by Will Jones
“I think the customer has spoken. That’s the punchline,” said Jim Farley, the Chief Executive of Ford, as he unveiled a $5 billion annual loss – joining the wider car industry in facing up to a catastrophic collapse in the EV market. The Telegraph has more.
The American boss was speaking last week as his company unveiled a $5 billion (£3.7 billion) annual loss, barely two months after it had booked a shock $19.5 billion write-down.
The cause? An aggressive bet on electric vehicles (EVs) that backfired spectacularly.
In 2025, sales of the Mustang Mach-E crossover and the F-150 Lightning pickup truck – once hailed by Farley as the “truck of the future” – went into reverse.
Worse, the electric Model-E division has booked losses of more than $13 billion since 2023.
Now it has consigned the F-150 to the dustbin and has scrapped much of its future EV plans, with the company set to put a greater emphasis on hybrids.
Ford isn’t the only automotive giant counting the costs of a failed bet on electric.
In the past year, the world’s biggest carmakers have written off more than $60 billion from their balance sheets as they retreat from an EV boom that never was.
The figure includes a €22 billion (£19 billion) charge reported by Vauxhall owner Stellantis, along with a $7.6 billion hit to General Motors, €5.1 billion at Volkswagen Group, $4.5 billion at Honda and $1.2 billion at Volvo, among others.
“Most of the Western carmakers are now facing big issues,” says Felipe Muñoz, of Car Industry Analysis.
Broadly speaking, EV sales are growing. But a rapid shift to electric that both carmakers and politicians had hoped for has failed to materialise. “Many drivers are still not comfortable making the shift,” says Muñoz.
At the same time, Net Zero regulations are beginning to bite in the UK and Europe – with companies facing fines if they cannot meet increasingly stretching targets – just as low-price competitors from China have arrived to undercut them.
Many of those Chinese manufacturers are themselves trying to outrun a crisis, as sales at home grind to a halt.
All across the world, a grim reality for carmakers is setting in: drivers simply don’t want EVs in the volume they hoped.
“The plans they set out were too ambitious – and what we’re seeing now is the reality,” says Munoz.
Much of today’s mess can be traced back to the heady days of the pandemic, when strange things were happening in the car market.
As the spreading coronavirus shut down factories around the world and governments panicked, subsidies were lavished on electric cars to try to support the flagging automotive industry.
This also came as central banks across Europe were slashing interest rates to boost their flagging economies, which made borrowing cheaper.
At one stage, it was so cheap to buy an electric car in Germany that models such as the Renault Zoe or even the Mercedes-Benz EQC crossover could be leased for less than the price of a mobile phone contract.
At the same time, governments were strengthening Net Zero policies. In Britain, the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a ban on the sale of new petrol cars by 2030; in America, Joe Biden proposed a $174 billion stimulus package for EVs.
Tesla, the electric carmaker founded by Elon Musk, was also being eyed enviously by its more traditional rivals – as sales of its Model 3 and Model Y cars grew rapidly.
EV sales were being supported by a sharp rise in petrol prices that followed the outbreak of the Ukraine war, which made EVs look cheaper relative to internal combustion engine (ICE) cars.
Against this backdrop, things only seemed to be heading in one direction.
In response, many car companies announced ambitious plans to electrify their line-ups.
Jaguar Land Rover announced that Jaguar would become an “all-electric” brand by 2025. Ford pledged to completely electrify by 2030, while VW doubled its end-of-decade target for EV sales from 35% to 70%.
But in the years since those announcements, EV sales have slowed as many of the temporary factors that boosted the market have receded.
Worth reading in full.
The time for battery cars is after peak oil.
Peak oil will not occur before 2030.
We will see peak oil demand before 2030.
this is only 4 years away. Will you still be infecting this site MossadReloaded?
What does Mossad have to do with his blatherings?
“…known as Mossad, is the national intelligence agency of the State of Israel.”
I see no obvious link.
Clearly you’ve not done your research, yet again relying on propaganda than facts.
The IEA previously predicted peak oil demand before 2030, but walked back that prediction in November 2025, now suggesting demand could grow through to the middle of the century, potentially reaching 113 million barrels/day by 2050
IEA: Fossil-fuel use will peak before 2030 – unless ‘stated policies’ are abandoned
That only happens in the unlikely ‘current policies scenario’ that found its way in after trump pressured them. The IEA has always been pro-fossil fuel, but if they don’t regain their independence, their forecasts will be about as believable as OPEC’s.
As I’ve said on many occasions, you need to stop reading propaganda and go to the source:
World Energy Outlook 2025: Current Policies Scenario
The only way you are not correct is if we prevent those developing nations from having energy. I assume anyone who thinks peak oil will happen by 2030 is therefore racist.
I saw an Internet headline today that whole milk is racist. I didn’t waste the time to read the article.
I’d like to see one tell the truth in that…Writing articles slanted to make certain things sound Racist is in and of itself Racist.
He’s a typical socialist, he’s been trained from birth to believe whatever the party tells him to believe.
Bots will never listen
Here is the problem with your claim in big graphics
https://www.worldometers.info/oil/
Data doesn’t lie like activists.
Oil reserves are unevenly distributed among countries. Some countries will run out of oil reserves before others.
United States Oil
11 years of oil left (at 2024 consumption levels)
https://www.worldometers.info/oil/us-oil/#oil-reserves
Where does the US trade deficit come from?
You are confusing proven reserves with reserves.
Proven reserves are always between 10 and 20 years. Because it makes no sense to invest in new developing new reserves when there is so much known oil in the ground.
As to possible/probably reserves, we have several hundred years worth of oil in the ground.
Why doesn’t the US produce more oil and get revenue to pay off the national debt?
How much debt is the US in? This live US debt clock shows the national debt right now.
https://www.us-debt-clock.com/
Because flooding the world markets with enough oil to make even a small dent in the deficit would cause the price of oil to collapse. Resulting in nobody in the oil industry making any money.
Please try to learn at least a little economics.
If oil prices fall, OPEC will reduce oil production.
Will OPEC compete with electric cars?
OPEC cuts production only if doing so would bring higher prices. In your scenario that wouldn’t work. Since OPEC supports their populations by selling oil, they would be forced to sell more at a lower cost to avoid little things, like mass starvation. Electric cars will never be a threat to the oil industry. Our entire civilization is dependent upon oil.
