By Robert Bradley Jr.
“The magical thinkers defending wind, solar, batteries, and EVs encounter immediate, blistering pushback from general observers who follow the pro-con arguments. ‘The EV guy’ could hardly respond to the flood of criticisms toward his half-baked arguments.”
“This is incredible!” explained “the EV Guy” Steve Hutchings on social media (April 21, 2026). He stated in “Just how wasteful is fuel?”:
Most people think about what happens inside the engine… But the real waste starts LONG before the fuel even reaches your car. To make just 1 litre of petrol:
Around 1,700-3,400 kJ (0.5-0.95 kWh) is used just to get oil out the ground. Then another 3,400-6,800 kJ (0.95-1.9 kWh) is used to refine it into usable fuel. That’s 5,100-10,200 kJ (1.4-2.8 kWh) gone before you’ve even driven a single mile. That same energy, just to make the fuel, could be used to drive an EV 6-12 miles.
Now scale that to a full tank… A 60 litre tank uses 84-168 kWh of energy just to produce the fuel. If that powered an EV instead, it would drive 336–672 miles.
And here’s the WORST part… This doesn’t include shipping it around the world, transporting it to fuel stations or pumping it into a car. All of which use even more energy. The losses involved in the transportation of oil and fuel are staggering, but that’s another post. Then once it’s in your car, it’s burned ONCE, and it’s gone. All that energy used just to burn it ONCE.
A petrol engine also only uses about 20-35% of that energy to actually move the wheels. So staggering amounts of energy are being used, just for 70% of what that energy creates to be wasted. Any other industry with these figures would be bankrupt, and it would be classed as an insane practice.
So, NEVER forget… Before a fossil car fills its tank, it’s already “spent” enough energy to drive hundreds of miles in an EV. Make it make sense.
Reader Reaction
A number of readers commented to “make it make sense.” Said one: “The amount of fossil fuel energy used to make the EV batteries will astound you.”
Explained another:
Energy density is the problem. What fits in a tea cup that can lift 1,000 pounds a 1,000 feet? Oil. Gasoline has a significantly higher energy density compared to batteries, with gasoline providing about 12,000 Wh/kg, while lithium-ion batteries typically offer around 150 Wh/kg. This means that gasoline can store much more energy per unit weight than batteries.
When gasoline that powers a vehicle 300 miles (in my vehicle less than 70 pounds) is used its weight is nothing but EV battery empty is about 1,000 pounds. 70 pounds of weight does not effect performance of an ICE vehicle but 1,000 battery is the capacity of a 1/2 ton pickup truck.
And another:
Mining of precious minerals used to make car batteries has its own environmental concerns , and mining can’t be done with EV excavators , bulldozers , heavy hauling equipment…they all use diesel and the battery technology has not yet developed for large heavy equipment…they all use EV ‘s have their place , but are NOT the answer to all vehicle uses…
Then, once a lithium EV battery goes dead, there is an environmental problem disposing of them (as well as solar panels and wind turbine blades). So, while your explanation of the cost to produce a gallon of gasoline there are also associated costs of producing EV’s….
My own comment:
Except this is all wrong when the economics is considered. Just the reverse.
Final Comment
The magical thinkers defending wind, solar, batteries, and EVs encounter immediate, blistering pushback from general observers who follow the pro-con arguments. “The EV guy” could hardly respond to the flood of criticisms toward his half-baked arguments. The Progressive Left narrative is under assault, from the White House to social media.
The best application of a battery driven vehicle? The milk float. A vehicle designed to be quiet as milk was delivered to the door. And it worked really well, except if you got stuck behind one!
There’s a project for some crazy vehicle project YouTuber, make a milk float actually float by converting one into an amphibious vehicle.
And his name was Ernie and he drove the fastest milk cart in the west.
It is why engineers have been trained to describe an entire system when making business decisions. From the first grain of material to the last destructive use, there are costs involved. If they aren’t weighed against the entire benefits derived, a complete picture isn’t presented.
The essay of the “EV guy” totally ignores this evaluation. He starts from the costs of producing oil to the moment it is burned. He should do the same for the EV batteries starting with the costs of mining lithium and other minerals.
Prices. That’s all you need, prices. They reflect ALL costs, from pumping to shipping to refining to shipping to retail.
Prices are so damned magical! When the price of oranges goes up, you don’t have to know whether it’s from a freeze in Florida, a trucker’s strike, or a seasonal change. You use the price alone to decide whether to buy fewer apples to afford the oranges, or to buy fewer oranges and buy pineapples instead.
