Let’s discuss reader comments to one of my recent articles regarding Electric Vehicles.
Electric Vehicles for Everyone?
On July 19, I asked Electric Vehicles for Everyone? If the Dream Was Met, Would it Help the Environment?
Here are some responses.
James and Adele Noetzelman – Electric Grid Needs
Best article on EVs I’ve read in a while. Interestingly, as an Engineer, I did my own calculations and appreciate how this article addresses issues that most EV advocates won’t even consider, that is a brand new electrical grid and massive generation increase. I calculated a need of almost double the existing capacity and the article mentions 50% increase. Either way it is massive. The other calculation that typically isn’t mentioned in EV circles is that the estimated range will downgrade considerably as time moves forward. Even now, battery replacement is problematic as new battery tech along with layouts are causing a real issue in getting replacement ones. Finally, it is estimated that to mine the materials needed JUST FOR THE BATTERY is in the neighborhood of 50,000 miles of equivalent ICE driving. That doesn’t include the ecological disaster we are advocating in the name of reducing CO2 mining all these minerals, done of course outside the US with no environmental controls.
Portlander – What’s the Alternative?
Well, Mish, the Manhattan Institute is hardly going to give you a balanced report on this topic. And I know you appreciate balance!
This report is full of “don’t knows” about this and that. I would agree that saying, as a certain fact, that universal EVs will be “good for the environment” is “nonsense,” to use your term. We can’t be certain of that.
What’s your alternative: continuing with the status quo? Drill baby drill?
Mish Reply to Portlander
What’s wrong with “I don’t know?”
Then factor in the guaranteed massive costs just to get “perhaps”.
Then speed up the timeline so it’s virtually impossible for the necessary infrastructure to be ready.Finally, please note that China will be adding coal-fired plants up until 2030 to produce electricity for the EVs it produces!
My alternative, as always, is easy to state. Let the free market pick winners, not politicians.
Ad Hominem attacks like this “Well, Mish, the Manhattan Institute …” indicate a lack of good rebuttal.
Vooch – Ride a Bike
My BEV has a 500 watt battery that takes me around 80 miles, depending on hills and headwinds. I charge at home in about 4 hours. I ‘drive’ it around 500 miles/month in a climate similar to Vermont. cost me $1,200 used. Its a Pedal assist e-bike. ?
I live car free. Its liberating. Once you go car free you never go back.
Mish Reply to Vooch
If you don’t go anywhere or do anything, yep, you don’t need a car. Is that the forced goal?
Jeff Green – University of Michigan Study
I’m not buying the article’s premiss. Once you are running a society on renewable energy, ICE vehicles just can’t cut it.
The good news: whereas these studies have arrived at varying emission figures, they have invariably found that the greenhouse-gas emission difference caused by the carbon-intensive production of BEVs vs. ICE vehicles is virtually erased in the first few years of an EVs life.
In one such study conducted by the University of Michigan, it takes 1.4 to 1.5 years for EV sedans to erase the pollution advantage of ICE vehicles due to the manufacturing process; 1.6 to 1.9 years for S.U.V.s and about 1.6 years for pickup trucks. These numbers are based on the average number of vehicle miles driven in the United States.
Mish Reply to Jeff Green
Such studies do not include downstream costs.
For starters most minerals are mined and/or refined in China, using diesel to mine and coal to refine. China is still adding coal-fired plants. And what about the infrastructure costs including the necessary minerals. None of that is properly factored in to fluff pronouncements.
Papa Dave On Unknowns
Decent article Mish. Lots of unknowns going forward.
EVs are one small piece in a very large and complex energy transition puzzle that most of the world is attempting this century. Which means that even if we could snap our fingers today and replace every personal ICE vehicle with an EV for personal transportation, it certainly wouldn’t solve the global warming and climate change problem by itself.
Transportation accounts for just 20% of global manmade CO2 emissions. Road transport is 75% of that 20%, or just 15% of CO2 emissions. So replacing every road transport ICE vehicle with an EV version could “possibly” reduce CO2 emissions by up to 15%. As your article correctly pointed out, even if we save 15% here, there are other emissions associated with the production of everything that goes into EVs that offset some of that saving.
And of course, CO2 is not the only GHG to worry about. Lots of CH4 as well. And then there are those manmade “forever” chemicals which are small in volume but tens of thousands of times worse than CO2 and CH4.
Sadly, there is way too much focus on EVs when it comes to solutions to our global warming problem. And the problem keeps getting worse as time goes on. 2023 is likely going to be the warmest year since we started keeping records 150 years ago. 2024 likely to be even worse, given the strengthening El NIno adding a little extra warmth.
Which means that there will continue to be pressure on the fossil fuel industry to cut back or shut down. Which will lead them to further reduce E&P spending. Which will tighten supplies. All while demand for fossil fuels keeps increasing every year. Which means higher prices and bigger profits for the oil and gas industry. Which is why I am staying long on oil and gas companies for the rest of this decade.
Jeff Green : On Recycling
Future material recycling will be done more and more with clean energy. Which is now on par or cheaper than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will continually get more expensive while renewable energy is still looking for its bottom cheapest price.
Mish Reply to Jeff Green
The Manhattan Institute article I linked to addressed this issue.
“Recycling: Recycling will be irrelevant for a long time, as far as mitigating upstream minerals demands. Since manufacturers claim that EV batteries will last a decade, that means that there won’t be much of anything available to begin recycling until the early 2030s. The best that IEA could come up with is recycled minerals meeting 1%–2% of battery demand by 2030. As for the following decades, enthusiasts’ unrealistic dream of perfect recycling, even were it feasible, would still leave the need for an astronomical rise in overall minerals supplied.”
Papa Dave
Population growth is part of the problem but its actually a very small part. The elephant in the room is economic growth which leads to increased standards of living, which results in demand for ever more energy and other resources.
The third world is not the problem. Its the developed world that is the problem. We consume enormous quantities of energy and resources in our quest of more economic growth and higher standards of living; hundreds or thousands of times per capita, compared to the third world.
Of course, those in the third world desperately desire to have a better standard of living as well; reliable electricity, adequate food and clean water to start with.
You can’t improve the lives of humans without more energy. So we are going to be using more and more energy every year as far as you can look forward.
Mr. Mark – Peak Copper
The increased load on our ageing grids is something that is seldom discussed but a very real problem.
Another poster correctly stated that the amount of copper needed will be greater than the amount that has been mined in all of history. It appears that we will reach peak copper in the next few years so this remains an issue.
Operating mines currently have an average grade of 0.53% while copper projects under development have an average grade of 0.39%.
The estimated total resource of copper projects in the pipeline are 106B tonnes, half the current resource total of existing mines.
“Miners are struggling with both lower grades and increasing operating costs,” says Leinart.
“Lower grades mean moving more rocks which in turn will require more diesel fuel and explosives, making the metal more expensive to produce.”
Steve – Mining Lead Times and Recycling
Mines today typically require a 15 year timeline from discovery to startup, and that is very generous! To get enough finished raw materials just for EV’s would take decades at ever-increasing capital/operating costs. That is provided that enough metals have actually been discovered now!! This issue alone makes the EV issue problematic. I won’t even mention the material recycle component that would be mandatory for adequate metal needs in the future.
Stephen Neumeier – China Coal Question
Should we assume that the amount of coal China uses today will remain the same in 10 or 20 years?
Mish Reply to Stephen Neumeier
It could be more or less. But we are very confident it will be higher until 2030. Meanwhile, what might ICE or hybrid technology do if that was the focus?
Jeff Green on China and Coal
China has plans to go full renewables. Eventually the coal will go.
Mish Reply to Jeff Green
What a hoot. Do you believe everything China says? The only way coal goes away in China is if China produces enough nuclear energy. There is roughly a 0.0 percent chance China gets all of it energy from renewables.
Bobby – Key Point on Truck Weight
As we look towards the future and the increasingly widespread adoption of EVs, it’s important to consider the substantial strain this transition could place on our interstate road system. The introduction and growth of EVs, especially heavier models like the Ford Lightning, Rivian R1T, and the GMC Hummer EV truck, present an overlooked issue that could have significant consequences for our infrastructure.
For one, these larger EVs, propelled by weighty batteries, weigh between two and three times more than standard compact cars. Studies show that the average EV exerts 2.24 times more stress on roads compared to a similar gas vehicle and 1.95 times more stress than a diesel vehicle. This extra strain is particularly pronounced for larger EVs, which can cause up to 2.32 times more damage to road infrastructure compared to their non-electric counterparts.
The significant weight increase leads to accelerated road wear and tear, reducing the lifespan of our roads. Roads and bridges are designed for a specific lifespan, typically 20 years for roads and 30-50 years for bridges. However, the stress caused by EVs can cause them to degrade faster, leading to more frequent and costly repairs.
The heavier weight of EVs could exacerbate existing problems such as potholes and aging bridges. The increased asphalt movement resulting from the extra weight causes small cracks that can grow into larger, problematic issues. This could lead to a potentially crippling financial burden.