Oil prices have already fallen quite a bit. OPEC and everyone will reduce production then the price goes back up. Oil is the purest form of supply and demand driven prices. There are too many players involved so oil will always be the purest form.
Not sure I follow your “OPEC to compete with EVs” question. EVs will increase in much of the developing world because they don’t have large infrastructure to overcome. And the limit in availability is slowly becoming refining capacity.
OPEC can’t reduce oil production. They need the revenue from the oil to pay for their fiscal and trade budgets. If anything, they will increase production, as would every other country that relies on oil production.
Common on man, learn a little basic economics.
Political will. And it’s not the government’s decision what to do with what others own. Not easily that is though some want to try.
The problem with the U.S. debt is not how high it is but what we got for it. Governments are not efficient users of funds so we aren’t getting the most bang for our buck. Governments buy votes. Corporate leaders are better deciders of how to spend a nations resources.
“…11 years of oil left (at 2024 consumption levels)…”
At 2024 consumption levels, technology and economics. All of which have already changed.
At some point it becomes profitable to make liquid distillates from coal. At some point folks will figure out how to harvest clathrates from the seafloor.
Hah! 11 years of oil left in America? Where do you bots get your nonsense from?
They have yet to scratch the surface in the U.S. There are shale formations that are vast. You’ll find a lot of gas too. Put Alberta into the mix and North American is quite saturated. Alberta by itself has the second largest oil potential just behind Venezuela.
We have always had reserves in those low ranges then they pull more out of the ground. That’s why crude prices are hovering around $50. If there was only 11 years remaining in the literal sense oil would be $200 plus and alternatives would have been adopted.
The EV first appeared on the scene in the early 1900s because everyone saw the end of oil. Then someone poked an hole in the ground near Beaumont TX and that talk was squelched.
U.S. consumption of oil products has been growing at roughly 1% a year. In essence it’s flat.
Victor
It is all very well to quote experts. But it is best to pick experts who actually know what the heck they are talking about. I think you have likely made a rather poor choice of expertise. You might want to familiarize yourself with the work of M King Hubbert. https://jayhansonsdieoff.net/the-hubbert-curve-its-strengths-and-weaknesses/
Prior to Hubbert, future oil production was figured by adding up “Proven” reserves and dividing by current usage. That assumes no future oil discoveries and it works dismally. It always underestimates future production because it does not allow for future discoveries or for improvements in recovery technologies. Hubbert’s ideas proved to be a vast improvement although they still often underestimate future production.
In the case of petroleum, there’s a very large “hidden” supply that will most likely be tapped when conventional sources run low and prices therefore rise. It’s possible to convert coal to liquid fuels. Hitler did it. South Africa still does it. The cost is higher than current oil prices. But not crippling. And there is a LOT of coal around. Especially in the United States which has roughly a quarter of the world’s known coal reserves.
“America’s top trade deficits are consistently with China, Mexico, Vietnam, Ireland, and often Germany, Taiwan, or the European Union, with data from late 2024 and early 2025 showing China leading significantly, followed by Mexico and Vietnam”
Another weird spin from AI – Ireland, Germany OR the EU?
I admit when I am wrong. With this post you have now achieved peak lie spewing.
“I admit when I am wrong.”
Really? I seem to remember you lying about having been for a ride in the Ford Lightning. When it was pointed out the vehicle hadn’t been released at that time….. you went quiet.
And you lied about Ford electric truck and I never “went silent” about it. You, however, are still lying about the Ford electric truck.
Well be specific… how did I lie?
So you admit you said you had been for a ride, before they were even released. Thank you I appreciate your honesty.
Everything you say is a lie. You can be on fire, screaming “I’m on fire!” and it is a lie. Why? Because everything you say is a lie.
Get a clue, the IEA was co-opted some time ago to generate this nonsense. That prompted the recent threats on their funding by the US President.
That’s fossil fuel use. As reality has demonstrated, the attempts of various communists to force the west to stop using oil have failed completely.
The Stated Policies Scenario is not happening as the IEA itself acknowledged by re-instating the ‘Current Policies Scenario’ in its latest World Energy Outlook (Nov. 2025) It wasn’t anything to do with Trump but a recognition of reality.. They now say
“Oil and natural gas demand continues to grow to 2050”
Population growth, rising incomes and living standards in developing economies. continued electrification and industrial expansion in wealthier countries, the rapid growth of data centres all point to more use of conventional fuels rather than any transition away from them.
Even in the Stated Policies Scenario they say the share of fossil fuels is still 60% in 2050
Your solar cartoon is irrelevant as well as being 7 years out of date
…🤔…😆
What does a graph additions of solar panels have to do with fossil fuel use?
All those panels added between 2005 and 2015 do not work is 2025.
Peak oil prediction has been wrong for many decades now as this source from Linked In explains,
The Evolution of Energy Predictions: From Peak Oil to Policy Debates
Frank Serafini, MBB, PMP, MSc. Eng. SAFE
February 2025
Excerpt:
The History of Peak Oil Predictions
The concept of “peak oil” emerged in the mid-20th century, with the basic premise that global oil production would someday reach a maximum (the “peak”) and then irreversibly decline. The most famous early prediction came from geologist M. King Hubbert, who in 1956 forecast that U.S. oil production would peak around 1970. Hubbert’s U.S. prediction was surprisingly accurate: American oil output did decline after 1970, though technological innovations later reversed this trend.
On a global scale, predictions of peak oil have been much less precise. Throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and into the 21st century, various analysts and organizations warned that oil supplies would soon reach their limit, with some forecasts suggesting a global peak by the early 2000s. However, these forecasts have repeatedly proven premature or incorrect.
LINK
30 years ago, many people were screaming peak oil would arrive any day
Peak oil production != peak oil demand
Stupid statement. Production depends on demand and costs, and demand depends on price and supply. They are variable. They are not on/off switches.
“Peak” is not “off”. Watch real R/P ratios going forward. I.e., the volume of economically recoverable fossil fuels going forward, divided by present production. And don’t be fueled by “oil in place”, “resources” or other such non economic parameters.
For the least bad estimates, see SEC reserve data. Yes, lots of problems with it – not the least of which are the acceptance of plug and abandon costs an order of magnitude too low. But it has the advantage of using semi standard economic criteria. And the SEC engineers very occasionally check the estimated costs and project practicalities….