All based on price alone. No need to worry about what changed.
And then along comes government, distorting those magical prices which separate socialism from capitalism. They ruin that one piece of information which keeps the economy as efficient as possible, which produces the wealth and progress which make everybody better off.
If you’re insisting on doing that, then you need to do it for all the components of the car for both ICE and EV. Because the batteries aren’t the energy to make it go, they’re effectively the fuel tank.
And most EV’s are topped-up with power produced from coal and gas
You mean the wind doesn’t ramp up when they plug the car in!!
The only significant difference between ICE and EV are the drivetrain.
And what that means in terms of running costs, is regular costs of oil, filters and coolant changes. Also spark plugs. And eventual exhaust replacement. Typically EVs use regenerative braking which increases the life of the brakes too. There’s just much less maintenance cost associated with an EV.
EVs use oil as well in their drivetrains.
You mean EVs use lubrication. The oil used is often defined to never needing to be changed although in practice, some people will change it at some point during the life of the transmission.
Its an entirely different requirement where an ICE vehicle will get an oil change at least once per year and some cars need top ups too.
They also have transmissions.
Diesel engines don’t need spark plugs. What’s the lifetime of the inverter components and what is needed to replace the inverter?
They are not regularly serviced parts John.
All machines break down eventually but inverters aren’t particularly prone to failure.
I would argue that the mean time between failures of inverters may be longer than for individual components in an ICE/Diesel engine, but an inverter failing would be costly to replace.
Argue it with statistics then. There is nothing cheap with failed ICE engine parts these days unless you’re capable and willing to do the work yourself.
You need to think on this, Tim:
An EV typically requires 5x the amount of metals to construct compared to an equivalent ICEV.
So that’s 5x the amount of mining required . . . and 5x the amount of environmental damage that inevitably comes with even the most environmentally careful mining operations.
And then think about who controls the global refined production of just about all the metals and minerals required for Net Zero in every aspect.
Yes, it’s China – graphite: 99%; manganese (MnSO4): 95%; rare earths: 90%; cobalt: 75%; antimony: 70%; lithium 65%; nickel: 65%; aluminium: 60%; copper: 50% . . . and their environmental concerns are effectively nonexistent.
But it gets worse:
The global mining industry emits about the same amount of CO2 as the global aviation industry. And the “transition” for both is equally problematic – bordering on impossible.
So anybody buying an EV is instantly making the so-called CO2 “problem” worse – much worse – and as more and more EVs are constructed and sold . . . that “problem” becomes exponential, not forgetting there are 1.4 BILLION ICEVs in existence globally that MUST be replaced, of course.
Less utter nonsense . . . and more thought, please.
And this sentiment applies even more so to the complete and utter idiot that is MyUsernameReloaded. And I’m sure we’d all be really-really interested to know what his engineering qualifications are.
An EV typically weighs maybe a couple of hundred kgs more than its ICE equivalent. So if you mean an EV motor has more types of metal then maybe that’s true but it’s pretty much irrelevant.
I’m afraid to observe – being awfully polite – that you are totally ignorant of the facts. Probably best you shut it – what you’re doing is making a complete fool of yourself.
According to this https://www.torquenews.com/1083/how-much-heavier-are-electric-vehicles-here-are-facts the weight difference is 27%, which is not insignificant.
Ok, but you know the response was countering Colin’s claim
Whatever that was supposed to mean.
I’ve given you no reason whatsoever to give you any belief I’m worried about the so called “CO2 problem” so I can only assume you’re the one worried about it.
If I were you, I wouldn’t be worried by CO2 because its probably a net good for the earth.
Yes, obviously, I’m having a go at you because you’re making a strawman argument.
Let’s see one 26 years old with 150000 miles on it and a good 100000+ likely to go. How many battery packs and total EVs will you have to scrap in that comparison?
Battery technology is coming along quickly and their prices continue to drop. Even if you needed to replace the battery in an EV after 10 years, what is the battery going to cost by then? Much less than today.
No “modern” EVs are 26 years yet. But there are lots that have done more than a quarter million miles. Here’s an example
Can you say your 250,000 mile car only had replaced tyres and mats?
For starters it had 10’s of litres of oil, 10 oil filters, multiple fuel filters, replacement air filters at a very minimum. Plus tyres and mats.
None. And when it eventually comes time to replace the battery, the battery pack will have had 10 more years of improvement and cost reductions.
