keep a slide rule on my desk. To slap some sense into the brain of engineers who are clueless.”
It was a slipstick, not a slapstick 😂😂😂😂
Efficient engines were demanded by the customers, CA had nothing to do with it.
One thing I’ve noticed over the years. When gas prices are low, all the ads talk about how powerful the cars/trucks are.
When gas prices are high, all the ads talk about how efficient the cars/trucks are.
Careful with the terminology “especially if the thought is to make it by hydrolysis (from industrial wind), ”
Hydrolysis sure as hell ain’t anything like electrolysis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolysis
Get with the programme. Nuclear fission plants will be built to provide free, abundant power to electrolyse water, probably piped in from the Arctic/Antarctic melt, and then a global piped hydrogen grid will be built.
The return on energy invested for electrolyzing water to make hydrogen to burn is about 25%. If you’re going to build nuclear plants, you may as well just stay with the electrics and go the EV route. What’s not working is wind-solar-EV.
If you’re going to build nuclear plants, use the to supply reliable and affordable grid power.
Nothing makes worse-than-useless battery powered cars a “solution” for any problem, real or imaginary.
500+ years down the track ! 😉
I hope you just forgot the sarc tag. If not, first you need to purify the water and then you can electrolyse. Managing the waste products and maintaining the equipment would be a high proportion of the cost.
The eco-freaks would then shut down the whole notion – because you would be putting salt into the ocean!
Free? Could you elaborate?
Several down votes for John XB? Poe’s Law strikes again!
(Did he really need to add a sarc tag?)
Stu, it’s getting much more difficult to tell lately.
I only assume that it’s missing when the post is by Rud, or Eric, or Janice, or another of the known sane and unpaid people around here.
In fairness I think it was meant to be a sarcastic comment by Kohn XB . .
He could be something like losername, or fungal or the simpleton
There are some very stupid leftists who constantly make comments like that.
Everyone knows we would be living like the Jetsons if conservatives and those greedy big oil companies would just get out of the way and stop blocking progress, darn it.
You can’t outmarket the market. The customer is always right.
Someone once told me the customer isn’t always right, but should get what he wants. Army Corp of Engineers.
Steve Jobs famously refuted that claim. I would say its ‘meeting their needs’ – even when they dont know thats what they want.
Steve Jobs was a sociopath. He would tell people what they were going to get and then bully them when they asked for something else.
He did get GUI (graphical user interface) to work in a commercial sense, while Xerox, the originator, failed. He also got smartphones to work, while his competitors failed. He was as flaky as phyllo, but got things done.
Steve Jobs widow is now a leading leftwing billionaire activists. She funds a lot of leftwing propaganda. She owns “The Atlantic”, among other media assets and uses them to promote radical leftwing causes. If you read the Atlantic, you will see a constant stream of anti-Trump rhetoric.
She and Kamala Harris are supposedly very good friends. What would that conversation be like?
However, the democrats need these mandates to enrich the Elites and keep the flow of campaign contributions necessary to get reelected and create the United Socialist States of America.
I just knew it would all collapse like the house of cards it is (BEV).
Speaking of collapsing, …
Story tip:JP MORGAN quits climate action group
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-15/jpmorgan-asset-management-quits-68-trillion-climate-group
That’s a start anyway. Once the big financiers lose interest, so will the politicians.
The Search For The Magic Battery continues…
As batteries have both components of a chemical reaction contained in the battery, the more energy stored, the more energetic any accidental failure will be. It is fairly safe to work with gasoline or ethylene oxide, but a fuel-air bomb made of those compounds is quite energetic.
This will all be moot when someone brings Mr. Fusion to market. It even creates enough power to operate the flux capacitor.
No, no – you’ve got it all wrong, the flux capacitor regulates the energy flow into the time warp engine.
When almost all of the major car manufacturers were touting their moves to EVs and virtue signaling about shutting down some of their most profitable models of ICE vehicles, Toyota announced they were going to pursue the tiny market niche of 80% of global automobile sales!