While the shift towards EVs may seem like a positive step in terms of environmental sustainability, it’s important to take a comprehensive look at the impact of this transition. Road planners and policymakers need to reassess existing standards and make provisions for the strain battery-electric vehicles place on the road infrastructure. If this factor is overlooked, the widespread adoption of EVs could lead to an increase in road degradation and maintenance costs, disrupting the transportation system and causing significant unforeseen expenses.
Mish Reply on Truck Weight
Thanks!
That ‘s an excellent set of comments that I have not seen elsewhere.
Twitter Debate
McKinsey Silliness
McKinsey: “Assuming the global push toward decarbonizing electricity grids continues, including in China…” What a hoot and one of the things Manhattan Institute warns about.
Measuring Emissions
Reflections on Uncertainty and Assumptions
Lennart objects to Mills discussion on uncertainty. But the uncertainty exists precisely because we do not know what countries will produce and refine the minerals, and how.
McKinsey’s fluff article states “”Assuming the global push toward decarbonizing electricity grids continues, including in China…”
That’s one hell of an assumption. But one of my reader’s replies is even more preposterous “China has plans to go full renewables.”
OK. If you make that assumption, and assume 100% recycling, and a plunge in mine lead times, and storage breakthroughs to make wind and solar work at night and when the wind doesn’t blow, yeah, maybe it works as long as you also assume a sufficient investment in global infrastructure.
Let’s also apply those assumptions to the EU.
Is EU Austerity Back? That’s What Eurointelligence Says
Please consider or reconsider my previous post Is EU Austerity Back? That’s What Eurointelligence Says
The EU’s climate change agenda is now moving into a phase where it starts to cost real money. The German government is just about to pass the domestic heating bill to force homeowners to replace cheap gas heaters with expensive heating pumps. A lot more costly environmental legislation is on the way from Brussels. The phase-out of the motor car will impose burdens on car owners. Opposition to Green policies are one of the causes for the surge in far-right support in Germany.
The Green agenda is the costliest project in the EU’s entire history. It will affect people unevenly. House owners, commuters and farmers will be much worse off than urban dwellers who are renting apartments.
The math just does not add up. We are reaching the limits of what a decentralised, rules-based EU can do.
The above snip were courtesy of Eurointelligence. This was my reply.
The Math Does Not Add Up
The math certainly does not add up, but why?
“The Green agenda is the costliest project in the EU’s entire history. It will affect people unevenly,” says Münchau.
Whose fault is that?
“The German government is just about to pass the domestic heating bill to force homeowners to replace cheap gas heaters with expensive heating pumps. A lot more costly environmental legislation is on the way from Brussels,” says Münchau.
How stupid is that?
Another Look at Assumptions
Anyone care to take another look at their lofty assumptions about what governments will or won’t do, about where the minerals are and how they will be mined, about recycling, about storage, about the grid, about how realistic any of this hype is?
Several readers blasted statements on the unknowns while making laughable assumptions about what and when the future would hold.
Those wish to rebut Mills need to do so without clearly absurd assumptions. Please review these takes and try again.
Full Article, Manhattan Institute: Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream
Mish Short Recap: Electric Vehicles for Everyone? If the Dream Was Met, Would it Help the Environment?
Leave the Ad Hominem attacks and a minor flaw regarding cobalt in the gutter, then tell me where the minerals and money are coming from, and in what timeframe EVs would actually reduce carbon if universally adopted.
Seven years ago, I watched a documentary about the Koch brothers on Bloomberg. The documentary told a story about a private school they attended in Colorado that emphasized libertarian principles. A teacher at the school gave the students a problem on property rights. He asked the students what you should do if someone broke into your house and tied you up with a rope. The rope was brought by the person that broke into your house so it was not your rope. You shuffle over to the kitchen and get a knife. Should you cut the rope even though it is not your property? What struck me is how seriously they took the issue of property rights.
Since I watched that show on Bloomberg, I have been reading about the history of property rights and how they have evolved. Dating back to the 13th century, property rights extended up into the heavens and down to the center of the earth (Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos – Latin for “whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and all the way down to Hell”). After hot air balloons and airplanes were invented property rights law was changed. In 1946 the Supreme Court rejected the US Government’s argument that the government “possessed” and controlled airspace down to the ground level but it nullified the doctrine that property rights extended indefinitely upward to the sky. Based on this history, we know that property rights are not carved in stone.
The question of pollution and property rights has been debated for decades. Harold Demsetz (University of Chicago) wrote a paper in 1967 that describes the problem.
“The reduction in negotiating cost that accompanies the private right to exclude others allows most externalities to be internalized at a rather low cost. Those that are not are associated with activities that generate external effects impinging upon many people. The soot from smoke affects many homeowners, none of whom is willing to pay enough to the factory to get its owner to reduce smoke output.”
This is one point of view. The factory owner should have the right to use their property and if the neighbors don’t want to breathe the polluted air then the neighbors should pay the factory owner to stop polluting.
That strikes me as odd since I view the factory owner as violating the neighbor’s property rights. The money should be paid by the factory owner to the neighbors for violating their property rights. If this were to happen the true costs would be incorporated into the factory owner’s products.
I am curious what direction do you think the money should flow?
Sincerely,
Stephen Neumeier, CFA
*In the spirit of full disclosure I cast my first vote for President in 1980 for Ed Clark the libertarian candidate. David Koch ran as his Vice President.
Most auto manufactures are going full EV by 2030, few by 2035, some don’t have plans.
I remember when Blockbuster had plans of going full DVD. Then streaming companies came out and BB decided to partially commit to streaming. They were so behind, they went bankrupt just as fast as all of the small businesses they caused to go bankrupt.
BTW, Tesla decided to go full EV 20 years ago. Since then, they started getting into lithium and Nickle mining, glass manufacturing, solar manufacturing & sales, battery manufacturing and sales, & cathode manufacturing.
We have all witnessed Elon 100% revamp hundred year old industries like the auto industry. He starts from the ground up and changes everything. He doesn’t just copy what has already been done. He takes out every inefficiency in everything he touches. He’s doing that to all of these industries he’s getting into.
These old legacy automakers are still stuck in the old way of thinking. They have no idea they are 20 years behind. They have no idea that Tesla is still accelerating. They have no idea that Elon’s plans of reducing the car’s prices was planned out a long time ago and only triggered when competition reached the point of no return. They did this to keep putting pressure on everyone else to continue to innovate or die.
EVs are not for everyone, YET. Just like when computers came out. It only make sense for some companies to invest in computers. The profits from those sale fueled the next gen. It opened up cheaper and faster computers making sense for the next round of customers to fund the industry.
Eventually, everyone got a computer.
Now, Elon is fighting the biggest fight everyone before him has faced. Corruption.
He’s now trying to finesse his way through politicians and cartels in many nations.
Lots of real problems in the infrastructure and technologies and resources needed to move away from fossil fuels but.. quite besides climate change and the pollution caused by ICE vehicles.. does anyone truly think fossil fuels will be an economically practical fuel in 100 years. We are going to use up 100’s million years of production in maybe 200 years.
We have to do something else or get used to walking again. Which actually could be a good outcome as long as renewables are powering the aircon so we can cool off afterwards
This reminds me of years ago when Mish kept insisting that trucks would be self driving at any moment. He cherry picked data and analysis to back his assertions. He kept posting about how a trial run in an ideal environment panned out and that self driving trains already existed. Most posted that it was a decade or more away.
Mish was wrong then and he’s wrong now about EVs.
Living in Rural America the EV is not practical for me. We also travel every other month to Gulfport, MS as do our friends with their new EV. Take them three days and we take 6 hours. Maybe if I commuted everyday in a place like Seattle it might work but for us farm and rural folks no way.
On the dark side EV’s pollute more than an ICV vehicle during the manufacturing process. Of course most want to turn a blind eye to that. EV’s are throw away as the batteries live like 5 years. Another friend of my wife just bought an ICVC after the battery replacement cost was 30 grand.
EV batteries have 8 year warrantees. And I find it impossible to believe it takes your friends 3 days to drive what you can in 6 hours. EVs typically have a 250 mile or so range, so unless you’re driving 100 mph, they should only have to charge once along the way.
It’s incredible that no manufacturer seems to be doing it, but the best option given current state of battery technology is a hybrid that is primarily battery driven with a genset in the trunk as a back up. Since most people commute less than a 100 miles a day, a battery pack that would handle that distance is sufficient at least 80% of the time, likely over 95% of the time. For the rare instances that more range is required the genset would handle that. The reduction in battery size would reduce the weight of the vehicle as well as the initial/replacement cost. This would greatly reduce the charging/supercharging network required, reduce the swings in the electrical load on the grid etc. etc. Most people would be able to get by charging at home most of the time. The genset could be used to drive/power the AC and heater as well, which would greatly reduce the range losses on this account. The genset would sized differently as required – Very cold/hot hilly areas would have a larger capacity while flat temperate areas could do with smaller ones.
This would basically optimise everything – amount of minerals required, the extent of grid upgradation, charging network….