My car has had a few suspension parts replaced, but nothing major. I wonder how the Model S does off-road or in the snow.
Most EV batteries are designed to last 100,000 miles under normal conditions. Fast charging, cold weather, collision (even minor ones) etc., affect the life expectancy of 10-15 years for the average EV. We shall see how many are still around at double that. Resale values are questionable.
EVs do have a limited utility for a clientele in a certain niche, mostly in the wealthier end of society, able to adjust to the limitations of the technology.
Spark plugs, oil, and gas are small concerns considering the independence and mobility ICE vehicles provide.
Even assuming your predictions concerning improvements to the technology (many realized by the implementation of, shall we say, less rigorous regulation of labor and environmental practices that we insist on in the US), there still remains the higher materials demand for the modality and its apparent need for extramarket support, i.e., government mandate and subsidy.
I certainly can not imagine ever wanting one of the things.
Nonsense. The Tesla battery warranty covers the battery for 100,000 miles+. Here is their warranty
Tesla is not exactly the average EV. The price tag definitely places them within the reach of only the relatively wealthy, and giving the warranty info in kilometers is just a bit deceptive vis-a-vis this discussion; 160000 km IS 100000 miles as I stated. A 30% loss is rather significant and no doubt the fine print limits it to ideal conditions–slower charging and milder temperatures.
No matter how many wheel drive it may be, I would not trust an EV in the winter for any but the shortest of drives and never anywhere or anytime off in the wild. Hard to carry electrons in a backup container.
Then look at BYD’s warranty.
Yes, 70% would be bad so lets look at how the batteries go in practice over time. These are statistics against Tesla batteries where you can see they dont get anywhere near 70%
Are you even capable of telling the truth anymore?
All of those things are a few dollars a year.
On the other hand you ignore the fact that EVs require more expensive tires and that they wear them out much more frequently.
You also ignore the fact that the engine on a typical ICE will last for several hundred thousand miles, whereas the battery on an EV will have to be replaced in 5 years or so, and will cost many times more than that IC engine will.
A few dollars a year? My ICE Subaru services are typically between 300 and 400 dollars and sometimes much more.
EV batteries don’t need to be changed every 5 years.
If you’re not willing to accept that EV services are much cheaper then look in the mirror regarding acceptance of truth.
Do you include replacing a battery in the maintenance cost associated with an EV?
No. Do you include an engine rebuild in the maintenance associated with an ICE vehicle?
In the past 60 years, I have had one blown head gasket on a recently purchased used vehicle. No engine rebuilds for multiple cars for me, my wife, and my kids and mother-in-law.
So, no, it is not typical for an engine rebuild.
But were those cars all at 250,000 miles? If you look at the stat’s for Teslas batteries I posted above, they’re going well past 200k miles before needing replacement on average.
The goal is for batteries to get to a million miles and outlast the car and they can get to that.
Replacing an EV battery is not cheap. For my ICE car, the cost of the EV battery pays for more than 5 years of standard maintenance AND the mechanical failures that occur. That does not include the cost of installing the EV battery.
It’s cheaper today than it was 10 years ago. And it’ll be even cheaper in 10 years time.
The biggest earthmovers on earth are electric. Mind you, they supply the power by cable trailing along behind them, but still, they are electric. And Diesel electric trucks and scrapers were big during the seventies. I suppose improvements in drive trains and engines did away with them.
Uh, just how is the electricity flowing on the cable generated? The issue isn’t the electric motor being turned via electricity, it’s the how the electricity is generated to turn the electric motor. Long haul train engines have been driven by electric motors for a long time – but the electricity to turn those motors is generated by an on-board diesel generator, not by solar panels or propellers on top of the engine car.
The trans-siberian is electrified. So the real long haul is electric without on-board diesel. I would guess the Europe-China railway will also electrify on the long run.
The difference (and the entire point) is that train isn’t hauling its electricity along with it. There will never be a battery-electric trans-siberian locomotive for all the same reasons that there is no battery-electric heavy mining equipment.
The problem with “long haul electric” is reliability. There is a reason why the electric grid uses geographically separate feeds from geographically separate generation plants into large urban areas. Even local distribution grid feed lines into sub-stations get east-west or north-south feeds so that the loss of one sub-station feed route doesn’t isolate everyone being fed by that one sub-station.
In fact, the trans-Siberian railroad doesn’t use isolated long-haul generation to power it. It is fed locally along the route by the national power grid – just like the lowliest home on the national grid is fed. There are over 400 generation plants feeding the national grid, and the national grid provides duplication of routes for reliability, just like the US and other countries do.