Now your lie spewing has dropped from peak. Under performing, something we clearly should have expected out of you.
I see you are still convinced that people are going to switch from cheap and reliable energy to expensive and unreliable energy.
In the 1970’s we were assured that oil was almost over. Esso changed its name to Exxon and rebranded itself as an energy company.
Humans are not really very smart.
Judging from your comment, we haven’t reached Peak Stupid yet.
Ah, come on man! Little fella is trying. Failing, yet trying to be the peak lie spewer.
Nice word choice “spewer” not least of which because it rhymes with “sewer.”
I see simpleminded has toddled in to compete for peak lie spewer concerning the failed EVs.
Even so as you suggested, but that would not entice me to “invest” in a EV. Worthless as far as I am concerned. Idiotic businesses and their leaders would “gamble” on a novelty like an EV. The shortcomings and drawbacks were quite apparent to me, the causal observer. Just using my hand held battery tools spoke volumes to me and by extension the same for EV’s. Hybrids/ECE: yes. EV’s: not so much except in niche environments and that can be quite expensive in upfront costs. Virtue signaling? Probably yes.
You have as much chance of being correct as I do of giving birth as a 64 year old male.
Already achieved peak lie spewing from you.
Not seeing it.
National Oil Companies (NOCs) produce some 55% of the world’s oil and gas and 25 countries are NOC dependant in that the NOC provides over 20% of government revenue.
The one thing that I know for sure is that predicting the future in complex systems is impossible.
Try 2330.
Still a member of The Club of Rome?
And then a newer drilling and recovery revolution will occur unleashing even more Oil Reserves and Peak Oil will be avoided for another few decades…until the next oil innovation.
Meanwhile in EV land we’ve seen what looks like Market Saturation on EV sales as new sales figures start dropping off indicating Peak EV sales instead.
Sorry B. We’re flat out of those new “innovations”. All the oil biz lit I subscribe to is down to M&A 24/7, and admitting that we’re all out of economic lateral length, tier 1 acreage, and MacGyvers to reduce competitive drainage and frac hits. Gas and water oil ratios rising. All this without yet facing the fact that they will have to skip out on at least 12 $ figures worth of (unfunded) asset retirement obligations in the US alone. Add another zero, for world wide.
FO time…
Let’s shut down the patent office, after everything that can be invented has already been invented.
Happy to welcome anything new. Just sayin’ that that ship’s sailed w.r.t. oilfield MacGyvers.
Oil companies haven’t invested a lot in research during a time when government was all but making drilling illegal, and from that you conclude that everything that can be invented has been.
Your ability to see only what supports your previous convictions remains olympic class.
More oilfield MacGyvers under 46 than with any other president. Enough to result in the competitive drainage, frac hits, and reduction in tier 1 reservoir volume that brought us to the present incipient death spiral. Relatively little new drilling/completion CAPEX being spent. M&A is dominating the domestic business landscape. Layoffs (including, it appears, WUWT contributor David Middleton) abounding.
Closing eyes, tapping slippers together, and intoning, “They’ll always come up with something”, might be good feeling, but doesn’t really help with our predicament.
Bob is so desperate to believe that oil has peaked, that he is willing to make a complete fool of himself.
That is laughable. Oil drilling technology under development includes AI-driven automation, 20K ultra-deepwater capabilities, and enhanced environmental safety. Key advancements include robotic subsea drones, intelligent, adaptive auto-drillers, and high-temperature drilling fluids for deeper, more complex wells. These technologies aim to increase efficiency, reduce human risk, and access previously unreachable resources.
All maturing/mature techs, except for AI. And AI is doing nada to improve the biggest problem it was sicced on – finding solutions to shale frac hitting and competitive drainage. Subscribe to the largest oilfield AI deployer, Novi Tech, which has doing so as it’s main business plan. NO economic solutions yet or on the horizon. Lots of might and maybe, zero added value to date.
By orders of magnitude, the big hitters are simply more, longer laterals, higher volume, higher rate, low proppant concentration, slick water stimulations. Every aspect of which is at or beyond the economic limit. Not to mention generating Trumpian YUGE asset retirement obligations down the road – probably to be shirked.
The relatively small “new” field offshore developments, while seemingly large on their own, are marginal to Hubbert’s curve, at best. And all are in kleptocratic lands, with the proceeds gushing up to the friends and families who run them.
Lots of jargon . Would one of the 70’s peak foorecasters have been just as … confident?
The bot is back. And dumber than ever
idiot reloaded.
And you forget Venezuela has vast untapped oil reserves….
OK they require a very large effort to get to market and get the product treated but….
They will come (back) online likely before 5 years is out.
After peak oil, there will be no electricity generation sufficient to support peak EVs.
There likely isn’t a “peak oil” because the earth has been making it faster than we can consume it for 350 to 500 million years. It will be harder to get to and become more expensive but no real “peak”. Tar sands in Canada and hi-tans in South America are plentiful. The Urals have shale formations similar to Marcellus. With advances in horizontal drilling, what was once difficult, thus expensive, is now easy.
Talk from the IEA about “peak” is not based on availability but based on the end of exploration, which hasn’t happened. You can’t say something is scarce because no one is looking for it. I also believe that is just one scenario. The EIA has a very different outlook and has for some time now.
We always viewed “peak oil” as the end of “easy oil” to be that point when the Ghawar field in Arabia reached peak. Everything else has become easier so Ghawar is less important.
“because the earth has been making it faster than we can consume it for 350 to 500 million years?
Not even close to being true.
Conversion of organic remains to oil, gas and coal is a very slow process.
If you are counting on abiotic origin for fossil fuels, that has been disproven.
Stopped clock time. You’re just ight.
Coming from the guy who takes pride in never being right.
I have always argued that EVs are a dead end. Realizing that is key – the sooner, the better!
Leftists show up to save the company.
How to destroy an old and respected automotive marque with a 30 second video.
Commercial belongs in a museum of “how not to advertise a car”.
Imagine,- that was originally the Marque that invented the XK120 and the Jaguar E type, then won the World sports car championships in the late 80s, despite being run by Ford.
I wouldn’t be seen dead owning a new one now.
(I have 3-4 Coventry made ones tho’)
Electric cars are a dead end technology. Electric cars failed in the early 20th century because of the time taken to charge them and the limited range. Nothing has changed.
Electric cars and battery cars are not the same thing.