Perhaps I’m missing something, but can’t think what…
That is the Chevy Volt. Larger battery bank, but chose direct drive since it is more efficient than generator charging only. The Volt is being discontinued.
Thanks. Read up a bit on the Volt; it featured both, an electric and combustion engine power train which doesn’t make sense. Appears genset efficiencies aren’t good enough for it to work except for very short distances.
PRIUS ????
Prius prime.
How is that any different than a hybrid?
Hybrids are a terrible idea and I suspect in 5 years, no one will make them.
– The infrastructure is not in place now, and can’t/won’t be any time soon.
– Hidden disposal/replacement powertrain costs will be exposed.
– Recession will tear into the mostly unneeded demand.
– Places it’s best suited for, already have far less expensive Public Transit.
– Environmental Impact has yet to be discovered.
– Any onshore production, will cause massive price increases.
There are many more…
Utilities will get cleaner over time which means BEVs get cleaner over time. And its changing quite fast.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cleaner-cars-cradle-grave
Cradle to Grave
How Electric Cars Beat Gasoline Cars on Lifetime Global Warming Emissions
Published Oct 29, 2015
Since we first published our State of Charge report in 2012, the environmental benefits of electric vehicles (EVs) have continued to grow. Driving the average EV is responsible for fewer global warming emissions than the average new gasoline car everywhere in the US—a fact attributable to more efficient EVs and an increasingly clean electricity grid.
Associate Professor Simon Michaux was engaged by the Geological Survey of Finland to calculate the entire volume of metals required to provide the basis for just the first generation of wind farms, solar installations and EVs (keeping in mind these all have to be replaced every 15 to 20 years,,,)
Bases on current annual output, we will need…
9,920 years of lithium,
1,733 years of cobalt,
3,287 years of graphite,
189 years of copper,
and 400 years of nickel – all condensed into the next 20 – 30 years.
Peter Zeihan points out that there has never been a single ten year period in history when mankind has even doubled the existing output of any mineral – we are going to need to increase by at least a factor of ten the output of eleven different minerals.
Another issue to consider is that the current low cost of a lot of the battery and electric-motor minerals is a result of massive Chinese subsidies related to their export-based economic model which cannot be assumed to continue.
i remember when folks thought bill gates……….said folks would want computers in their homes, and every knuckle dragger said that was insane for a thousand reasons. i’m bullish on scientists who will figure out problems like battery life……and the metals……needed. i think the first cave man to start a campfire and cook food was told that was insane, too.
Fossil fuels is 535 times the green energy minerals today in tonnage. By 2040 green energy minerals will go from 7 million tons a year to 28 million tons a year. Fossil fuels is now today at 15 billion tons a year.
And yet production costs of batteries keeps going down.
Science and technology keep advancing with new discoveries. Eventually some of these discoveries will assist in adding to our energy mix, or improving our efficiency in using energy. But it’s a multi-decade journey.
https://scitechdaily.com/record-breaking-solar-hydrogen-device-turning-sunlight-into-clean-energy/
As with any complicated question these days, there is plenty of room for political thumbs on the scale in every “technical” analysis.
If you are optimistic about EVs, stay in that echo chamber. If you aren’t, don’t. Both are reasonably justifiable.
In real life, today’s EVs are great in suburbia and not so great in rural areas.
If you want to reduce your gas bill 90% without going full EV, buy a plug-in hybrid. Drive 30-40 miles per day on cheap off-peak electricity using a regular power outlet, use the gasoline engine for long trips. Most owners buy 2-3 tanks of gas a year and never worry about stopping to charge.
There are plenty cheap old Volts that will save their owners money for years.
Because rural areas don’t have electricity?
Hybrids are the most unreliable cars. Most owners never charge the battery so they carry around the extra battery weight for no reason.
EVs WILL result in much lower emissions but not for the reasons most people think, it will be because private transportation will be affordable only to the top 10% and many of us will just leave. I know I will. If you were ever robbed on a city bus that had standing room only, had been vandalized to the point of not wanting to sit on those seats anyway, and had Colt 45 malt liquor bottles rolling around by your feet, with the distinct smell of urine with every breath, and the bus driver seeing but ignoring the people demanding your watch and shoes, you also would intend never to use public transportation again as long as you live.
The technology for EVs is nowhere near as efficient as it needs to be to replace ICE vehicles on a market of scale. Prices are already out of reach for most of us and will just skyrocket as supply constraints for manufacturing inputs continue to dwindle. To replace all 276 million vehicles in the US with electrics within the current vehicles usable life cannot be done either economically or at all. And the only way they can get people to change over is to make electrics cheaper than owning ICE vehicles, even as they raise the cost of owning ICE vehicles to ever higher levels.
For one thing there has been no new investment in gasoline refineries and those will be blowing up from our inability to keep decrepit refineries going with band aids and patches. As production drops demand will so exceed supply that gallons of fuel will be auctioned to the highest bidder rather than having a set price. Of course first we will have rationing as we did in California in the seventies with odd/even days you were allowed to get gas.
Moving to a poor nation that cannot afford the conversion and huge government subsidies to the EV industry will be the only way out from under. I know my neighbors that have EVs and hybrids have asked why I got a new gigantic Chevy Truck in 2021, I asked how much was your government rebate on that car? They said they got a $7,500 tax credit they could write off from their annual tax bill. Well, as a disabled vet I do not qualify for that. And those cars are already priced at more than they are worth, to buy one without that $7,500 makes them ridiculously overpriced. I also bought the truck I did because in October 2021 the dealership had all of 5 new trucks on the lot when it came time to trade in the BMW. Four of those trucks just did not meet my needs and while the fifth was gigantic it was as close as I could get to what I was looking for.
EVs have been getting cheaper and better at a sort of ridiculous rate, though. I expect continued improvements in price/performance. My 6 year old EV is hilariously out of date (which doesn’t matter for what I use it for, but still) and it’s only been 6 years – for what it retailed for in 2017, you can now get a car with 3 times the range that charges 5 times as fast with a ton of fancy safety/infotainment/etc features. We’ll look back on the cars now as dinosaurs in 5 years.
I gotta decide if I should sell my ICE truck soon before it’s worth nothing, I think.
I think in 15 years, there will be Cybertrucks with a half million miles that will look and function like they were new.
[[[[[[The technology for EVs is nowhere near as efficient as it needs to be to replace ICE vehicles on a market of scale. ]]]]]]
My used model S is 4.5 to 5 times more efficient energy wise than my mercedes counterpart. When I’m in the mood for driving my model S for efficiency over 116 miles to our small lake home, I get about 135 to 150 MPGe. We are there now.
When I saw the title included “for everyone” I was immediately reminded of previous times when those words were used. “A home for everyone” from the 90’s led to the subprime meltdown and recession. “College education for everyone” led to outrageous tuitions, defaulted college loans and a generation that cant pay their bills. “Medicine for everyone” Lets not even start with the medicare disaster.
Communism and socialism have proven to be failed political and economic systems. No, not everyine is entitled to everything.
Of course, it is impossible.
Good idea Mish. You generated some good discussion from this.
Interesting how it tends to break down. Some who are strongly against fossil fuels and ICE vehicles and some who are strongly against renewables and EVs.
For the record, I am not against any of these things. None of them is perfect. They all have pros and cons.
What I am FOR, is energy. In all forms. Fossil fuels, nuclear, renewable. Because the economy won’t grow without more energy. And standards of living won’t go up without more energy. If we want to make the planet a more livable place for humanity, we will need MORE energy. But there are costs we will need to pay.
Because of global warming and the resulting climate change (which are partly due to fossil fuels) the world will continue its energy transition towards more renewables and nuclear.
Over the next decade, the world is going to need a lot more energy. And we are not yet building enough renewables or nuclear to satisfy that need. So we will need more fossil fuels as well. (Which provides an opportunity to profit from oil and gas stocks over the remainder of this decade.)
Eventually, we will build out enough renewable and nuclear (and better grids and storage) to begin to replace fossil fuels. But it will be many decades before we can reduce fossil fuels from the current 80% of energy production to anything close to zero.
And even if we did get to zero fossil fuel use, that is still only part of the solution to our GHG emissions and anthropogenic global warming. There is a lot more still to do besides eliminating fossil fuel use.
Yes, the transition is going to cost tens of trillions. And at the same time, global warming will cost us tens of trillions.
And all any of us can do is recognize this reality and deal with it as best we can. Because, as individuals, we have no control over the big picture. I applaud those who are working hard to reduce their personal carbon footprint. Good luck to you.
Myself. I try to recognize what I can control and what I cannot control. I choose to profit from understanding the situation.
I’m not against electric vehicles. They are cool! I’m just against the hysteria and the jamming of a “not ready for prime time technology” down our throats. If it was ready, it would be adopted without political pressure. Like everything else, involving government produces perverse incentives and wrong behavior. The only thing the government needs to do is to make sure all external costs are included in a specific activity. The free market can take care of the rest. Attaching a huge e eternal cost to CO2 is dubious since it is not clear if this is even a problem. Unfortunately, climate science has become politicized, so we will never know.
Here is a scene that takes place so often in modern Democracies.