The *big* reason for using electric motors vs gear-train diesel engines has little to do with the diesel fuel. It’s because of the highly controllable, high-torque output at low speeds you can get from an electric motor as opposed to a gear-driven diesel. It’s an operational thing, not a “fuel” thing.
There is also the huge losses transmitting that electricity over long distances.
If you want to electrify a 500 mile train line, the first thing you have to build is 500 miles of very high voltage distribution.
Then every few miles you have to add a transformer that steps the very high voltage down to something more suitable for the train, then you have to build the power lines that hang over the track and directly power the train.
Beyond that, there is maintenance. The train picks up power by dragging a piece of metal against the power line. The contact can’t afford to bounce, so it has to be held against the wire with a fair bit of pressure. This results in friction, lots of it. As a result the train’s metal contact has to be replaced, frequently. The wires also have to be replaced, though not as frequently.
Did I mention that the train is out of service while the contact is being replaced, and the entire section of the line is out of service when the wires are being replaced. The entire line can be out of service if something goes wrong with the high voltage system.
God forbid, lightning take out a transformer, and entire section of line is out until that is replaced. These transformers are very big, huge even, and very expensive.
To sum it up. First you have to build the tracks, these tracks are more expensive than regular tracks since they serve as the return path for the electricity.
Then you have to build a high voltage transmission line for the entire length of the track.
You then have to build the lower voltage line that actually powers the train, for the entire length of the track.
Finally, every few miles, you have to install a transformer to connect the high voltage line to the lower voltage line.
And when that is done, you get to spend the rest of time taking care of the much higher maintenance needs of your system.
Aren’t you lucky.
Kind of like a NY Subway Train above ground with the electrified third rail. Not practical or safe without also elevating the entire track to prevent idiots or animals from contacting the third rail. Best electric trains are electrified from OH lines like electric trolleys or Bullet Trains.
Well it seemed like a good idea at the time 🙁
POWERED BY COAL !!
Only a small part of their rail network is electrified, and large diesel electric engines are the go for a large proportion of needs..
https://youtu.be/O-0v5smWiX0?t=408
They also are using GAS-turbine locos.
I love how the video and the other pictures you posted all show overhead wire. You don’t build it and then don’t use it as much as possible, as operating costs and the power of pure electric trains are far better. But keep posting Train pics, I like them.
There are no overhead lines above the track. The lines you see are HV transmission lines that utilize the right of way
Please look at the pictures again
Yes, they use Diesel-Electric locos even where they have a catenary system…. thanks for pointing that out.
Same happens down here.. Sydney metropolitan lines are all electrified for local passenger services, but ALL freight and long distance passenger services using those lines, is powered by Diesel Electric.
Diesel electric is NOT restricted to just those lines where overhead power has been implemented.
Just like EVs.. as soon as you want to go anywhere outside the local area, or haul anything anywhere….. Gotta go hydrocarbon fuel.
Where does the electricity come from?
The operating costs of my ICE vehicle, at the moment, is zero. It is parked.
Using just operating costs as a total argument is flawed.
The kind of financial thinking I expect from car drivers. Else they wouldn’t drive those oversized emotional support vehicles.
https://www.irisglobal.com/glossary/capex-opex/
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040915/what-are-different-types-operating-expenses.asp
It should be noted that Russia as next to ZERO wind and solar electricity.
So these trains are running on hydrocarbons, nuclear and hydro.
ps.. A lot of their new locos are diesel electric too
And to point out the obvious for LooserName, just because their are wires, is not proof that the train is using them. In the above picture there is nothing connecting the train to those overhead wires.
The point is you don’t electrify a track and then don’t use it most of the time. Electric traction is far cheaper to operate – you just have to deal with the initial capital cost. So building overhead wire and not using it would be a horrible decision. That you have some trains on there for other reasons doesn’t take away from that fact.
Except they DO use Diesel Electric on the electrified track a LOT of the time, because the train needs to go somewhere that is not electrified.
The DE locos are absolutely essential for the running of the nation.
They CANNOT be replaced by electric locos.
But the electric locos can be replaced by diesel-electric.
More than just the initial capital cost.
What more?
And another…
About the only practical way to make an electric train.
Where does the electricity come from?
As shown above, Russia has basically ZERO wind and solar, it is all hydrocarbons, hydro and nuclear.