Yep most plug in hybrids spend 81% of there time running from FF according to recent studies
https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/phev-owners-electric-mode-use/
The 2026 Toyota Mirai electric car doesn’t use batteries, diesel or gasoline.
https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/mirai
Hydrogen cars. Now that is funny. Let me know when someone opens a hydrogen mine.
Are batteries or hydrogen the best way to store energy?
Solar-powered hydrogen generators enable fully off-grid living by storing excess solar energy as hydrogen for long-term use.
Hydrogen systems outperform batteries in longevity, offering weeks/months of storage without degradation.
https://en.huadehydrogen.com/viewnews.php?id=473
Uranium is the best way then oil. It’s already stored thanx to the Earth.
Batteries are many times better than hydrogen.
If you think you can store hydrogen for any length of time, you know nothing about hydrogen. The Houdini molecule.
Hydrogen cars = zeppelin bomber.
Just wait until one gets in a major shunt to see how that works out…
Oh dear, Victor. Are you really trying to compete with our resident trolls? You need to try harder!
From the article:
And
.
And given the extreme danger of attempting to transport hydrogen, I’m amazed that any exist in California, either. Perhaps with the first explosion, they’ll be banned…
Anyway, can’t refuel it, no acceleration, and costs too much. This is actually a good argument against buying one of these ridiculous vehicles!
Has a hydrogen powered fuel cell. Good luck finding a fueling station !!
Might be a far drive to refuel. The concept does not seem to be working out well. “Equinor scraps EU-backed 1GW blue hydrogen project in the Netherlands”
It’s really difficult to envision a future for Hydrogen powered cars. H2 is incredibly bulky and has to be compressed under very high pressure or liquified for use in transportation. The Toyota Mirai stores its hydrogen at 700 times atmospheric (10000psi). Would you really feel comfortable driving around in a car with a tank under that much pressure not all that far from your head? Maybe you can liquify it? The boiling point for liquid H2 is around 20 Kelvin. That’s REALLY cold. Doesn’t seem practical for personal transportation. I can maybe see Hydrogen used in large ships or perhaps trains. But not autos or buses or conventional aircraft. (It might be OK in a Zeppelin, but they are rather slow compared to modern jets).
Government policies is the only thing driving EV demand.
Australia this year join the crazies like UK and we have stupid car emissions mandates for the next 4 years.
We have companies already in trouble for millions of dollars of fines for cars sales this year
https://www.drive.com.au/news/mazda-nissan-top-list-of-car-brands-that-didnt-meet-australian-co2-rules/
That is mainly because they are selling too many cars the customers want but at complete odds to emissions target.
What will happen is the same that as the UK they will force the EV market to expand but basically the cars will be given away with mass discounts. You activists will get all excited and then will come the voter backlash as all this stupidity is laid bare.
I suspect you don’t own an electric car.
If you are charging at home, most EV’s on the market have ~75 KWh batteries. On a 220V 30A circuit they easily charge overnight and have ~200 miles of range staying in the 20% to 80% of charge capacity. You need to do that every 3-5 days depending on the season or amount of driving you do. Even just a 110V circuit with 15A standard outlet will likely give you 80 miles of range overnight. This is not inconvenient nor expensive when charging at home.
On the road, most new EV’s are capable of being charged at DC super chargers that can charge at rates of 100 to 350 KW although the particular car models have different max charging rates. Most cars can charge in 30 minutes but the price to charge will be similar to the price per mile when buying gas. lf you are traveling along interstate highways, it’s not inconvenient.
If you live in an apartment or an urban area, charging will be more inconvenient and expensive than filling a gas tank. If you live in a rural area or often need to haul heavy loads in a pick-up, range may make EV inconvenient. Perhaps that’s why the F-150 Lightening sales stalled so badly.
The reality is that traditional manufacturers were pushed to go electric before the public had confidence in the technology and they started with their highest end vehicles. They were also sick of subsidizing EV makers by purchasing mileage credits that did not meet government CAFE standards. Unfortunately, their losses have been paid through higher prices on the ordinary ICE vehicles middle income people can afford as they tried to ramp up EV production. In essence lower income ICE vehicle drivers subsidized high income EV drivers. Fortunately, with the change in the CAFE rules introduced last spring, that has stopped.
I believe there is a decent market for EV’s but it probably won’t exceed 50% of the cars sold for the next 10-15 years. People can easily work out what makes sense for their needs without the hand of heavily lobbied bureaucrats’ input. In other words, trust the free market.
EVs are a niche vehicle and if you fall into that niche, as you point out, they are an excellent choice. Quiet, smooth, fast, roomy, but expensive. The batteries are lasting longer than projected. Brake pads are far exceeding normal life but tires are wearing quicker (acceleration and weight). Perfect car for a soccer mom with access to home charging. Cheaper to operate and easier to maintain. The fear factor with battery fires is real but hyped. I would rather have an urban congested area filled with EVs than ICE cars if I lived in one based on the noise factor. Plug in hybrids with decent electric range seem to be the next fad.
Once the road use subsidies go away and the fact that batteries cost a lot more to replace than do IC engines and don’t last anywhere near as long. Then the so called “cheaper to operate” myth goes away.
For the reasons you mention, resale prices of EVs are low. I could sell my wife’s 2021 Mazda ICE and by replacing it with a 2025 Leaf pocket about $8-10K. Probably not worth the hassle but it might be.
Do a search on EV battery life and you’ll be surprised, I was. If not abused by constant fast charging to 100% they’re lasting longer than ICE engines. They do lose capacity over time but it’s minimal.
Really?
There are a lot more ways to abuse batteries than just fast charging.
Beyond that, it still costs 5 or 6 times more to replace a battery than to replace an engine.
I have an antique ICE vehicle (a 2001 Honda S-2000). Runs perfectly. Will your EV still run when it’s 25 years old without a new battery?
Mine is a 2002. So far, no work except fluid changes, tires and the battery. Brakes are still original.
Oh, and I will consider an EV when I can get one with a Honda 6-speed manual transmission.
The problem is the secondary markets. They are thin. This increases cost of ownership.
A pretty fair summary I think although you fail to mention poor battery performance in cold climates. Maybe Sodium Ion batteries will fix that. And maybe not. And in any case, unless you are a masochist, you will want to heat the vehicle cabin when the temperature is cold and the not insignificant energy to do that comes out of the battery.