When almost all of the major car manufacturers were touting their moves to EVs
I just read that Chrysler was going all-in on EVs, as in abandoning ICEs altogether.
That’s not what I heard from friends who work there.
They had actually made that “announcement” years ago. Maybe reality is setting in.
Or they were virtue signalling, knowing that EVs would not take over.
Yes, looks like the latest attempt to kill the brand.
Under the Italians, starve it for product.
Under the French, give it nothing but product nobody wants.
Idiots.
My car is over 30 years old, and still runs well and looks good. Think of all the energy and materials I’ve saved by not buying a new one every few years – not to mention the money.
__________________________________
Maybe they can have a discussion about how
many angels can can dance on the head of a pin.
Oh that’s an easy one; “As many as there stars in the sky.” The battery question is a lot trickier by comparison.
“…non-rechargeable hybrids” The hybrids I am familiar with recharge their batteries with their small ICE propulsion system. Just what is a “non-rechargeable hybrid?”
Also Akio Toyoda’s father, his predecessor as CEO of Toyota once said that he could make up to 90 batteries for his hybrids from the materials used to make one EV battery. The CO2 savings from those hybrids would far far exceed the CO2 savings of the single EV. In the case of cars, net-zero is the enemy of much much better. That, among other reasons, is why the Government’s its-gotta-be-zero campaign is an hysterical and technically ignorant effort. If governments insist on spending the people’s money on subsidies for cars, subsidizing hybrids would be much wiser.
A non-rechargeable hybrid has no external charging plug port. It’s only recharged by running the ICE.
It is then a “no plug-in hybrid.” It is still a rechargeable hybrid.
Self-charging is the term we use as oppose to Plug-in
Yes, but perhaps a “Non-Plug-In Hybrid” would be a more accurate description.
I’m not interested in “Plug-In” anything.
BEVs, no interest whatsoever. No utility compared with an ICE car and propensity to light itself on fire.
Plug-In Hybrid, no interest whatsoever. Maintains some fraction of the utility of an ICE car because it still has an ICE, but if the batteries are not charged, an “underpowered piece of shit that can’t get out of its own way,” which as a bonus retains the BEV propensity to light itself on fire.
“ an hysterical and technically ignorant effort.”
Oh, My! There is SUCH a lot of that in the air. MOST discouraging.
I wonder if Michael Coren owns an EV.
When you’re getting a lot of flak you know you’re over the target
Every time one of our trolls says something especially stupid, they take a lot of flak.
Yep.
You’re either where the battle is fiercest, or hopelessly exposed.
Every time we are told that switching to the latest green boondoggle will be cheaper for us, prices go up.
Well maybe not quite all right:
Atkinson had added, “We’re realizing that a wider range of options need to be explored if we’re going to properly address the very serious environmental problems that our use of the motor car has created.”
The very serious problem that humans have created is not from use of cars and is not environmental but from lust of power and is political.
Looking for alternatives for EVs is admitting that they are a reasonable alternative for ICE cars that need to be replaced. Neither part of that admission is valid.
According to the IEA South Korea has the largest hydrogen fuel cell car market with 32,000 vehicles in June 2023. The US had 16,000. Japan was the third largest market though less than 1000 were sold in 2022.
By mid 2023 there were some 8000 fuel cell trucks worldwide (95% in China) and 7000 fuel cell buses (95% in China)
These numbers are of course exceedingly small compared to the overall number of cars, trucks and buses worldwide.
IEA ‘Global Hydrogen Review 2023’ (Revised version Dec 2023)
Apologies fuel cell buses should read (85% in China)
Flanakin has a strong anti-EV bias and repeatedly misleads readers. He also avoids contrary data. This is not fair and balanced reporting.
The most important fact, and left out of this article, is that US BEV sales boomed in 2023, up about 50% from 2022.