Politician: “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”
Useful 1diot: “Save us Great leader!”
Politician: “I will but I need more power!”
Useful 1diot: “Here it is, now save us!”
Needless to say, that in most case this ends with a pile of bodies.
Sorry. I don’t agree. Just like we need renewables AND fossil fuels, we need government AND free markets. The entire “government is always wrong and free markets are always right” is foolish. Just as those saying all corporations are evil is foolish. That is how you end up with so many people with polarized points of view, wasting their time, bickering with each other over things they cannot control anyway.
Better to accept reality, focus on improving your own life, and leave the fairytales for others.
I didn’t say what you attributed to me. I clearly stated a government role in assessing the externalities. Seems like you need to practice what you preach.
haha haha. you are a wise man papa dave. my take on life, too.
PapaDave, I agree that there will be a transition to renewables, if for no other reason that anything non renewable will run out at some date.
It may not be necessary that we need more energy as the best form of energy is Negawatts. Do we need McMansions with poor insulation that fall apart in a few decades or are well built family homes with good insulation, double glazing and proper eaves a better option? Does the average motorist need 3 ton SUVs to get to their office job when others can get there with a modest 4 cylinder car? Why does my workplace get toilet paper from China when other workplaces get theirs from a factory just a mile away? Why do cheap appliances only have 12 months warranty and then end up in landfill when quality products last for decades? Fix those problems and the energy needs drop by half with no loss of freedom or quality of life.
What people want or need is not up to you or me. But in general, “almost” everyone wants more. You are free to be a minimalist if you wish.
Currently, there are many billions of humans who do not have electricity, clean water, adequate nutrition and decent shelter. Those are their priorities, not a 3 ton SUV. Meeting these needs will require a lot more energy. And assuming those needs are eventually met, what will be their next want or need? They know what we have, and they would like some of that too.
Regarding your other questions; I suggest you start several businesses to correct all those perceived issues. Entrepreneurs can become wealthy by successfully solving such problems.
Im not minimalist, I’m just annoyed as hell that the government forced me to pay for a garbage service that I barely use to subsidise my neighbours whose bins are overflowing with Chinese junk. I’m annoyed as hell that the government mandates much higher electricity tariffs to pay subsidies to those with solar panels, I’m annoyed as hell that I’m having to pay a much higher service charge for power line upgrades needed because my neighbours want to charge an oversized electric pick up and have installed large air conditioners to cool their McMansions.
I should not have to pay for their wants.
As for investments I’m investing in copper mining as that is a metal that is getting harder to source in high grades and will be in ever higher demand.
You worry too much about things you cannot control. Life isn’t fair; never has been; never will be. Best to get over it and focus on things that you CAN control. Which is you.
For example, recognizing that copper might be a good investment during this multi decade energy transition. Kudos to you for that.
One might find the following graph interesting. It appears as if we are near record lows in CO2! Thank God we started burning fossil fuels to rescue the plants, especially the C3 plants!
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-Temperature-and-CO2-levels-over-600-million-years-Source-MacRae-2008_fig1_280548391
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-leaf-photosynthetic-rate-responses-of-C-3-and-C-4-plants-to-CO-2-concentration_fig1_260392290
The IPPC with its 14,000 peer reviewed science papers disagrees with you.
This is a political organization. And if you want funding for your research, you better conform with the ideology. Most climate science may think that CO2 has an effect, where they differ is in the magnitude and scale. Any scientist who claims he knows where a complex system will be in 100 years is not a scientist. You can predict the behavior of complex systems. There behavior is chaotic.
Both Richard Lindzen and Edward Lorenz ( the inventor of chaos theory and theoretical climate scientist) do not agree with the “yes men” you reference above. Both were highly distinguished climate scientists at MIT.
[[[[[[This is a political organization. And if you want funding for your research, you better conform with the ideology. ]]]]]
You don’t know how the science organization works. That is the fossil fuels line that are saying is true about them. The IPPC is not even research. It is a total review of the research field of climate.
By the way plants love CO2! CO2 is plant food. In fact, during the last ice age CO2 levels we so low some plants nearly starved to death.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0408315102#:~:text=During%20the%20last%20glacial%20period%2C%20minimum%20%5BCO2%5D%20occurred,higher%20land%20plants%20(2).
Global warming threatens our crops. CO2 in a green house works wonders. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere plays havoc on the weather, increasing crop damage for a variety of reasons.
Says who? You are jumping to conclusions that are unfounded.
One of the foundational assumptions in the climate models is that the minor increase in temperature from CO2 will magnify the amount of water in the atmosphere. Water vapor is the primary green house gas. Water vapor produces clouds which reflect light. Increased rain is better for crops.
Also the day night cycle is one factor in driving winds. If greenhouse gas even out the temperature extremes in the day night cycle one would expect less winds.
Alex. YOu have a lot to learn based in science. Yours is one of FF propaganda.
93% of the global warming goes into the ocean. And our ocean are heating up based in observations.
For every 1 degree of increase in temperature, water vapor increases in the atmosphere by 7%.
Now keep in mind this strong relationship between co2, temperature, and water vapor. They are completely lock step with each. This is a very strong climate denier weak point in their thinking.
https://climate.nasa.gov › explore › ask-nasa-climate › 3143 › steamy-relationships-how-atmospher
Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth’s …
Feb 8, 2022For every degree Celsius that Earth’s atmospheric temperature rises, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can increase by about 7%, according to the laws of thermodynamics. Get NASA’s Climate Change News Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming.
A plant can’t enjoy CO2 OR NOX if it is bulldozed to make room for solar panels and Di Lithium Crystals.
I think city folk with hardly any day to day interface with nature are more prone to accept a Blade Runner future, or some sort of Space Odyssey at any environmental cost.
Solar and EV reminds me of the natural fiber craze. Take a look at the completely sterile cotton growing regions of the San Joaquin Valley in California. After Harvest there is not another living thing in sight. Historically before harvest the the only living beings are Cotton and Illegals. Nobody legal would allow themselves to be exploited with such a toxic industry.
Every time my journey transpires through that area, I make sure I wear my polyester leisure suit, and am saddled with an Eternal Combustion Engine. I make sure the wife and kids are wearing polyester too. We then feel we have done our part to save the Earth.
There are two elephants in the room. One is the lack of infrastructure. The second is where is the energy coming from? That includes both the energy to produce all these new cars and infrastructure and the energy to charge the batteries.
Less than 1% of the earth is needed in solar alone to give us all of the energy we need in a year. Mix in with that wind, geothermal and storage, we will live in a much healthier climate than what we are doing to ourselves now.
How much energy is used to produce solar panels? What is their life span? What do we do with all the junk after if exceeds its life span? What are the real efficiencies of solar panels, including dirt on them, cloudy days, transmission and storage losses?
Seems to me it’s much easy to limit the human population to a reasonable number and then let economics work. If green energy is the most efficient, it will win out. We don’t need environmental fanatics to impose a solution by force. Those types of solutions end up being disasters for all involved.
Those pushing green energy on us are the same people who blew up Nordstream, fight perpetual wars in the middle east (and Ukraine) and love to pretend they are moral and righteous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZqztNiZ_Dk&t=104s
Solar panels are quite durable. I have read some manufacturers warranty their panels for 40 years. Basically a purchased solar panel can last you your whole life. 40 years is not end of life. Recycling of solar panels is starting to pick up. There are valuable materials in a solar panel.
Here is what my Google search says,
“The industry standard for most solar panels’ lifespans is 25 to 30 years. Most reputable manufacturers offer production warranties for 25 years or more. The average break even point for solar panel energy savings occurs six to 10 years after installation.”
Gee a 6 to 10 year break even point! Thus if a solar panel is used exclusively to make other solar panels. It will be able to make 2 or 3 other solar panels. I wonder if those cost include the transportation cost as well as the energy cost to replace it after it becomes useless?
Your car is warranteed about 2 to 4 years and yet can last 20 years possibly.
Solar panels can go beyond their warranty time and need very little maintenance. Also have valuable materials that can be recycled. Solar and wind both are now cheaper than coal without the pollution of coal.
“Less than 1% of the earth is needed in solar alone to give us all of the energy we need in a year.”
That would translate into 4% of the Earths land mass and probably 10% of Earths usable land. Add to this the land destroyed by strip mining for Fancy Earth Materials.
In other words lets destroy 10% of the world so the wealthiest people on the planet can feel good about themselves, and feel they have made a difference.
Roofs on buildings, area along highways, etc can be used. There is plenty of space to get this done without sacrifice.
https://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127
The Saharan Desert is 9,064,958 square kilometers, or 18 times the total required area to fuel the world.
By another measure, “the unpopulated area of the Sahara desert is over 9 million km², which if covered with solar panels would provide 630 terawatts total power. The Earth’s current energy consumption rate is around 13.5 TW at any given moment (including oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric).” This measure arrives at a multiplier of 46 times the area needed and shows that my numbers are very conservative.