You are assuming that there will be electricity available for charging overnight. Especially if we ever reach the point where a non-trivial percent of the population owns electric cars.
As to fast charging, it can be done, if don’t mind dramatically shortening the already way to short battery life.
Electric vehicles are more expensive to buy, and more expensive to operate. And that is before you add in the fact that they have no resale value.
You also ignore the fact that not that many families can afford two cars, one for commuting to work, and one for everything else.
Then there is the fact that not that many people have any form of off street parking, so they have no place to charge their electric cars.
There’s a reason why very few people who buy electric vehicles, buy a second electric vehicle.
Surprising fact check:
“The average U.S. household has approximately 1.88 to 2 vehicles, with roughly 92% of households having access to at least one car. While 37% of households own two cars, about 22% own three or more, and only 8–9% of households do not have a vehicle”
And:
“Oct 26, 2025 — We’re estimating 298.7 million registered vehicles in the US, including classic cars, pre-1982 vehicles, and all light, medium and heavy duty vehicles”
plus
“The U.S. Census Bureau’s population clock estimated the United States population at approximately 342.3 million as of February 21, 2026”
I thought there were more cars than people. Oops.
Electric cars are a 150 year old solution still looking for a problem. Literally any other technology is far better suited to any transportation challenge than EV.
The other thing is that electricity is not an energy source like gas, LNG or coal. It is an energy carrier and a very very bad one at that. Adding up all inefficiencies from source to usage we are approching 99% waste.
How we are going to save this precious earth by wasting 99% is beyond me, but then I am not a greenie.
I’ve heard about tanker trucks transporting fuel to gas stations.
Drivetrain power loss is 10–15% for FWD, 15–20% for RWD, and 20–25% for AWD vehicles.
Tanker trucks are energy carrier.
Power lines are energy carrier.
Which energy carrier is most efficient?
Typical of an ideologue, why compare a tanker, why not a pipeline, that is a much more logical comparison.
As to power lines, between the output of the generator and the wheel of an electric car, 50% or more of the energy will be lost.
The batteries cause the energy losses (heat losses) in battery cars.
Driving (Battery to Wheels): The electric motor and drivetrain are highly efficient (~85-90% efficient), meaning only about 10-15% is lost to heat/friction.
They struggle to compete on cost of ownership so they lag behind normal cars. And diesel tops gasoline.
You seem to think that transmission of electricity is lossless.
Most people don’t buy things because of “efficiency”. They buy things for cost of ownership and convenience. The biggest problem EVs have is storage capacity, and length and required frequency, of charging time. Gasoline stores exponentially more BTUs than batteries. And diesel even more than that. So you can lose energy in the transmission with less efficiency but the cost remains lower. Otherwise EVs would be all over the place. Secondary markets too. People got someone else to foot the first $7500 of the bill and they still didn’t take on like wildfire.
I suspect that if an electric could get 350+ miles per “fill up” and the re-fueling of it didn’t take any longer than the time it takes me to go into the station and fill up my coffee cup it would be something to consider. Till then my old matrix and F-150 ICE vehicles suit me just fine.
I would say growth rates outside the US paint a different picture. ICEs peaked in 2018 and there is no coming back.
Wishful thinking. I don’t personally know anybody with an electric car. For the average person with average means, electric cars are expensive and impractical. The problem is that electric cars are an inferior product at a higher price.
My next-door neighbour has an electric Beamer “owned” by his business. He hates it, it will shortly be 3 years old and he will then replace it with a diesel of some kind.
Highly impractical. People living in apartment buildings cannot recharge them at all. There’s nowhere to plug in.
I know two people at my yacht club that have electric cars. We have put in a charging station.
My sailboat and one other use batteries to get out of the harbor.
My practical thing is a Toyota Tundra.
The resale values of EV’s tell the real story. The depreciation is huge as no one wants them.
Stellantis has to replenish the coffers having lost billions of euros on EVs – see below!
go decarbonise yersel.
Of course you would, but it doesn’t make it true.
The 2018 “peak” was largely cyclical, not structural.
Global car sales dipped in 2018–2020 due to trade wars, China slowdown, and COVID – not a structural shift away from ICEs, and car sales recovered strongly post-COVID, with ICE vehicles still dominating total volumes.
China:
EV adoption is strong, but China sold ~14 million ICE/hybrid vehicles in 2024 – still the majority of its market, and Chinese consumers are also buying plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) in huge numbers, which still burn petrol.
India:
ICE vehicle sales hit record highs in 2023 and 2024 while EV penetration remains below 2% of total vehicle sales. The Indian market is projected to become the world’s 3rd largest auto market -overwhelmingly ICE-driven.
Southeast Asia, Africa, Middle East, Latin America:
The EV infrastructure is minimal with ICE demand is growing, not declining. These regions represent billions of potential new car buyers
China dumping crap EVs at substantially below production price is the best you got, peakliespewer? Thats funny right there!
Our condo corp initiated electric lines to enable the hookup of EVs a couple of years ago, with the unit owner left to pay for the actual hookup infrastructure…only one did. If I bought an EV I could hook it up, but I see no reason to pay the premium, as the cost is steep and utility questionable..
Another socialist who thinks that government mandates are the same thing as market demand.
Growth rates. Doubling of very little is still very little. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles publishes a report each year showing the number of registered vehicles by fuel type. In FY2025 (year ended 8/31/2025) Alternate fueled vehicles (AFV) made up ……3.75% of vehicles registered in Texas. Those include Natural Gas, Propane, Ethanol and all 12 hydrogen fuel cells. The demand for EVs is minuscule when compared to overall demand. Ending the subsidies and making them stand on their own will further erode demand. As for outside the US, many of them are still buying into the net zero scam.
https://www.txdmv.gov/sites/default/files/report-files/FY_2025_Alternatively_Fueled_Vehicle_Report.pdf
Except over here EVs are NUCLEAR powered.
What’s not to like, except if I suddenly have to drive 650kms at night in winter? duh?
Adding to that, but my winter electricity and gas bill is already sky high, so why would I want it even bigger?
For a recent, large freight job 1350kms in 48hrs what alternative was there to a large hired diesel van and get there late evening in snowy Frankfurt?