“The Trans-Siberian Railway’s electricity is supplied by the Russian Unified Energy System.”
“The Unified Energy System of Russia (UPS of Russia) relies on a diverse mix of power plants. It is dominated by natural gas, which accounts for nearly half of all electricity production. The remaining generation is split among hydropower, nuclear energy, coal, and minimal renewables.”
The Trans-Siberian Railway runs on Natural gas.
(And minimal renewables)
Not sure about what you have in mind specifically as far as an “earthmover” is concerned, but the largest pieces of construction equipment are generally diesel powered.
https://www.makana.com/en/news/worlds-10-largest-construction-machines
In any case, politicians should let engineers design the systems to be best fit for purpose. Shit for brain leftists, DEI graduates and those believing in fairy tale narratives should not be part of the equation.
Here’s one in action…they don’t physically relocate often perhaps hourly and only short distances at a time
Those cylinders doing the work with the bucket are hydraulic, so are the traction motors. The electricity powers the hydraulic motors which provide the fluid pressure that actually moves the tracks and bucket.
You just need to have a long enough Thousand Volt extension cord.
185A at 6.6KV!
Why the focus on earthmovers?
I can just as easily state that NO commercial passenger aircraft or cargo freighter aircraft are powered by electric engines.
I can just as easily state that NO large ocean-transiting passenger sea vessels (“cruise ships”) or cargo ships are driven by electric engines supplied with electricity coming from cables trailing behind the ships.
/sarc
Shipping could though. The Navy has been doing it for years with submarines and Aircraft Carriers. Nuclear Powered.
Sure, sure. Nothing better than to have a proliferation of nuclear reactors crewed (and guarded?) by paid employees—even worse, lowest bid contract employees— traveling around the world, including pirate-infested waters, and going into and out of major metropolitan costal cities such as Tokyo, Shanghai, Mumbai, New York, Los Angeles, Hamburg and Sydney.
Have you heard about the large commercial ocean-going ships that have sunk within, oh, the last 10 years just from accidents? . . . you know something along the lines of Morning Midas (2025), Felicity Ace (2022), X-Press Pearl (2021).
I believe there is a substantial difference between the US Navy and Matson, Inc. . . . a “bridge too far” I assert.
Beats taking weeks to transport perishable foods on sailing ships. Works better for large cargo carriers too.
Weren’t some those from electric cars being transported? They’re more worrying than ships running self contained small nukes.
Only cuz big wires and electric motors are far less costly than driveshafts and gearboxes in these types of heavy vehicles with high torque requirements. Railroad Train engines have been diesel electric since 1925.
Your talking about an Electric Shovel that basically sits in one place and shovels dirt into the hoppers of Diesel Trucks that really do the work of moving it to where it needs to go. These “Electric Earth Movers” are more static and only relocate 20 feet at a time.
These days lots of the heavy trucks at an open pit mine are electric. Overhead wires, not cables. Like giant street cars. Where does the electricity come from? Separate question. In China, it is almost all coal-fired.
Something else that is coal fired is a solar panel. There is a great deal of energy required to make a solar PV panel and its aluminum frame. More is invested that ever comes out (my calculation), The net loss is about 15%. A solar OV panel is essentially a solar illuminated battery – put it in the sun and you get out some of the energy that went into making it. This is great and most appropriate for certain isolated locations both on and off earth. But they are not a “source” of electric energy. Chinese 3 cent/kwh coal powered electricity is why you can install 15 cent/kwh electricity panels on your roof.
Please show me your calculations.
The only calculation you need is your electrical bill. Do you really think coal and gas fueled power plants are driving up the cost of electricity. If you do, you need to show your calculations.
There was a post recently, showing that in Australia’s NEM, it is the batteries that set the high price a lot of the time.
Of course you wouldn’t need these massively expensive energy-wasting, materials-consuming batteries if you weren’t using wind and saolr.
As always, you and bnice only deflect and move goalposts. Not even mentioning the eroi < 1 argument that was the reason I was asking for calculations.
Because it is so wrong it’s impossible to defend it and you know it.
The cost of implementation onto the grid of erratic intermittent supplies, and the cost of all the extra infrastructure needed …
… and the fact that they lower the whole efficiency of the electricity supplies over the whole grid…
.. makes wind and solar electricity extremely costly on the grid situation.
.. not to mention the massive environmental degradation caused at all stage of their implementation.
Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation: A comprehensive response
Which concludes with
If you look closely, you’ll see that they earthmovers are hydraulic machines. The electric motor runs the hydraulic pumps. They aren’t driven by electric motors in the axles, etc.