Currently, most lithium is extracted from hard rock mines or underground brine reservoirs, and much of the energy used to extract and process it comes from CO2-emitting fossil fuels. Particularly in hard rock mining, for every tonne of mined lithium, 15 tonnes of CO2 are emitted into the air.k
And then once we have the mined lithium it is sent to the battery manufacturing factory where,
“Based on public data on two different Li-ion battery manufacturing facilities, and adjusted results from a previous study, the most reasonable assumptions for the energy usage for manufacturing Li-ion battery cells appears to be 50–65 kWh of electricity per kWh of battery capacity.”
Shifting from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy will have co2 emissions. Transition time will get us to clean energy.
The real challenge is the physics involved. No matter what fuel you use, every trip will require the same amount of energy to move every pound transported. Do we have the generation and grid capacity to replace the energy of our gasoline and diesel use now?
Will we demand that ship transport cease using ICE? Will we transition all aviation?
Perhaps EV motors are more efficient than ICE, but the EV vehicle is heavier. The batteries lose energy over time. (They won’t hold their energy over time like gas in your car will.)
Forcing such a transition will be a greater burden on the poor: Rewiring one’s garage is a spendy home upgrade, and apartment dwellers won’t be able to recharge at home.
Do we have the generation and grid capacity to replace the energy of our gasoline and diesel use now?
Since the BEVs are more than 4 times more efficient than ICE cars, you don’t need nearly as much total energy as the fossil fuels.
Remember– “It’s the Money stupid”. — Re-tooling the world is another Industrial Revolution. Every single piece of the present infrastructure will have to be rebuilt. — Gr
Make no mistake, EVs are coming but forcing them along is an expensive screw up. We need to produce mass quantities of green power first which will take more alternative energy source or storage technology development.
No. It doesn’t take any more alternative energy sources than already exist. It also doesn’t require any more battery storage tech than we already have. It merely take implementing what already exists in Solar, Wind, Hydro and GeoThermal at scale and adding sufficient battery storage. Norway’s already at 90% EVs New Vehicle Sales and several countries are close to catching up.
Simply put, ICE engines are among the most inefficient means of creating Ground Transportation with most of the energy going to waste as heat and vibration and sound, instead of actual transporation…AND their Poisonous Fumes, Volatile Organic Compounds and Carcinogenic Particulate Exhausts spewed out every time they are driven are costing people their health and their lives every year globally. NOT counting the WARS fought over OIL every decade.
Time to move off of BIG OIL and the OIL Addiction as quickly as possible.
The destructive and polluting process of OIL Extraction, Drilling, Refining, Processing, Flaring, Transporting Fuel OIL and Gasolines / Diesel is beyond destructive to the environment, humans and plant and animal life on the planet.
It is said that energy usage for homes is 30 percent more than energy usage for automobiles. 53% of this home usage is for heating and cooling alone. Heating and cooling American homes uses nearly 70% of the amount of energy used by cars. Architecture and building standards have been woefully neglectful. It would be a much simpler solution to upgrade housing standards than to upgrade cars. Slumlords doing no improvements to housing creates more pollution than all the dirtiest running cars combined. Slumlords should be eliminated from operations just as easily as an oil burning car going down the highway. They can keep their dump, they just can’t rent it out until improvements have been made. The poor pay some of the highest energy costs per capita because of this greed. It makes sense to find the solution with an immobile object than it is to find the solution with a moving object.
Most of the housing energy solutions are passive in the form of insulation. No high tech to get in the way. Solar hot water heating should also be made a priority.
Sequestering of pollutants by biosphere restoration is a win win situation that is more cost effective than electrification of vehicles.
My home uses half the energy as my immediate neighbors because of careful planning. The cost was not that much greater, and it did not take costly photovoltaic cells to achieve these energy savings. All it took was super insulating the structure.
Sometimes simpler is better.
No. You have some good points about improving the insulation and energy use from Homes…that’s needed for sure.
But BOTH CAN and in some cases ARE being done at the same time. The problem with Automobiles is that they not only spew CO2…they spew WAY more poisonous gases, fumes and carcinogens from their tailpipes. The Toxic Emissions are literally killing people globally and causing health issues that cost $$ TRILLIONS in Healthcare costs. Cleaning up the tailpipes by NOT having tailpipes will be a Major step in reducing CO2, Cleaning the Air, Water and Land AND reducing Health Issues and Respiratory Illnesses caused by Ground Transportation Pollution.
“The problem with Automobiles is that they not only spew CO2…they spew WAY more poisonous gases, fumes and carcinogens from their tailpipes.”
I am glad you brought this up, because often unburned hydrocarbons are allowed to be at higher levels to lower the “boogie man” CO2.
CO2 should be thought of as a friend that can be dealt with through flora sequestration. Un-burned hydrocarbons should be eliminated completely even if it requires higher CO2 and NOX levels.
NOX and CO2 are not as big a problem in a healthy bio-diverse ecology. The main problem is humans trying to create a Martian Ecology on an Perfectly designed planet: and then foolishly trying to make habitat destruction acceptable with technological remedies.
Has anyone done an in depth analysis of the energy required to mine the EV components? How much of these minerals are required? The environmental destructiveness of the mining techniques? Lithium mining? Rare Earth Metals mining?
I suggest the EV and Zero Carbon folks get an education – here is a fantastic report on an analysis done to convert the World to Zero Carbon. Read it, and then come back tell me how feasible it is. It is in fact ludicrous to pursue Zero Carbon at this point in time, and phase out one type of energy before you secure the second type of energy.
Please take a review of this report here: https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf
I want to ask – where the heck is the academic and intellectual honesty? Go through that report, and then tell me the you believe going 100% EVs is realistic.
Let’s balance it out.
Never in human history have we gone BACKWARDS on energy density. A successful civilization depends on plentiful (cheap) energy and plentiful (cheap) food. We are moving away from that. Draw your own conclusions.
James from Arizona
Fossil fuels takes fossil fuels to extract fossil fuels. Plus fossil fuels have to be processed with fossil fuels to give us usable form of burning.
Once renewable energy is in place, the efficiency of the renewable energy system will be far far higher in efficiency than fossil fuels. Our health costs will go down, energy security greatly improved, air quality improves, convenience improves with BEVs with charging at home.
Well said Jeff. The continual desire to burn Toxic fluids that create Toxic Fumes and particulate matter, which pollutes the world, sickens and causes respiratory diseases in humans and animals, while supporting regimes and Cartels like OPEC+ that specifically try and INCREASE the costs of Energy would be befuddling. If there wasn’t a clear “Bribery” and Special Interest trail from Fossil Fuels companies into the pockets of politicians and despots, who until recently completely controlled the majority of all Energy production and didn’t hide that fact.
Now people have the ability to be off that OIL Addiction by having a few solar panels, a battery storage and an EV. Without having to poison their family and neighbors from their tailpipe fumes.
There are articles out there saying EVs just can’t do what we need from them for sustainability. Yet, Tesla is making a car that people want to own.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a44598975/electric-vehicles-outsell-diesel-europe-tesla/
Sales of EVs surpass sales of diesel models for the first time in Europe, with battery-electrics holding a 15.1% share of the market, while diesels hold 13.4%. (Audi e-tron GT pictured above.)
Plug-in hybrids have seen gains and losses over time in different European countries, but hold 7.9% market share on the continent overall.
The Tesla Model Y has been Europe’s best-selling model in any vehicle category in the first six months of 2023.
Yep. People holding tight to their illusions about Fossil Fuels FUD…Pretending that Norway and other countries haven’t already show us The Future by going 90% New Plug-In Vehicle Sales. Their Grid works fine. So will the EU’s and so will the US Grid, as more people switch to Rooftop Solar and / or have Battery Storage to power EVs.
Fossil fuels are the harm to our climate by burning them. Less than one year’s GHGs to build out the entire infrastructure for clean energy and that is at most. Making the ommitment to building with less GHG emissions means we do it for even less. The solutions are present today for less emissions of GHGs and more solutions are on their way. The green energy system is in its infancy and will only improve. The FF system will only get more expensive with time and cannot get cleaner. It will always be dirty.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/02/1067641/busting-myths-about-materials-and-renewable-energy/
Myth #2: All that mining will be worse for the climate and environment than fossil fuels.
Again, there’s a good reason that this comes up: mining has social and environmental ramifications. But let’s compare the environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels and mining renewable-energy materials.
When it comes to emissions, the story is pretty simple: we’ll generate emissions while we build new energy infrastructure, but we’ll avoid a lot more by not burning fossil fuels. At most, we could generate up to 29 billion metric tons of greenhouse-gas emissions building renewable-energy infrastructure. That’s less than one year’s worth of the world’s emissions from fossil fuels today. And the story might turn out even better if we can work out how to cut emissions from steel and cement production or establish robust recycling for some key materials.
Yep. Correct. This isn’t even close to being a contest. It’s like arguing for Landline phones and Pay Phones over mobile phones. ICE vehicles and most Fossil Fuels uses just pollutes tremendously with a LOT more problems that just CO2 and is way more destructive to the planet and ALL the things living on it than any other industry on the Planet. Time to get rid of the Addiction to Fossil Fuels. It’s like BIG OIL FUD people pretend that Norway hasn’t already hit 90% Plug-In New Vehicle Sales…and their Grid is doing just fine. And the rest of the Scandinavian countries are right at their heels. Only people who like sucking on tailpipes and their money from the BIG OIL Majors are in favor of continuing to breathe Diesel and Gasoline Fumes.