EV or petrol, why are they all so forking ugly? Just about all the new cars for sale are these oversized hatchbacks that only differ slightly in how their headlights are arranged. You used to be able to tell the difference between a Toyota and a BMW at a glance, now it’s all a long line of homogenous goop. At this rate my next car will be a Morgan or Caterham (lottery willing) because at least they have maintained their essential design language…
Aerodynamics don’t change depend on which manufacturer makes the car. That is why it’s hard to tell the difference between a Jetta, a Civic, a Corolla, a Ford Focus, a Mazda 3…without seeing the grill and the badge on the front. The object isn’t to make a prettier car, the object is to make a car that slips through the air more efficiently. Essentially, all manufacturers make the same shape vehicle because that’s the most efficient shape.
My beloved 2010 Mazda 6 has unique styling cues which set it apart from the crowd, stylistically at least. Here’s an example.
Oddly enough, the 2010 Mazda 6 four-door sedan has a lower drag coefficient than the Mazda RX-8 sports car did when it was still being sold in the US.
Easily checked . . . easily falsified. To wit, this from Google’s AI bot (my bold emphasis added):
“Modern passenger automobiles typically have a drag coefficient ranging between 0.25 and 0.30 for standard, efficient models. While sleek, optimized cars can achieve figures as low as 0.20, SUVs and less aerodynamic vehicles generally fall in the 0.35 to 0.45 range.”
In simple terms, that’s about a 2:1 difference in aerodynamic drag for modern production automobiles.
fugly !
Is it a 3D printed car?
https://builtin.com/articles/3d-printed-car
It is a “Nissan Cube”. !
It isn’t just Ford. Stellantis too
Ed Miliband humiliated as car giant returns to diesel for ‘real world’ UK drivers
Under the plans, Stellantis will bring previously discontinued diesel models back into production in Europe. Meanwhile, they are set to sell existing diesel models for much longer as part of a new drive to focus purely on generating profits.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/2171786/ed-miliband-diesel-electric-cars#
How to be a western car company:
Invest money in lobbying instead of new technology
Find out electric cars from china are now decades ahead in tech
Double down on old tech and hope tariffs will keep competition out
???
ProfitGet bailed out by the tax payerStellantis and others were compelled to produce EVs. The Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate requires car manufacturers to increase the percentage of electric vehicles (EVs) in their sales
Now the customer has spoken irrespective of your feelings. Welcome to the real world.
Technology is ICE cars has improved greatly in the past few decades.
Even the Chinese don’t want their own crap EVs. They have over produced and are now closing factories and have billions in idle inventory. If not for idiot communists in Europe, Canada, Australia with their moronic mandates it would be even worse.
And even lower below peak lie spewing. You truly are pathetic.
Electric is an old tech, decades older than ICE.
Funny how according to the socialist, selling people what they want, instead of what the government wants, is the way to bankruptcy.
Nicolaus Otto developed the first successful four-stroke internal combustion “Otto Cycle” engine in May 1876.
Not to forget the British milk floats.
Whining down the streets of London at 5am for anything up to 100 yrs ….
China…decades ahead???…China…Techthief!!!!…China…EVs won’t last a decade before they immolate or fall apart.
China has over 21,000 EV fires a year. And with further EV adoption even more this last year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMKpCiDomgM
Lucky petrol cars don’t catch fire….
Certainly not like EVs or Hybrids do
And unlike EVs which burn for hours most ICV fires can be extinguished with a CO2 fire extinguisher in a matter of minutes. Most (80%) ICV fires are caused by faults in their electrical systems.
No ICV fires were caused by their fuel tanks spontaneously combusting though
Indeed, it’s extremely rare. How many ICE cars spontaneously catch fire while parked?
The statistics for petrol and diesel car fires include arson and insurance fraud.
There are a few cases where improper installation of after market electronics has caused fires.
I suspect that adding aftermarket electronics will never be a big problem for electrics. Few of them will last long enough for the factory electronics to become obsolete.
How to be a green electric car company.
Invest money in lobbying instead of reliable, proven technology
Get subsidies and credits from the government
Sell those to China so they can undercut your domestic market to keep competition out
!!!
Get bailed out by the government (taxpayer).
They invested in new tech. No one bought it. Next subject.
Chinese EVs have a bigger problem than tariffs. They use materials sourced from Central African countries. This violates US laws put in place to address human rights abuses in those places. We in aerospace had to certify each year that we could not trace the alloys we used to raw materials sourced from these places.
EU, Japan and China develop new fuel efficient car engines.
Can the US compete with these new fuel efficient engines?
Horse Powertrain has developed an engine that achieves approximately 71.3 miles per gallon (3.3 L/100 km).
Horse Powertrain is owned 45% by Geely, 45% by Renault Group and 10% by Aramco. Manufactures engines for Renault, Geely Auto, Volvo Cars, Nissan, Mitsubishi Motors and Proton.
https://interestingengineering.com/energy/hybrid-powertrain-concept-40-lower-fuel
“Ed Milliband humiliated ….. .”
The problem is that he doesn’t realise he has been humiliated, he thinks, no, he knows he is aways right.
This is painfully true.
“The fool is always sure of himself while the wise man is full of doubt.”
I think it was Sowell who stated:
“When politicians control buying and selling, the first things bought and sold will be politicians.”
This is what happens when government bureaucrats insert themselves into running private companies.
Government bureaucrats are there to implement a policy, not to make a profit. And they usually do not make a profit because that is not their focus.
When a company mucks up, they go out of business.
When government mucks up, they raise taxes.
“When government mucks up, they raise taxes.”
Yo mean like Trump just did with his sales tax?
I see Simon is still trying to report in from what ever alternate reality he’s living in these days.
Government bureaucrats tend not to be as sharp as employees in private companies. The people who simply want a safe easy job self-select themselves for government employment. Promotions in government are often based on seniority, politics, or racial preferences. Government workers usually figure that they won’t have the opportunities to get rich that are available in private enterprise but on the other hand they usually don’t have to work too hard, and they have job security. If you are top of your class at Harvard or Princeton, why would you waste your top-tier degree working in a mid-level job at for example the Department of Agriculture? I know there are thousands of exceptions, but generally it is true if unspoken. I hesitate to post this, because I know there are good government workers who will disagree. But that is my experience from a lifetime of work in both government and in private industry. The quality of government employees is part of the reason that governments mess things up.
“Now it has consigned the F-150 to the dustbin…”
I KNEW that would happen. I KNEW that the favorite pickup for American rednecks couldn’t succeed as an EV. 🙂
Somebody needs to inform the Electric Viking that EVs are going down. Every day he claims the EV world is growing and getting better.