Battery-powered excavators can be charged at a breakfast stop.
https://www.forconstructionpros.com/equipment/earthmoving-compact/article/22093239/charging-strategy-required-for-batteryelectric-construction-equipment
ROTFLMAO!
60 kw is equivalent to about 80 hp. That is a backhoe mounted on the back of a small tractor. Even then, at 50% usage, that is about 2 hours of work!
Here is page for a real excavator.
Cat® 336 Excavator | Fuel-Efficient Large Excavator | Cat | Caterpillar
Its motor is rated at 300 hp, that’s about 225 kw. The diesel will run all day long on a tank of fuel. You would require 4 60 kw batteries and they would be flat in an hour or two.
How about a 600 hp farm tractor. That’s about 450 kw. Again, the diesel will run 8 – 10 hours on a tank. You would need 8 60 kw batteries, and they would be flat in an hour. Think about it. 8 batteries * 8 hours = 64 batteries to get through a day. Then all would need charging for the next day. 220V chargers at 32 amps won’t cut it. You would need a commercial sized 480V 3-phase connection to multiple chargers to handle the charging overnight. Think of the equipment needed to handle that weight and installation.
For comparison a Tesla Powerwall battery supplies abut 13 kwh. At 450 kw for 8 hours you need a supply of about 3.5 MWh. You do the math.
Rich oil countries like battery-powered excavators.
This has a 450 kw battery. At 8 hours, that is about 60 kw or about 80 hp. As I said, that is equivalent to a backhoe on a 80 hp tractor. Are they as versatile as this? Depends on what you want. A 100+ hp Cat tractor with a front loader and excavator on back is useful for a lot.
You will never convince a Climate Alarmist they are wrong by using facts and data.
The Alarmists have a totally dismissive opinion about such things. They know from their own made up facts and concocted data activities, information is ,erm….debateable, so they can simply ignore anything they hear which does not conform to their beliefs.
What we have to do is bring it home to these climate change zealots, exactly what banning fossil fuel availability truly costs.
We should stop them using any fossil fuels and fossil fuel products unless they agree fossil fuel is a positive in modern society that can not be replaced with windmills and solar panels.
Those who agree to accept reality can be confident they will be allowed to use fossil fuels. Those who refuse are simple left to find their own solutions to zero fossil fuel availability.
The rule should be. If you don’t want it then you will not be supplied it.
That is the policy we realists need to follow.
Kind of like the rational voter rule: “You want it, you pay for it.”
And then there is the electricity to charge that EV, of which 60% in the US is made from fossil fuels. And US fossil fuel power plants are about 36% thermodynamically efficient, or a bit more for modern plants, meaning that about 64% or so of the fuel’s energy goes up the smoke stack or the cooling tower/river/sea. This thermodynamic performance of US electricity generation is approximately equal to that of a modern ICE engine. Add to that the 5-6% of the electricity that is dissipated as heat in the transmission system before it even gets to the EV and the EV looks even worse. Also,a modern Toyota Prius will operate with a fuel efficiency of over 60 mpg in city driving with a light foot. I have not run the numbers but I expect a comparison of the Prius fuel consumption with an EV fuel consumption for electricity would show that the EV is responsible for more CO2 emissions than the hybrid! But it gets worse. Mr. Toyoda of Toyota Motors has estimated that with the materials required to make one EV battery, he can make batteries for 90 hybrids and those hybrids will save far more gas than an EV owner can even think about.
And just a bit more worseness, in addition to higher purchase price, the range of EVs is in the low hundreds of miles on a charge and lower still in winter. My 2020 Outback ICE car gets up to 600 miles on a tankful as does my wife’s 2021 Prius. EVs may be fun to drive, but economically and from a CO2 emission standpoint, they make no sense.
“what a maroon…”
~ B. Bunny
There are car graveyards in China containing tens of thousands of EV’s, many of them brand new.
Did they take the batteries out? Or are they sitting in the yard, waiting for an invitation to flambe?
Did they even get batteries installed or were they waiting for a purchase order before installing the batteries?
China has hundreds of car companies….mostly smaller ones. China has built cities where almost no one lives.
And cars that almost no-one buys, by the look of it.
But it’s all numbers they can count. 😉
Ghost cities powered by Coal where the only demand is street lighting which comes on at night to illuminate a vacant city.