US BEV and PHEV sales were about 9% of the US auto market. If the 50% growth rate continued, in just six years all US sales would be BEVs and PHEVs. I’m not predicting that — just showing how huge a 50% annual gain really is.
“Hertz, heretofore the nation’s largest fleet operator of electric vehicles, announced it was selling all 20,000 of its EVs and not buying any more.”
This is a misleading claim. These were 2 to 3 year old high mileage EVs that had been leased to car hailing companies such as UBER. They were older with much higher mileage than used ICE vehicles Hertz sells. But some Hertz genius decided to keep the old EVs and spread them out among retail Hertz stores. Where it turned out Hertz already had plenty of EVs (EV demand is low for people renting vehicles). So Hertz decided to sell the vehicles, as they should have done in the first place. This got conservatives over excited and they declared that EVs were dead.
The author is also misleading about Toyota.
The CEO Toyoda lost his job on April 1, 2023 for dissing’ EVs. He became Chairman of the Board. The new Toyota CEO is pro-EV. But the company decided they needed a better battery before investing in EVs. I believe they are working with Panasonic to design solid state lithium batteries, like the batteries used in pacemakers. So far the manufacturing cost is too high and the resulting batteries are too expensive. If those problems are not solved the Toyota decision to move slowly into EVs could be a mistake.
The author is also misleading on Bluebell Capital.
They are a UK ESG fund that bought BP stock (strange move) and then started pumping the stock, perhaps in an illegal pump and dump scheme. This source has a huge financial conflict of interest.
The author is also misleading about Volvo.
Volvo is owned by the Chinese company Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, a company which owns over 15 other vehicle makers. \\\Geely
sold 1,680,000 autos in 2023, up +18% from 2022. Gely is not giving up on EVs — they had 65% EV sales growth in 2023. They may be govong up on Polestar, but only because it does not appear to be a gppd investment
in 2023, 118,685 Geely Zeekr EV vehicles were sold, an increase of +65% year over year.
This article will not be recommended on my blog today for excessive anti-EV bias. EVs are awful but there is no need to mislead about them. The truth is bad enough.
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
If the 50% growth rate continued, in just six years all US sales would be BEVs and PHEVs.
A reminder is the fable of the reward for the invention of chess.
I mentioned that because manyu people claim getting to 100% EVs and PHEV sales by 2025, 12 years from now is impossible
And they say 5-% growth is nothing because the sales are still small.
I say 50% growth is huge considering all the EV faults and should not be dismissed as unimportant.
If better batteries with more range show up, like the solid state batteries Toyota hopes to sell, the 2035 goal of no ICE car and SUV sales becomes.
I don’t see how the current batteries, or even solid state batteries, are appropriate for pickup trucks, medium duty trucks, trailer trucks and busses.
Toyota keeps moving the date of their solid state batteries back. They were supposed to be out in 2020. They are used in spacecraft and medical devices, which are not recharged on a nightly basis. The recharging seems to be the sticking point.
Part of the reason that EV sales were up so much is that Tesla lowered prices. Why did they do that? Did it have anything to do with a new plant that had product to move? Gotta recoup those fixed costs.
I think Teslas price drop was prompted by their dismal value retention/depreciation issues. The cars were losing half their value to depreciation in just the first 5 years.
Tesla lowered prices to sell more EVs. \\
In 2022 they had a net profit margin of 18%, the second highest in the world (Ferrari was higher) so could afford to do that.
When your lowest priced compact car was about $48,000. the sales are limited by affordability.
The 2022 Tesla Model 3 starts at $48,490. A Model 3 Long Range model begins at $55,990, while the Tesla Model 3 Performance starts at $61,990. The Tesla Model 3 was a pretty revolutionary car when it first came out.
I am a Toyota Camry owner and trust Toyota
But I never trust the new and better EV battery predictions.
So I can’t decide if the Toyota solid state batteries for EVs are coming or an expensive, infeasible pipedream.