Whether nuclear is needed or not, if you go further into the Wiki article and see that there are dozens of spots in the world at 90 to 100% renewable energy. What seems to be ignored in this conversation is the destructive costs of the extra human co2 in the atmosphere. I shouldn’t have to argue this point with the progress of climate science, but it just may be necessary in this forum.
Nuclear energy is this really expensive way to boil water and isn’t really economical. Solar, wind and storage beat nuclear energy economically and it is really not even reallly viable in our today’s society.
Repeating myself from the last article, the mining of the green energy economy is 535 times less than the fossil fuel economy. This should be obvious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy#Feasibility
Recent studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and desalination well before 2050 is feasible.[6][7][8][9] According to a review of the 181 peer-reviewed papers on 100% renewable energy that were published until 2018, “[t]he great majority of all publications highlights the technical feasibility and economic viability of 100% RE systems.”[10] A review of 97 papers published since 2004 and focusing on islands concluded that across the studies 100% renewable energy was found to be “technically feasible and economically viable.”[13] A 2022 review found that the main conclusion of most of the literature in the field is that 100% renewables is feasible worldwide at low cost.[14]
Breyer, Christian; Khalili, Siavash; Bogdanov, Dmitrii; Ram, Manish; Oyewo, Ayobami Solomon; Aghahosseini, Arman; Gulagi, Ashish; Solomon, A. A.; Keiner, Dominik; Lopez, Gabriel; Østergaard, Poul Alberg; Lund, Henrik; Mathiesen, Brian V.; Jacobson, Mark Z.; Victoria, Marta; Teske, Sven; Pregger, Thomas; Fthenakis, Vasilis; Raugei, Marco; Holttinen, Hannele; Bardi, Ugo; Hoekstra, Auke; Sovacool, Benjamin K. (2022). “On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research”. IEEE Access. 10: 78176–78218. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3193402. ISSN 2169-3536. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
News article: Shakeel, Fatima (12 August 2022). “The World Can Achieve A 100% Renewable Energy System By 2050, Researchers Say”. Wonderful Engineering. Retrieved 23 August 2022.
University press release: “Researchers agree: The world can reach a 100% renewable energy system by or before 2050 – Oxford Brookes University”. Oxford Brookes University. Retrieved 1 September 2022.
Sometimes I have to shake my head…
-Cars are dumb way to get around. Huge waste of energy no matter what you’re fueling them with, dangerous, require paving a crazy amount of land (carbon footprint of all that concrete and asphalt… ouch). Moving stuff long distances by truck? Likewise stupid. That stuff should all be going by rail and only by truck for final mile stuff.
-If we care about transportation emissions better public transit and walking/cycling infrastructure is a much better idea than making dumb cars electric. Hell, make WFH mandatory unless the employer can prove a need for in person. Tax the crap out of all forms of energy and refund via reduced income taxes so it’s revenue neutral. That would do more for emissions than converting everything to electric.
-We’ve been adding to the CO2 load in the atmosphere for 150+ years now. Our emissions are so hilariously out of control that any moderate improvements will do nothing. We probably should be funding the hell out of pie-in-the-sky energy ideas, carbon capture (could be that trillion trees, I guess?), GMO everything, and geoengineering if we want to keep our grandkids alive. Wasting energy is still dumb, of course, though.
“That doesn’t include the ecological disaster we are advocating in the name of reducing CO2 mining all these minerals, done of course outside the US with no environmental controls.”
Metals mining for ICE vehicles is green?
Significantly more so than mining the minerals required for an EV. Steel and aluminum are much more abundant and simpler to mine and refine than the red metals and those like lithium, cobalt, neodymium, etc. And the mining and energy needed to manufacture solar and wind….. don’t get me started.
Nonsense. The most polluting and destructive industries on earth is the Fossil Fuels Industries…and that’s BEFORE you count the WARS fought over OIL.
ICE vehicles AND ICE fuels constitutes the largest and most destructive mining / drilling / waste water / extraction / refining and processing and transporting of fuels industries on earth. It’s not even close to any other industry. Time to get OFF the OIL Addiction and not pretend that OPEC+ and the OIL Majors are somehow a good thing.
Yeah, the absurdity of that person’s comment above all else…like ICE vehicles AND ICE fuels doesn’t constitute the largest and most destructive mining / drilling / waste water / extraction / refining and processing and transporting of fuels industries on earth would be a hoot…except that Fossil Fuels IS so destructive. Not even counting the many WARS over OIL.
though i don’t need an auto, being a geezer in the walkable village of brooklyn. my favorite autos were hybrids. i’m bullish on mankind figuring out ways to move about and cleaning up the air and water………as we have for many centuries already. i’m with papa dave. EV and ICE and petroleum will be here for long long time. i too like to profit. i have traded byddy and tesla as well as the gas and oils. ……keep giving us stock picks papa. i like carrier stock as clean air is becoming essential and a/c life neccesray
A stock recommendation: Carrier. Thanks TT! That is the main reason I pop in here now and then.
Its been a while since I mentioned some stock picks. If you’re not a big risk taker, I recommend CNQ for oil and TOU for nat gas.
If you are willing to accept more risk, WCP, CPG, TVE, MEG, BTE, ATH are a few good choices.
All Canadian.
In the US, I like FANG and CHRD.
thanks papa. i’ve traded your picks over the past year or two. done well with them. your insights and willingness to share for our benefits is stellar. please pop in and give us more of your thoughts and picks. i wish mish would highlight some money making picks. i like aapl, jrs, inda, carr, mo,and JPM. JRS is a thin trade but nice discount to NAV. thanks again old sport. off to take the trolley to brighton beach. russians and ukrainian women all over the beach getting along. the food is amazing and so damn cheap.. brooklyn is a pleasant little village. i’m glad so many fly over people think it is a hell hole. the immigrants here kick ass. work and save and cook…….
Thanks TT. Enjoy Brighton!
Two things you need to remember when reading comments when it comes to reality on EVs and renewables:
1) This is a religion to many of these true believers, and you aren’t going to be able to argue with their dogmatic zeal of nirvana.
2) We can all do math, and can see that the CO2 required to manufacture these EVs, never mind power them, DOES NOT ADD UP. You can cover the world in solar panels and windmills, and you still won’t have enough power to run modern economies. And THERE is the key. The agenda of those forcing this change is not to replace 1 for 1, but to remove personal transportation options for the masses.
Let the market work… quit penalizing petroleum and other carbon based fuels, and quit subsidizing renewables…. and let the chips fall where they may. Tell me one thing where an industrial policy has been more efficient than a capital market. Good luck
“You can cover the world in solar panels and windmills, and you still won’t have enough power to run modern economies.”
Nope. Not even close. Where do you get this crap from? If you don’t really know, then don’t make it up. It just makes you look foolish.
It would take almost 200,000 square miles of solar panels to generate the amount of power currently consumed on earth. The land surface area of the planet is over 57,000,000 square miles. So less than 4%. And solar panels are being on floated on water as well.
Plus I didn’t even mention wind. We currently generate more power from windmills than solar.
But we are a long way from that much solar. It will take decades to build out that much. But yes, it is possible.
And you are assuming what…..no EVs that double the power production needed, and how often are those panels going to be producing peak rated power? Base load requires dependable, consistent production, and solar and wind do neither. Fact
You’re so far from correct that you’re either FUD-ing things intentionally…or you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
You DON’T need to double power production, when you have battery storage. You don’t need to run peaker plants, when you’ve got that storage either. The amount of Solar Energy that can and will be produced and stored as more and more Solar (and Wind) gets deployed will make your statements seem silly in just a few years.
Nearly every New Residential Building shorter than 4 stories is required to have Solar in California…most will also put in Battery Storage to cut the costs of relying on the grid. Leaving more energy / electricity for those who have not added Solar or Battery storage yet.
Thank you for proving my point about the religious zeal this brings out in people. Your analysis is sloppy, didn’t account for reality, yet relies on all these.. ” this [name your innovation] is going to be a game changer!”
There is literally no known way that there will be enough energy to create and run a fully electric transportation system, and when you look at the totality of that system, it’s questionable if there will be any net gains in co2 reduction, nor even have a positive impact on the environment.
Clearly, Larry doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He just makes sh*t up and hopes people will fall for it. If there was an ability to “block” Larry, as on the previous host site, I would. I despise having to wade through sh*t responses like his to get to the good stuff.
Larry can’t put any numbers on his comment.
Yet he claims that Facts and Actual numbers, like 90% of New Vehicle Sales in Norway are already Plug-in Vehicles is “Sloppy Analysis”. Those are simply the FACTS Larry. Too bad you’re trying to hide under your lump of Coal.
No Larry, sorry, you’re burning your Fossil Fuels at the Altar of your BIG OIL religion.