The CCP subsidies to Chinese corporations keep the citizens employed, and thus more docile regardless of whether the products produced are needed. This excess production is dumped into the world economy causing foreign competitors to go bankrupt, markets to be dominated by China, and also provides a geo-strategic benefit to the CCP.
Examples besides EVs include wind & solar equipment, steel, rare earths and other minerals. They are trying to do the same with semiconductors & AI cpu’s.
The push to get Chinese drivers into EVs is a strategic policy since it lessens China’s dependency on foreign oil sources.
Plus, the expense of getting new electric service for the home charger.
An EV was the first independently driven ‘car’.
They were widely adopted in the West but abandoned when ICE vehicles became obviously better.
EV’s have improved somewhat in the intervening years, but so have ICE’s. The gap between them in terms of utilty to the user is much the same as it was all those years ago.
So once again, in the battle of the power sources, EV’s are coming up short.
The Chinese mass manufacturers of EVs destined for western shores forget one important thing. They can mandate their own population into EV’s, but they can’t force Western consumers to buy them.
Maybe they’ve had a little word with Mad Ed…
And, of course, the electricity to charge the battery in his car required exactly zero joules of energy to generate.
Perhaps the only result of The EV Guy’s generation was click-bait…
Isn’t motor fuel just one fraction of the refining process producing a variety of other useful byproduct?
The energy consumed must therefore be spread across the range. The question to ask for any productive Human activity intended to create something of value is, is economic input greater or less than the economic output. If greater – don’t do it; if less it is creating an economic benefit.
Motor fuel is just one of the benefits of refining oil.
Wind/solar produce electricity (now and then) – nothing else.
Yes, lubricants and tires, for example, are petroleum derived. EV’s without these would be silly.
So is Plastic Insulation which covers EV wiring to prevent catastrophic short circuits
Actually Gasoline was a Waste Product when Oil refinement first began. The Internal Combustion Engine was engineered to make use of it.
Isn’t asphalt the oil sludge residue from refineries?
Forget diesel powered ships. Go sail ships! So many advantages … 🙂
And takes weeks to transport food from between hemispheres. Go Nuclear…faster…clean…no doldrums to worry about. Or drunken floats.
As quoted in the above article, “EV Guy” Steve Hutchings stated:
“A petrol engine also only uses about 20-35% of that energy to actually move the wheels. So staggering amounts of energy are being used, just for 70% of what that energy creates to be wasted. Any other industry with these figures would be bankrupt, and it would be classed as an insane practice.”
What an idiot!
Nuclear power plants are acknowledged by engineering experts to have overall thermodynamic efficiency in the range of 33-37%, meaning about two-thirds of the thermal energy produced by nuclear fission is released to the environment as waste heat.
There are currently 96 commercial nuclear power reactors generating electricity in the US, housed within 57 distinct nuclear power plants in 28 states, all producing commercial electricity at a profit I believe. Nuclear power plants generate 19% to 20% of all utility-scale electricity in the United States.
Bankrupt and classed as insane? . . . I think not!
These sorts of posts always generate a comment or two about the final resting place, or recycling, of EVs and wind power facilities. I wish for a writer to post what is possible and what is the current status regarding each of these products.
I travel through rural areas where farms, ranches, and orchards are the main productive enterprises. The end-of-life of machinery, including autos, often is a removal to the “back 40” [Search: a homestead’s back forty].
See at: 47.212552, -119.854937
Many old cars and trucks get collected, concentrated, and mostly ignored.
Lat/Long coordinates of one such place are: 47.238554, -119.938352
Old and unused pickup truck campers, travel trailers, and horse/stock trailers are other roadside attractions.
Question: 30 years from now will there be similar accumulations of things with molded plastic parts and various sorts of batteries?
Elon Musk’s cars could be cleverly arranged to be reminiscent of an iconic ancient structure. I would call it Stonerhenge.
Like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Ranch
Sorry but the energy isn’t expended “To Make Fuel”, It’s expended to make the 6000+ products, including synthetic rubber tires, society uses every day…gasoline is just a byproduct that was dumped on the ground prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine.
Further, EVs are far more energy wasteful as 1/4 of the energy consumed by them every mile driven is just to move around the 1,100lb fuel tank.
slight o/t
i’ve started seeing advertisements for heat pump hot water heaters where i live. where i live requires central heating for 8 months per year.
the adverts tell you how much energy it takes to run a hot water heater, and how much energy you will save.
i don’t have the heart to tell them.
Why would you need to heat hot water?