Toyota’s no-plug BEVs are still powered by an internal combustion engine.
And you can still get nickel-metal hydride batteries in Toyotas if you have concerns about lithium batteries.
https://sms.sae.org/news/2023/09/toyota-nimh-preference
Toyota’s nickel-metal hydride batteries have worked out very well over the years.
If I were planning on buying some type of hybrid, it would be one of Toyota’s non-plug-in models. But I’m not planning on buying any cars, the ones I have are all I need. As long as gasoline is available.
You will still need gasoline, or diesel.
Non-plug hybrids are not a bad idea.
The ICE can run at its most efficient revs basically all the time, and you still have the benefits of electric drive motors and use brake re-gen etc etc.
A great idea if chosen voluntarily without mandates and subsidies.
You are confusing percentages with absolute numbers.
The reason why getting to 100% EV in 11 years is impossible because there’s no way they can have the factories needed in that short period of time.
I was just pointing out that 50% growth is a big deal. The main problem is half the households can’t afford an EV. Partly because about 40% can’t use the tax credit.
Nor will there be enough grid power to charge them, more to the point. Grid development is moving in the opposite direction, with shortages being created by the addition of worse-than-useless wind and solar and retirement of useful and dispatchable generation.
So if people are dumb enough to buy them, they can wait in endless queues like the 70s gas lines. Only instead of each car in line taking a few minutes they’ll each take half an hour.
Citing percentage increases is, politely, disingenuous.
If you sell 20,000 EVs this year, and 30,000 next year – 50% increase. You’ve put 30,000 more EVs on the road.
If you sell 1,000,000 ICE this year, and 1,010,000 next year – 1% increase. You’ve put 1,010,000 ICE on the road.
33,666 times MORE ICE than EV. (That’s called a factor of FIVE more.)
Sales increases do NOT compound. Ever.
Haven’t we been through this already at the end of last year??? That 50% growth still only represents a 2% market share increase and ICE still retains 93+% of the total market sales
50 growth is big no matter how you try to spin it
Hertz have also backed away from a deal with Polestar. Apparently they have reached an agreement whereby Hertz won’t dump the cars they have onto the market. In return Polestar will delay the delivery of any more cars.
Dear Mr. President: We, your loyal staff, once again implore you to listen to Mrs. Biden and communicate only over government servers. Using a private server, posting under the pseudonym “Richard Greene” and plugging a blog are right out. Additionally, we are receiving complaints from a Mr. Greene, claiming that your posts at some radio station (call letters “WUWT”, CIA hasn’t yet determined which city) are too coherent to be his, and you’re cutting into his downvotes.
I work hard for those downvotes.
Just requires any disagreement with any conservative and trusting any data from the government.
If I trust 10% of government data, that’s 10 percentage points too many for this audience.
Wow, it does not get much better than this.
The Washington, DC, perpetrators of these EV follies want to be re-elected to have power over you, to use more of your money, to do more of the same follies, “for as long as it takes”
All that is even more true, because the EV charging stations are unreliable, often are out of service, and to top it of, EVs are unreliable, have high repair bills, and have poor range in cold weather, especially when having more than one passenger, and some cargo, and going uphill, on cold, snowy days, as in New England, etc.
..
Currently, the vast majority of charging infrastructure is concentrated in more densely populated coastal areas, as opposed to more rural areas of the country, according to the Department of Energy (DOE).
Almost all people in rural areas, often with dirt roads, and snow and ice and cold, and longer distances, are definitely not giving up their pick-ups and SUVs to “switch to EVs”, especially in impoverished states, such as Maine and Vermont. Their Socialist governments lost all sense of reality, and think money grows on trees.
Insurance Costs Very High: Because EVs are much more costly to repair, EV insurance rates are about 3 times the rate of gasoline vehicles, completely wiping out any energy savings.