He my be overenthusiastic, but he is closer to reality than this site.
Evidence that you are susceptible to a knee-jerk reaction?
He my be overenthusiastic,
I tend to check for typos, especially if nitpicking Nick Stokes is online.
Which EV do you own? Which model of heat pump do you own?
My question as well. He lives in his parents’ basement and drives an electric skateboard when he is forced to go out to replenish his THC supply.
Either that, or a college student burning through his parents cash and racking up huge government loans that he will never be able to pay back.
You are batting 0 at this point, but keep trying. Even a gimpy blind squirrel can find a nut sometimes.
And you continue to sink even lower below peak lies spewed. How pathetic.
Once again, your version of reality is data deficient.
Betting on EVs, Jaguar sales dropped about 98% from 2024 to 2025. It would appear Jaguar has peaked.
I recall reading that Jag stopped production of ICE autos before they had the new EV line-up in production and on dealer’s lots. With nothing to sell, the dealers took a big hit. Then the Company came up with that “ugly as parrot vomit” ad [@ur momisugly Scissor, 6:20 am] and seems to have gone silent since.
It sure was stupid thinking that macho pickup trucks and hot sports cars would be good EV candidates.
Technical reasons. Electric motors are good for zero-to-whatever acceleration and getting heavy things moving.
They may have been doomed anyway – not all companies that go bankrupt in a crash were going to be winners.
The lightning was a disaster but I think much of the architecture could be salvaged. Turn it into a diesel hybrid in the same manner as locomotives. A small diesel, a small battery and a full time electric drive. Massive torque and towing capacity, excellent fuel efficiency, no range anxiety and the ability to power worksite electric lighting/tools. Could be a winner.
“Turn it into … in the same manner as …”
eg Notice someone tried a similar thing and learned still-important lessons 100 years ago.
The Saturday Silly – From Ed Davey – Leader Liberal Democrat Party
Keir Starmer must sue Donald Trump for $100bn for ‘damaging our country’, Ed Davey demands
He said: “Let’s hope that the rule of law will triumph in America today and bring to book the most dangerous, damaging US President of modern times.
“And my advice today to Keir Starmer is to sue Donald Trump for $100billion for the damage he scored to Scotland and our country. It’s the only language he understands.” – GBN
More seriously…
Ed Davey has “serious questions to answer” over his role in the Horizon IT scandal and should consider quitting, former Post Office branch managers have said.
The Liberal Democrat leader was postal affairs minister from 2010 to 2012 and has been accused of having “fobbed off” victims of the scandal, which has been described as the most widespread miscarriage of justice in UK history.
More than 700 branch managers were given criminal convictions after faulty Horizon accounting software, developed by Fujitsu, made it appear as though money was missing.
Jo Hamilton, who led a landmark appeal in the campaign for postmasters, told The Times that Sir Ed should have “done his job”. The Lib Dem leader was told of concerns about the faulty software before hundreds of postmasters were prosecuted. – Independent
Trump is just trying to even out all the trade deficits we have with other nations.
He is also using tariffs to bring essential, national security-related industries back to the U.S. to make the U.S. as self-sufficient as possible.
The Rule of Law will be observed by Trump. Notice no U.S. Supreme Court Justices have been arrested. Democrats like to call Trump a Dictator, but he doesn’t look very dictatorial right now.
Trump still has the power to levy tariffs, so anyone expecting a refund should not hold their breath waiting for it to happen.
Congress put into law that the president could “regulate” economic activity under certain circumstances but six Justices of the Supreme Court said this law did not allow Trump to impose tariffs because it did not specifically say “tariff” in the law. Three other Justices said their opinion was that “regulate” did include the use of tariffs.
Trump has other laws he can use to accomplish his same goals.
Trump announces global tariffs will increase to 15% from 10%.
All oil imports to the US will be 15% more expensive for consumers.
Diesel and gasoline will be 15% more expensive in the US.
Trump’s tariffs favor EVs.
During Trump’s previous turn, the US was a net exporter of oil and gas. Tell me again how a 15% tarrifs on oil we aren’t importing is going to benefit EVs.
US oil imports are around 6.5mb/d.
Isn’t there a 15% tariff on the oil that the US imports?
US Crude Oil Imports (I:USCOINW)
6.524M bbl/d for Wk of Feb 13 2026
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_crude_oil_imports_wps
In 1959, flush from the success of their much-hyped car the Edsel, Ford decided to phase out all other models to focus solely on the Edsel, producing millions of the things, with help from the government.
Wait, that never happened?
No, Ford dropped the Edsel like a hot potato! And it didn’t take them long.
Sorry America, but China makes better electric cars than you
Shame nobody wants them.
The shame is they keep catching on fire and injuring/killing innocent bystanders, oh, and sinking cargo ships.
Speaking of lies. You know EV’s catch on fire way less that ICE cars …. don’t you????
So 9 down votes. That’s 9 people who have not bothered to do the research. How can that be on a site that is inhabited by people who are at pains to say they love and follow data. Maybe they are are busy, so here is a detailed breakdown for the honest people here who want to know the truth about EV fires.
And now lying with video. Are you competing for Peak Liar today?
As all good socialists know, truth flows from party central.
Hows that Ford Lightning going speaking of lying. Now be a big boy and be specific, which part of the video is a lie Mr Porky.
You are the liar who claimed to have one when they were not even for sale. And now you are lying again. Lie spewing is all you got.
“You are the liar who claimed to have one when they were not even for sale.”
Hmmm never claimed that and never been in one. You are a curious man. Maybe you, by repeatedly accusing others of lying, are trying to tell us something?
And yet more lies from the less than peak spewer of lies. Lying is really all you got.
Only in absolute numbers. When you adjust for the number of each on the road, the average age of each and how the two are driven, then EVs are back on top in terms of self immolation.
Well you will have no trouble providing a “credible” reference then Mark? But even if what you say is true, battery technology is way better now in terms of safety than it was even 5 years ago, so if we are talking up to date models of cars, then EV ‘s are by far less likely to go up in flames than ICE cars. I can provide details of this if you need convincing, but I suspect you don’t care or want to know.
There he goes again, just making things up.