The Saudis through OPEC+ control the price of OIL and thus Gasoline and Diesel…and thus control your transporation costs, which impact your Food, Housing and Energy Cost, along with many other things. While you burn Gasoline and Diesel and Poison your family, your children and your friends and neighbors. You could just feed them cigarettes instead and switch to EVs and still sacrifice their lungs to your BIG OIL gods. The Saudis like your obedience and how you’re sacrificing your health for their profits.
It’s one thing to try and make money off stocks…perfectly fine but quite another to NOT understand Physics or Engineering, which you clearly don’t. Coal has already plummeted in usage in the Developed World. Oil will continue to do so in the Developed World.
We ALREADY KNOW that Transportation Systems can run completely on Electricity. There’s already countries that have made the move, have the chargers and EVs and are doing just great at 90% of ALL new vehicles being EVs. The US is only about 7 years behind these leaders but can catch up quick, as Tesla and others expand their GigaFactories in the US.
We CLEARLY Need to work on our STEM Teaching so people become more knowledgeable and not as susceptible to FUD from FF Special Interests.
The US military is a hell of an oil and gas subsidy…
100% Let’s start a few LESS WARS over OIL. Might have to send our boys into harms way a lot fewer times.
Nah, Apparently you CAN’T do Math. Solar ALREADY powers the entire WORLD. The ONLY reason we’re not a frozen ball of dirt and ice just a few degrees above Absolute Zero is the SUN. The LARGEST source of Energy in the SOLAR System. We can quite easily power the entire planet with Solar…as someone else commented, it’s a tiny amount of land. As solar has come down in price tremendously, Rooftop and Community Solar, plus Battery Storage will eliminate the need for as many transmission lines, as more and more people, communities and businesses start producing MORE Electricity than they need and have the ability to store DAYS worth of energy in their Battery Storage and / or vehicles.
OK, so batteries can store days of energy. But winter is how many months long? And in summer a heat wave can be a week long with no wind.
And as one poster mentioned the heavier cars due to batteries cause faster damage to roads, how will they get the extra bitumen required to repair roads considering that it currently is a product of the oil industry, or the fly ash in concrete roads comes from coal power plants. Yes there are other sources but nothing is carbon neutral.
No one proposes stopping all oil production.
EVs are going to be the future because they’ll cost less to make, they’ll be more reliable, and will cost less to maintain. But, that doesn’t mean every vehicle will be an EV or that oil won’t be used for purposes other than gasoline production.
OK. Show me the math.
The whole plan is more than idiotically impossible, it’s not supposed to work. Just go to the U.N. website and check out all their agendas. If they don’t break everything, they won’t be able to make your life unlivable. And this “transition” will certainly break everything. Don’t worry though, they’re doing a pretty good job on breaking everything else as well. Just remember, you’re screwed because you are too cowardly to question your god authority.
Stop the nonsense. Norway’s already at 90% Plug-In New Vehicle Sales. NOTHING Broke. Nothing will Break. The transition is already well under way in Europe and China. The Crybabies here in the US are full of Fossil Fuels FUD. Nearly every building in the US and Europe is wired for Electricity. Most people drive less than 40 miles per day. You can trickle charge that from a 110 or even faster from 220 / 240.
Are you telling me in Europe, the roads aren’t collapsing because an EV SUV weighs a lot more than a gas compact car? Or the grid hasn’t melted from all the charging? The extra pollution from the power plants isn’t making downtown Paris like Mumbai?
Have a relative moving away from the DC area (good for them), and they had a helluva time selling their lawnmower, because it was gas.
That Brainwashing is powerful stuff.
Yes. Because LOUD, Unfiltered Gas Engines that pour Poisonous Fumes, Carcinogens, and Volatile Organic compounds out into the air we’re breathing are soooooo good for humans. Time to get off the Gasoline / Diesel Addiction. Quieter, more efficient and less polluting battery powered lawn and garden equipment is far and away the future.
You can get a new electric mower for around $150. You never have to buy gas for it or change the oil. I wonder why people want them.
Toyota promising a solid state battery in 2 years with much more range and 10 minute charge times. And cheaper. Maybe it solves a lot of the mineral and environmental problems with lithium batteries. But it does introduce the risk of spending $75,000 on a car that will be obsolete fairly quickly.
We can only hope it is as good as they promise. I am doubtful. I have been following the solid state battery field for 3 decades and have heard these promises many times, only to be disappointed every time.
A better battery would be a positive development, but even that is just one of many thousands of positives that we need.
A 150 KWh battery that charges in 10 minutes, 1/6 of an hour means a 900 kw charging load.
At 240 V that is 3750 amps. That is a lot of copper. (The battery in the Prius is 210 V, so using 240 seems reasonable for a ball park estimate.)
The local gas station has 10 pumps. To handle the same number of EVs it will take a 9 MW electrical service. I wonder how they will get the power there?
There are already Tesla Supercharging Stations with 48 or 51 and 100 stalls.
This isn’t remotely a problem. PLENTY of 12 Stall Superchargers already installed in the US and Globally. Plus MOST people charge at Home, Work or at destinations like Hotels, Parking Lots, Grocery Stores, Movie Theaters, Shopping Malls and other places where they spend decent periods of time parked.
Nope. Go look up Toyota’s comments about Solid State Batteries from FIVE YEARS AGO. Same story…Never Happened…just like their Hydrogen Lies.
Toyota will probably collapse if they can’t get EVs going better in a hurry.
Tesla Model Y has now passed the Toyota Corolla as the Best Selling Vehicle in the World so far in 2023. And Tesla is still ramping up its Texas and Berlin Gigafactories, which currently ONLY make Model Y’s.
It’s time for Legacy Automakers to change quickly…or go the way of the Edsel.
hard to believe anything we read anymore
somebody digs in and dang
Perhaps taking advantage of general media confusion over Tesla’s production and delivery numbers, Elon Musk claimed the Model Y crossover EV was the best-selling single model sold worldwide in the first quarter of this year. That’s not just the best-selling Tesla model; it’s the best-selling anything—more than Toyota Corolla or any other traditional high-volume commodity car or truck.
Problem is, on all the charts we could find from Tesla as well as from fawning electric-vehicle sites reporting on them, the company groups Model Y production and sales with Model 3 production and sales. Tesla delivered 412,180 Models 3/Y globally in the first quarter, and we can’t find the breakout among the two.
We reached out to Toyota for Corolla numbers, and the automaker reports it sold 740,561 Corollas worldwide in the first quarter of this year, counting all versions including the Cross. That’s about 75% more than Tesla, even if you count the Model 3 in with the Model Y. Sorry, Elon, not even close.
Toyota has been promising that for about a decade now. Not going to happen.
We never see the full CO2 footprint of an EV from sourcing, manufacturing, through EOL anywhere. We only here of tailpipe talk. How about energy loss through he charging process (probably using fossil fuels)? How about pyrometallugy or hydrometalurgy to recycle the batteries (mostly landfill).
Do EV’s actually add more total CO2 than ICE vehicles over their full life?
Kinda like the EU burning wood pellets that don’t count in their CO2 numbers, via technicality BS.
That’s been studied to death. EVs (according to the eggheads) win. And as batteries get cheaper/better (and hopefully we build more nuclear), they’ll win by more.
If you’re bored you can read the EPA’s take on it (lots of university studies are out there too) here:
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths
This is a nonsense Fossil Fuels FUD talking points.
First, “Tailpipe Talk” should include the poisonous fumes and particulate matter that comes out of those Tailpipes. You poison yourself, your family, your friends and your neighbors every single time you start up your Fossil Fuels ICE vehicle
Second, Electricity is WAY more efficient than Fossil Fuels ICE powered vehicles, where the energy loss is much higher. When you BURN something for fuel in an engine, the heat loss is huge, along with noise and vibration. NONE of those are issues with EVs.
EV batteries ARE recyclable and ICE vehicles have to burn fuel for EVER…no recycling available for the gasoline / diesel because you burn it all.
Fossil Fuels is the dirtiest and most destructive industry that man has ever created. It poisons our Air, Water, Land, People and Animals. WARS are started and fought over OIL and BIG OIL spends a lot of its time trying to restrict supplies to jack up prices. OPEC+ assisted by the BIG OIL Majors are more than happy to reduce supply to jack up the costs for OIL and Gasoline / Diesel.
The Time for Fossil Fuels, especially for Ground Transportation is at an end. By the end of this decade it won’t even be a discussion. Norway won’t be the only country at 90% New Plug-In Vehicles Sold. Plenty of others will be right there with them.
Perspective.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-total-energy-supply-by-source-1971-2019
Poisonous particular matter is also produced by wear and tear of tires.
EVs are way more heavy and hence cause more rubber pollution.
Also the roads suffer under the extra weight of EVs.
See also the cited comment “Key Point on Truck Weight”.
Ignored in calculations is the energy-cost of maintenance of roads.
In the past a rule of thumb was that this was 25%, along with 50% for fuel and 25% for manufacturing.
In relation to EVs, this might be respectively 40%, 25% and 35%.