Monthly Payments Very High: Because EVs are more expensive and interest rates are high, monthly payments are much higher than for gasoline cars, completely wiping out any benefits of tax credit subsidies.
Useful Service Life Very Short: EV useful service lives are very short, usually at most 8 years.
No one in his/her right mind, would spend at least $15,000 to $20,000 to replace a battery in an 8-y-old EV, which by then. would have lost almost all of its value, unlike a gasoline vehicle.
Charging Cost Very High: EV charging cost is very high on the road, usually at least 30 c/kWh, at home at least 20 c/kWh in New England
As a result, annual fuel cost savings are minimal, because EVs are driven fewer miles per year than gasoline cars, and the price of gasoline is about $3.20/gallon
Minimal CO2 Reduction: EVs driven, on average, about 72,000 miles for 8 years, according to various studies, do not reduce CO2 emissions compared to efficient gasoline vehicles driven the same miles, if CO2 evaluations are made on a mine to hazardous-waste landfill basis, and same-mile basis.
The useful service lives of gasoline cars is much longer than of EVs.
Range Usually Much Less Than Advertised: EV owners experience much less range than advertised by EPA, especially with one or more passengers, with some luggage or a heavy load, cold weather, up and down hills, on wet/snowy dirt roads, hot weather, etc.
Teslas EVs, driven 75,000 to 80,000 miles, will have lost about 15 to 20% of battery capacity at end of year 8.
If traveling with one or more passengers, with some luggage, was a challenge on a longer trip, and even more of a challenge on a cold/snowy day, then an older EV has all that, and more, which is a good reason not to buy one.
Battery Aging a Serious Issue: If a new EV, it takes about 1.15 kWh to add a 1.0 kWh charge in the battery, plus, there is a loss of about 5% to get 1.0 kWh out of the battery to the drive train of the EV, etc.
If a 5-y-old EV, it takes about 1.25 kWh to add 1.0 kWh charge in the battery, plus there is a loss of about 5.5% to get 1.0 kWh out of the battery
The older the EV, the greater the losses, plus the battery has lost capacity, the ability to do work and go the distance; all that is worse on a cold day, or hot day, heavy loads, and other adverse conditions.
Charging Batteries at Less than 32 F: If an EV owner parks at an airport, goes away for a few days or a week, upon return he/she may find the EV with an empty battery (if the battery had a somewhat low charge to begin with), if during that week the weather were below freezing, because the battery thermal management system, BTMS, will maintain battery temperature, until the battery is empty, then the battery freezes to 32F, or less.
Charging would not be allowed, until the battery is warmed up in a garage.
In the future, with thousands of EVs at the airport, a percentage would have empty batteries. You would have to wait your turn to get a tow to the warm garage, get charged, pay up to $500, and be on your way, after 8 hours or so!!
Losing Value After 3 Years: Used EVs retain about 60% of their high original value, whereas gasoline vehicles retain at least 70% of their not so high original value, by the end of year 3.
Losing 40% of a $45,000 EV = $18,000
Losing 30% of an equivalent size, $35,000 gasoline vehicle = $10,500
The loss difference wipes out any tax credit subsidies.
Richard,
I looked at your site.
Great articles
Keep up the good work
Thanks.
I find the climate and energy good articles each morning and rarely write anything myself. I wrote articles for 43 years for my ECONOMIC LOGIC newsletter, from 1977 to 2023, and that was enough writing for me for one lifetime.
50% more than next-to-nothing is STILL next-to-nothing.
Its looking like non-rechargeable hybrids (ie ones which get a small battery recharged from the ICE engine) are quite sensible because they are much more economical than conventional ICE cars. They also seem to have very good reliability, or at least the Toyota ones do. So they are quite sensible buys on the merits regardless of what one thinks of climate.