So no reference for your BS Mark. What a surprise. Here I was thinking this time would be different. But since you have accused me of making things up…. be specific man/boy and cite what I made up? But we both know you wont, why because we both know I’m right.
Nope.
https://www.portskillsandsafety.co.uk/about/news/statistics-on-vehicle-fires-comparing-electric-and-non-electric-vehicles/
Now adjust for vehicle age, miles driven, and this: “Approximately 10 percent of all vehicle fires are intentionally set.” https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v9i7.pdf
Any bets that 90%+ of those arson fires are ICE vehicles?
Happy to take that bet.
Statistically true.
However, ICE vehicles only catch fire only when driven.
EVs do so when parked, being charged, and when driven. Also they emit extremely toxic gases, and are much, much more difficult to extinguish.
Remember when GM told all Bolt owners not to park their car in the garage –
especially if charging? Yikes!
Just for the cringe value, google “China EV fires” [includes motorbikes].
“However, ICE vehicles only catch fire only when driven.”
That is not true, although I’m sure the numbers would favour ICE cars being less likely to catch fire when not is use. The rest of what you say is reasonable, but as EV’s become increasingly less likely to ignite, the problem becomes increasingly rare. Yes the Bolt was a problem, but so was the Ford Pinto. Both suffered from design errors. Both sorted the problem. It’s what happens.
Back to the original falsehood that is often repeated here. It is not true that EV’s catch fire more than ICE cars. In fact ICE cars are about 20x more likely. Does that mean we should stop driving ICE cars? Nope, there are other better reasons to do that.
I had a 72 Ford Pinto … the thing never did burn up on me!
They must be all safe then…. Or you were just lucky.
What happens in China is up to China they do whatever Xi Ping says which is a little different to free market countries where you have to produce something someone actually wants to buy. That is why EV sales are driven largely off the back of concessions and/or draconian bans.
No one is stopping you buying an EV so please stop trying to force us to have to buy an EV.
This message was brought to you by China, and by the Green Cartel. Motto: Would we lie? Don’t answer that, or we’ll drive a tank over you!
How does their Full Self Drive compare with Tesla FSD?
Now you are edging back towards peak lie spewing! Still a failure, at least you are trying to be the peakest spewer of lies there ever was.
“Sorry, America, but China makes better electric cars than you.”
And they know where every one of them is…
And probably what the passengers are talking about.
Funny how heavily subsidized vehicles out sell those that are less heavily subsidized.
Mr. gaslighter: Evidently, the CCP makes more bots than we do, shame they can’t make comments that don’t flame out.
Meaningless. Chinese demand for mobility exceeds there ability to build refining capacity. They are required to buy Chinese EVs by the communist party because they make them. They don’t have the oil resources to support their growth needs. And these EVs are being fueled by coal.
Followed link to an icky anti-American political web page – now need a shower.
Unfortunately in the communist empire of of Canada, the new but same old PM has decided to double down on EVs. Dishonestly of course. He has ‘eliminated’ the EV mandate, while imposing impossible emissions requirements, which will require no ICE cars be sold.
So they are coming to America and buying them. We need to jack the prices and maximize the used vehicle profits!
Ford’s admission and writedowns are proof of the adage:
You can ignore reality, but not the consequences of ignoring reality.
The auto companies were duped by the government who were duped by the Marxists into changing the paradigm based on a lie. It caught up with them.
As usual the Dems are nowhere to be found on this policy/industry/economic distortion, completely AWOL. Maybe they can come up with some blame game diversion like the housing finance crisis that stemmed from their “everyone needs to own a home” banking policy push.
The left has a long history of forcing their hair brained schemes onto others, then blaming someone else when the schemes fail.
“Many drivers are not comfortable making the switch.”
Try this instead. The vast majority of drivers are refusing to make the switch.
Vehicles weighting ~50% more, tires wearing out with less miles driven, insurance companies requiring expensive batteries be replaced even for minor accidents, little to no range in cold weather… What’s not to love about EVs?
Drastically reduced range in hot weather.
I don’t think they ever understood that my interest in an EV was for a third car toy to do errands and play with. That’s a different price point and interest level than a commuter family car in a bygone era.
From the above article:
“An aggressive bet on electric vehicles (EVs) that backfired spectacularly.”
Well, it wasn’t as if there weren’t numerous, credible warning signs before Ford (and many other auto manufacturers) made that “bet”.
IMHO, those companies (and their highly paid internal management and high cost external “consultants” and “advisers”, hah!) closed their eyes and ears to those same warning signs in pursuit of adding to company profits (via federal and state tax incentives to customers for purchases of EVs), with perhaps a bit of virtue signalling thrown in for good measure.
If peak oil is just around the corner, one would question why Airbus and Boeing have such a large backlog of orders for their fossil fueled airliners.
A jet airliner can fly for thirty years or more if properly maintained. UPS has decided to retire its entire MD-11 fleet and replace it with air freighter versions of the Boeing 767 and 777. Those 777’s manufactured in 1995 are now being replaced either by new 777’s or by the Airbus equivalent.
More likely than not, the 767’s and 777’s delivered to UPS before 2030 will still be flying into the late 2050’s and early 2060’s. Airline and air freight executives don’t seem to be too worried about an alleged near-term appearance of peak oil.
Guess you young whippersnappers don’t realize today’s climate hoaxsters learned from experts.
Hubbert first predicted we’d reach peak oil in 1975, and were facing global depletion by 2000. How does it feel knowing we’re about to freeze or swelter to death any day now?
After all, he had impeccable credentials, so we could trust him, right? Sound familiar?
We have a troll around here who has been claiming that peak oil is just around the corner for over a decade.
EV’s are bad in every aspect
It’s not just electric cars. I would ;love to buy a new truck; even at the exorbitant prices they now command. But the fact that they come with all the crap digital stuff, nagware, internet connections, kill switches, unavailable V8s in gasoline and DEF required diesels, etc. Forget it. I have an old Chevy custom 10 that I am going to restore (for less than half the price of a new truck). Maybe even drop an LS drivetrain in it.
I have an older-model Chevy pickup I’m planning on keeping for another 20 years. I’m starting to collect spare parts. It is a 1992 model so does not have all the computer stuff of modern vehicles. That makes it a lot easier to repair.
The only major car manufacturer that got it right was Toyota. Management there did the research and did a very minor investment in EVs and instead stuck with ICE and hybrids. Their ICE and hybrids are flying off of the lots.