😎
Some like hotter?
I don’t buy Chinese but BYD https://www.BYD.com is offering some interesting EVs…..and it is the prices that are very attractive. Of course Chinese prices are achieved w/o environmental and labor laws. BYD also has a sodium battery that could replace lithium. Ferrari has an EV for sale now and Corvette has the ZR 1 X which has a small battery for it’s hybrid power.
Can’t remember where I saw it , but there was one company thinking of effectively fining people who bought their hybrid ICE car and didn’t plug in their battery to a power point often enough.
Pretty bizarre, hey.. talk about big brother watching…
Who would ever buy one of those under that stipulation.. !
Wait for the hefty Import Fee, off shore taxes and associated tariffs. Chinese BYD Carp isn’t really that affordable.
Some buyers in the USA have purchased BYD in Mexico. The President of Ford motor Co. has one and said he was impressed.
Earthmovers and locomotives: DC motors, especially the modern brushless motors can deliver full torque at zero RPM. An internal combustion engine will stall out and die. Modern (last 40 years) control equipment optimizes both components. It allows the diesel engine to run within an efficient range of RPM’s and loads – same for the DC drive motors.
Also, there is one railroad in Australia that is electric with no external charging needed. It’s an iron mine. It loads up the ore and then coasts downhill to the harbor. Regenerative braking charges the batteries. When the train unloads, it is significantly lighter and the batteries are enough to run it back uphill to the mine.
https://electrek.co/2025/12/15/fortescue-infinity-train-electric-locomotive-never-needs-fuel-or-charging/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a39372219/self-charging-infinity-train/
While the stall torque is maximum, so is the current drawn. The current is limited by the motor’s internal resistance and inductance. But, it also generates maximum heat when stalled and any coupled fans are also stalled. ICE engines on the other hand, generate no heat when they are stalled, so cooling is not a problem!
An interesting and novel solution, but it only applies when the locale has those kinds of features.
In other words, it is application specific.
From what I’ve read, many of these EV enthusiasts (Equally heat pump enthusiasts) only consider how much electricity they use. Exactly the same argument the EV Guy makes, they don’t consider the actual energy required to bring their 1 Kilowatt of electricity. Electricity is convenient but it is not efficient when all fuels and losses are considered.
Tesla uses Ford commercial ICE vans for its mobile repair fleet.
When it absolutely, positively has to get there, use gas/diesel.
The elephant in the room:
Oil is never subsidized at the global level.
The cost of all equipment is PRICED IN.
Not true for EV.
niceguy:
I asked Copilot AI for the Top 10 nations explicit yearly subsidies for their oil/gas industries in $USD [data is from the IMF 2022. Note I asked it not to use wikipedia, and not to include “implicit” subsidies, which are usually hallucinated health & environmental damages ( they never include the benefits of fossil fuels!) ]
USA is ~ $8-9 billion (oil depletion allowance & equipment depreciation for taxes)
But you are spot-on about prices
1-Iran~$97B 2-Saudi Arabia~$65B 3-China~$41B 4-India~$36B
5-Russia~$30B 6-Indonesia~$28B 7-Egypt~$21B 8-United Arab Emirates~$17B
9-Venezuela~$16B 10-Algeria~$15B
Depletion and depreciation allowances are not subsidies. They are normal business allowances.
All companies that are involved in mining or drilling have depletion allowances.
All companies of any kind have depreciation allowances.
Most business expenses are deducted from income in the year the money was spent.
Salaries are like this, office supplies are like this. Any good that will be consumed in just a year or two is handled this way.
Believe me, this is how companies would prefer to operate. They get 100% of the deduction right away.
For items that are expected to last a long time, the company is forced to deduct over time. Buildings are depreciated over 39 years. For vehicles it’s more like 5 years. Different products have different schedules.
If your have a 5 year straight line depreciation, then you get to deduct 20% of the purchase cost per year.
Depletion is similar but the amount deducted is base on the value mined/pumped, instead of a fixed schedule. It is assumed that land does not wear out, but it does become less valuable as the mineral rights are used up.
Unless you are one of those people who believes that any tax rate less than 100% is a subsidy (such people do exist), then there is no way a normal business deduction is a subsidy.
Mexico used to subsidize gas/diesel. That is, the product was sold to the public at a loss, by the government owned oil company.
Cost is the most important factor. When the engine charges the battery, the engine needs more fuel.
https://theicct.org/publication/real-world-co2-emission-values-vehicles-europe-jun26/