The whole green climate activist vision however, of which EVs have been such a big part, is coming apart. There’s no evidence of the climate catastrophe that they have been promoting for the last 30 years. But its worse than that. The core program is to move everyone to EVs and heat pumps. The power for this is to come from wind and solar. And the story is that this can be done while everything else works pretty much as before. There’s plenty of electricity, houses are warm (or cool), cars work pretty much as now. And green employment rises and costs fall.
Its becoming clear that this is beautiful vision is not going to happen. If we convert to EVs they are not going to meet the same need or perform in the same way. They will cost more, range will be shorter, refuel times will be 5-10 times as long, insurance will be higher, parking will be restricted. Trivial accidents will make their batteries too dangerous to use and too expensive to replace. Electricity generated by wind and solar will cost more and be unreliable and have to be rationed. The heat pumps will work well in some climates, but not in large parts of Europe and the US, and they will anyway be far more expensive than gas or oil both to buy, install and to run – and there will not be enough power to run them all, if they are installed.
If the political classes of the UK, US, EU etc really keep on driving this thing into the ground, and us along with it, we are all going to be a lot poorer, less mobile, colder. Our societies are not going to be the same after another ten years of drives at implementing this program.
And at some point in the next ten years, popular resistance at the increasingly obvious stupidity of the program is going to come head to head with establishment determination to implement regardless. The determination is total. The evidence against is going to be overwhelming. Its going to get very ugly.
Permian Basin oil driller Endeavor Energy Resources is being sold to Diamondback Energy for $26 billion in cash and stock. Apparently Diamondback CEO and Chairman of the Board of the Midland, Texas company, Travis B. Stice, feels that the future of the hydrocarbon energy business will remain profitable for years to come. They already owned 1.788 million barrels of oil equivalent reserves. Who am I to argue?
Shell announced yesterday that they expect LNG demand to rise by more than 50% by 2040 to satisfy demands for power and industrial use, mostly in Asia. Last year 404 million metric tons of LNG were traded globally. They see international demand to be as much as 685 million metric tons by 2040.
Meanwhile, our president is trying to shut down LNG export terminals.
Hopefully, in about 11 more months all that will change with a change in presidents,.
They have been promising that for at least 30 years.
Still no miracle batteries, not even on the distant horizon.
They have got to Lithium.
Next they just need to find a metal that’s lighter and smaller, more electropositive, than that.
One day the Green Scientists will discover a Periodic table of elements and then they will realise where they have to look.
Batteries are constrained by the laws of Thermodynamics. There is simply no possibility that they will ever even approach the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels.
Charles Moore writes in the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator. Very penetrating piece a few days ago on Green Jingoism. He hits the nail on the head in one sentence:
Once people realise you can have prosperity or an energy system dominated by renewables, but not both, they will choose prosperity. That realisation has big political consequences. I believe it makes net zero by 2050 unachievable.
I think this is right, but the struggle before the political classes accept it is going to be very ugly indeed.
The first stirrings are becoming visible in the UK. In one seat, Rochdale, where there’s a by-election taking place today, there is a large Muslim population, and the Labour candidate tried to major on anti-Israel sentiment. His pronouncements got him suspended from the Labour Party for anti-semitism.
The interesting reaction to the furore however was from the Reform candidate, Simon Danczuk, whose stance was: “If you care about Rochdale not Gaza the only person left in this fight is Simon“.
We are going to see a lot more of this, and not just about Palestine, but about climate, gender, race and immigration too. I predict a very interesting and maybe very disturbing UK November general election. The head on collision between a woke political class, a Parliament which passed Net Zero without even debating it, and the mass of the population – it is going to lead to fireworks.
Sorry, the Rochdale by-election is on the 29th. Slip of the mind. Plenty of time for it to get even more interesting!
But just think if Reform were to upset the apple cart and win Rochdale? There would be a moment of shocked silence then a mad scramble to ditch losing policies by the main parties (not sure about the Lib Dems – Ed Davey is so out of touch with reality they’d likely still be trying for a 2nd Brexit referendum).