Recycling of EVs are impossible, just like smartphones, which contain 60-70 chemical elements ( rare earth minerals etc.), it is not just the battery that may explode and sink a ferry.
Talking about boats, do you know how much cruise ships pollute ?
E.g. last year Europe’s 218 cruise ships emitted as many sulfur oxides (SOx) as 1 billion cars, apart from dumping oil into the oceans.
A farmer : EV can save me 30 miles rd trip to fill the tank. My 20Y old pickup truck is good enough for me. I heard that loaded EV going uphill, on dirt roads, are losing power. I need a pickup truck to do a job. I am not a beagle dog.
You heard wrong…but pretend that ICE vehicles have a future. There’s already plenty of people using them uphill and on dirt roads.
Show me an EV truck that can haul 10 round bales of hay, or 12 cows, 50 miles in the Texas heat, that doesn’t cost an absolute fortune. And the nearest charging port is almost an hour away, in the opposite direction, so I would have to wire up a 240v port at my house.
My paid-off 2007 Dodge will handle it with only a few minor complaints, so I will skip the ridiculously expensive virtue signaling.
Y’all have got to come to terms with two facts:
First, EVs are an absolute non-starter for anyone rural. Which is about 19% of the country, according to census.gov.
And second, and more importantly, EVs are an impossibility for anyone living paycheck to paycheck (or worse), which is 58-63%, depending on where you look for the answer.
It would have made infinitely more sense for hybrid vehicles to have gotten this massive push.
The cost of the energy transition this century will measure in the tens of trillions. And it is unlikely to be very successful in slowing global warming to the “degree” that was hoped for. We have probably already lost the ability to prevent hitting the 1.5 C level. I suspect we are headed for 2C or worse. Which means the cost of global warming will also be in the tens of trillions.
It is difficult for mankind to focus their pattention on this costly problem, partly because it is a multi-century problem, and there are always so many more immediate problems to deal with.
So we will keep attempting to adapt to the heat domes, wildfires, droughts, massive rainfalls, floods, etc that continue to increase in frequency and intensity. Like the frog in the pot of slowly warming water, we will continue to be complacent, and become conditioned to accept the “new normal” weather. There will be more “indoor” days, as it becomes too dangerous to go outside.
As always, there is nothing I can do about this global problem, except to adapt to it myself and to also look for the opportunity to profit from it.
I have done very “well”’with my oil and gas stocks over the last 3 years.
Got oil?
We’ll dump aerosols in the stratosphere before 20 years is out, mark my words.
It’s cheaper than Lagrange shielding and easy to reverse. And any moderately functional country could pull it off relatively easily, you wouldn’t even need a global effort or necessarily even consensus.
But yeah, the warming is a done deal. Driving around in a 3500 pound EV because it’s slightly more efficient than your old gas guzzler is a bad joke if what you’re concerned about is the climate.
Me, I like EVs because they’re so cheap to operate and waste less of my time on dumb maintenance.
I did like the “plant a trillion trees” idea, though. Nobody apparently did the math on how much of the US surface area that would require, though.
Aerosols are indeed a possibility. Desperate times will bring desperate measures. Very dangerous though. Impossible to know the the long term implications. Maybe we will get lucky.
I am ambivalent when it comes to EVs. Their numbers are certainly going to increase. However, so will ICE vehicles for the rest of this decade, worldwide.
And, we cannot increase living standards or grow the economy without more energy consumption. They go hand in hand. We will grow renewables for sure, but we will also increase fossil fuel use for the rest of this decade at the minimum. Hence, my call to go long oil stocks (US and Canadian).
Also, nothing wrong with planting a trillion trees . Every little bit helps.
Thank you, Mish. Those who believe politicians should determine policy choices for their country instead of the market, persistently prove they prefer to remain ignorant of history. Ugh, they also control the media…worse than Pravda
Politicians determine policy in the interests of their biggest campaign donors.
don’t need an auto in brooklyn. i’ll walk and have way more fun and 100x more interesting people watching and shopping………. cars are for fancy pants. taking the trolley to the beach tomorrow. 2.75 fed note cost. unless i jump the turnstile.
Not everyone is a millennial in Brooklyn and is satisfied paying absurd rents and 8 dollar lattés.
I do think the public transit system can take a lot of burden away from the silliness of an ICE to EV swap. EVs are hands down NOT an environmental choice. The carbon is just created outside of the view of the virtue signaler. Usually some poor kid in the Congo will be digging crap out of the ground so folks can show off their purity of soul.
i’m old as dirt. SS checks clearing………….lived all over the usa and vote in EU too………..
The Congo mining is for cobalt. Something that isn’t used in LFP batteries. The new ones that are going into current and future new EVs.
That only works if you live in NYC or a place like Brooklyn. Many states and/or rural areas do not have mass transit the way NYCers think it exists. It’s literally a pipe dream in most areas.
It’s the equivalent of telling a miner or general contractor to learn how to code. It applies until it doesn’t.
i lived up in redwood forest for awhile. you didn’t hear about the great subway system there?
Readers need to watch Oliver Stones movie on Nuclear Energy. He is right on. We can’t get there without it!
Problems are: 1)There are no “we.” 2)There never were, isn’t now, nor ever will be; anywhere particularly important for any imaginary “we” to “get.” Not “getting there” is perfectly fine.
There will never be a shortage of imaginary hobgoblins with which to scare and sucker the gullible and easily so into joining silly and wasteful crusades “for” or “against”, if that is what one wishes to achieve. Thing is: ALL hobgoblins are imaginary. All of them.
Slow news day?
To the truck weight posting:
Just guessing the dollar amount, but has our country not just spent hundreds of billions in the last 20 years upgrading our vehicle fleet so everyone can have an extra inch or six of ground clearance? How many of us suburbanites in Phoenix need AWD?
We’ve all got the goods and you know you’re the best driver on the block. The easiest thing now is to kick back and enjoy the roads as they return to their natural state.
EV talk is fine. In a few years it will be a non issue once it hits the wall. Globally most do not have reliable electricity, electricity or even toilets and that will be that. I know this is hard to believe for many in the US but It’s very real. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
I’m with the engineer in your first comment. How much additional power generation will be required to transition the entire ICE fleet to electric? How much additional power generation will be needed to overcome the intermittency of wind and solar? If we reduce our carbon output to zero, how long before China’s, India’s and now Germany’s introduction of new coal fired plants negate the reduction.
We have people who are really bad at math running the country.
It will take more electricity in the transition to final electrification.. The total energy used in the long run will actually be less than what we use today.
Ok. Let’s assume that correct. How much energy will it take and how many new gigawatts of energy need to be created in order to meet the demand? Any talk of energy transition without understanding the magnitude of the problem is bound to fail.
Do you think the party apparatchiks like Jennifer Grantholm, Gina McCarthy and Joe Biden are capable of delivering on such a complicated transition without folding to political interests?
P.S. Climate change is almost certainly overstated due to the same political interests. How many of Al Gore’s dire predictions have come to fruition?
Why rebuild the grid? rooftop solar & battery storage takes pressure off the grid. Charge the cars in the garage overnight. Added bonus of battery backup for the home if the grid does encounter issues.
Believe it or not, climate science is conservative.
Electric motors are about 4 to 5 times more efficient than ICEs.
Once in place, renewable energy has very low losses compared to fossil fuels. Gasoline needs to be processed before we can burn it and then it needs to be transported. RE is delivered right to your door at very high efficiency
Our military is supporting transportation of fossil fuels through the strait of Hormuz. We are subsidizing fossil fuels for other countries right now just through that action and many other tidbits along the way. RE just keeps producing without conflict, without pollution, without negative health effects.
No way that is possible without a great decrease in our standard of living.
In total energy of fossil fuels vs renewable energy, there is less renewable energy needed to do the same work as fossil fuels. Electrification is far more efficient in energy use than fossil fuels.
It takes fossil fuels to make fossil fuels and then you only get one shot to use it. And then you start all over again. Transportation and preparation of fossil fuels takes about 25% of your total energy to make it. And then it goes poof in burning and its gone. Fossil fuels requires continuous mining with no end in sight.
Once the renewable energy is laid in as infrastructure, you have 15 to 50 years of continuous energy production. All you have to do is maintain it in the that time. With solar requiring the least amount of maintainence.
Fossil fuels cannot be recycled. Poof its gone, no longer exists. Renewable energy equipment can be recycled. Batteries, solar panels, wind turbines. There are valuable metals in them that can be used again.
Hence the mining in fossil fuels is 535 times greater in fossil fuels than renewable energy.
Changing out of a 100 year old fossil fuel system leaves some people stunned by it. It produces an emotional reaction to the change that is going on. Yet a renewable energy is a so much better system to build into than fossil fuels.
When you are walking through a parking lot and you can smell a diesel engine burning, you are breathing in particulates of which some can dissolve directly into your bloodstream. And its not healthy to do so in the long term. Electrification will change all this. Batteries, utility storage, and renewable energy allow us to have our energy with way less negative effects than we are living in now with fossil fuels.