“a Parliament which passed Net Zero without even debating it”
Insanity.
Maybe they will debate it in the future when the economy comes crashing down around their ears. That probably won’t be too long in coming. The public and businesses are already paying ruinous electricity rates, and the climate alarmists are just getting started with their mandates. Undebated mandates.
Michel, have you seen these sorts of developments in Germany.
https://notrickszone.com/2024/02/16/germany-moving-to-authoritarianism-those-who-mock-state-must-have-to-deal-with-powerful-state/
The beatings get ever worse while morale plummets..
quote:”Cars experiencing failures in major components such as engines, transmissions, brakes, or steering, and deemed old (potentially around 15 years), will fall under this category. Once labelled as residual, these vehicles would be barred from undergoing significant repairs and would likely be scrapped.
https://euroweeklynews.com/2024/01/12/eus-controversial-car-laws-vs-repairing-older-vehicles/
I don’t know about the EU, but in the United States repairing/rebuilding ICE cars is Big Business. Some of those rebuilds are as good as a modern-day car with all the bells and whistles added. The only thing old on them is the body, and it’s painted up real nice.
American politicians should keep their hands off the cars of Americans. Othewise, they are going to hear about it, and not in a kind way.
Most man made CO2 comes from electric power generation (70%). The average EV has to go 80.000 miles before it means a net positive for CO2 reduction compared to average ICE car. C O2 is not a problem so all this government mandate caused EV problem is all for nothing.
LIFETIME CO2 of EVs, from mining to hazardous landfilling, is much larger than of an efficient gasoline vehicle of similar size, both driven 80,000 miles, at which point the EV needs a new battery, which also has lifetime CO2
Down South people say, “That dog won’t hunt”
It’s still very bad when it comes to lauding a statement about pragmatism from someone who still believes there are ‘very serious environmental problems caused by our use of the motor car’.
I don’t care how many degrees this man has he’s bought in to a complete & utter fantasy. That he still has a bit of pragmatism built in to his intellectual DNA does not forego his entire lack of intellectual honesty in assessment of the facts.
Burning of hydrocarbons is hardly a ‘serious environment problem’. There are problems with it in so much as some day we will run out & then all the stuff we build using them instead of burning them may be gone as well (I hold some hope for finding replacements in manufacturing).
Push comes to shove, replacements for burning of hydrocarbons for motive power will come when they come, driven by ingenuity and market forces, not wasting of trillions in tax payer funds to solve a non-existent problem.
When the stated goal of AGW is to destroy Capitalism why would any corporation follow their edicts?
If opposition to AGW is meant to destroy Capitalism why are all of these big companies getting in on renewable pseudo-energy? None of these projects are designed by, built, operated or managed by government. They’re all nipple deep in high finance corporatism and carbon market credits, typical Wall Street flim-flam. The overwhelming majority of the “green” movement is a mechanism for big business to get their arms around the resources of the world. That’s why the US is financing the failing proxy war against Russia. American business interests want ownership of Russian natural resources.
I’ve seen paranoia before, but you really take the cake.
“American business interests want ownership of Russian natural resources.”
I don’t think American businesses have any hope of conquering Russia and taking their natural resources. If they do, they are completely delusional.
Currently, Ukraine is just holding its own, and Russia is making a little progress (against one town) because the Ukrainians are preserving their ammunition because they are not sure when they are going to get any more from the U.S.
Isolationist Republicans are as bad as anti-war Democrats when it comes to supporting the allies of the United States.
Do Isolationist Republicans think that if Putin takes Ukraine, he will stop there? General Keane reported just this morning that Putin thinks Biden and the EU will take a knee in Ukraine eventually, and he will win, and Keane says Putin is already making military moves aimed at the Baltic States.
So if our government is stupid enough to allow the Ukrainians to lose for lack of ammuntion, then the people they govern are going to see first-hand just how bad a decision that was.
Stupid Republican Isolationists think they can run away from murderous dictators. They think they can just withdraw from the fight without suffering consequences.
They are SO wrong. So shortsighted. So arrogant in their positions. It’a a good example of group think. At first there were just a few Republican Isolationists and they kept whining about spending money in Ukraine to the point that now more Republicans are buying their appeasement attitude.
Well, you can’t run away from a murderous dictators. You either confront him on his territory or you end up having to confront him on your territory. You are just putting off the inevitable, if you don’t help Ukraine.
I think i’m probably your average conservative voter and I support Ukraine’s fight against Putin and if you don’t, then I’m not voting for you in the future because your vote against Ukraine funding will show me that you don’t understand the world situation and your thinking is detrimental to my personal safety. No vote for you!
The rootless, cosmopolitan American government and business elites, oligarchs themselves, have no intention of conquering Russia in a military combat sense. The ordinary American citizen can only call Ukraine an ally in terms of its opposition to Russia, a situation conceived in DC. The largest country in Europe, Ukraine couldn’t be found on a map by any but the most geographically aware. Zilcho Yankees could identify any aspect of Ukrainian culture or society, What was the last Ukrainian movie you saw, or translated Ukrainian novel you read, or Ukrainian article of clothing you bought? What’s your favorite Ukrainian food? But they are steadfast allies.
Opposing the funding of a phony battle between cousins doesn’t make one an “isolationist”. That was the big mistake in WWI, becoming involved in an argument over hereditary monarchy, resulting in the death of millions of young men but huge profits for US finance and business. Gen. Smedley Butler said “war is a racket”. He would know, being the most decorated Marine of all time.
Putin, the dictator, can’t survive without the support of at least some segment of Russian society. The Russians, too, are proud of their culture that stands above whatever draconian government is imposed on them, just as Yankees are also proud of theirs despite being led by a befuddled zombie and a self-absorbed criminal bureaucracy. The American elites are attempting to engineer a Russian failed state, giving them an opportunity to capitalize on the failed renewable transition and the truly inevitable continuity of hydrocarbon energy. It’s worth the effort when it’s being financed by the American taxpayer.
The parties getting into “renewables” do so ONLY because government mandates, subsidies and tax credits essentially guarantee a return. Everybody loves a “sure thing.”
Of course, the underlying TRUE economics are so bad that as soon as borrowing costs rose, projects started getting dropped left and right.
Akio Toyoda retired a couple of years ago and commentators demeaned his view of EV’s and welcomed what they expected to be a big move into EV’s by Toyota . What a shock to find that the strategic policy of Toyota is softly softly when it comes to the manufacture of this technological dead end .
Akio Toyoda was vilified for his position on EV’s, but it turns out he was right.
Who is laughing now? We know who: Akio!
Good for him. He told the truth when it would have been easier to just go with the EV flow.
I don’t need a new car, but if I did, I would buy one from Akio.
Considering that the phrase followed immediately on the one about undelivered battery size, cost, and efficiency improvements, “just as likely” was surely tongue-in-cheek. Equally unlikely would be more like it.
Hydrogen fuel is an energy storage system. We still need to “charge” it, and we still need source material. Best for charging batteries or generating hydrogen is still “fossil” fuels, and those play an essential part in source material as well.
Interesting to note that Toyota and Hyndai’s US EV auto sales in 2024 included a very small number of niche fuel cell powered vehicles. Even less than a thousand of these, sold (or leased) at a loss, keeps fuel cells in the development and production cycle, and positions both manufacturers for hydrogen on the outside chance that it would suddenly become available. So long as a few marks keep paying some of the bill, it must be a great business write off.
“Great” and “business write-off” don’t go together. Losing money is never a good thing. And what makes you think the other manufacturers don’t have some hydrogen fuel cell technology in a lab somewhere?
Government should be as far removed from power generation and transportation as possible. Government does not know more than us and worse screws up everything they lay their hands on. They need to get the hell out of the way.