Electric Vehicles

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

It’s all good. I’m not trying to be contentious, but I’m working from a slide that was shown during the review where GM pointed out their break even timing for their EV investments. It pretty much illustrates that spending is delayed, not cut. If I can find it again I’ll post it up. Now, the pullback on Cruise autonomous vehicle unit is another story. That funding may or may not ever find its way back.

***EDIT*** That didn’t take long. Found it. I don’t know how the writer of the article got shifting of funds from EV to buy stock from a presentation where GM showed the intent to INCREASE volume of Ultium powered vehicles, INCREASE the capacity to manufacture batteries and achieve profitability by getting EV volume to scale. This chart pretty much says the exact opposite.

The point is that no one right now - not Tesla, not GM, not Ford, certainly not VW, knows anything about their EV budgets. That chart and $4.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

[Rob3D]

This thread is worse than the great Stick Shift VS Auto thread of 2011.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Rob3D

This thread is worse than the great Stick Shift VS Auto thread of 2011.

Yeah, it just sucks that we’re forcing you to read it.

[MyNameIs]

Electric Cars Are A Scam
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2023
|
by Outside Contributor
|
236 Comments
The Scam of Ev's charging being better for Americans.
The left likes to treat skeptics of electric cars as if they were Luddites. Truth is, making an existing product less efficient but more expensive doesn’t really meet the definition of innovation.

Even the purported amenities and technological advances EV makers like to brag about in their ads have been a regular feature of gas-powered vehicles going back generations. At best, EVs, if they fulfill their promise, are a lateral technology.

Which is why there is no real “emerging market” for EVs in the United States as much as there’s an industrial policy in place that props up EVs with government purchases, propaganda, state subsidies, cronyism, taxpayer-backed loans, and edicts. The green “revolution” is an elite-driven, top-down technocratic project.

And it’s increasingly clear that the only reason giant rent-seeking carmakers are so heavily invested in EV development is that government is promising to artificially limit the production of gas-powered cars.

In August 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to set a target for half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 to be zero-emission. California claims it is banning combustion engines in all new cars in about 10 years. So, carmakers adopt business models to deal with these distorted incentives and contrived theoretical markets of the future.

In today’s real-world economy, Ford projects it’s going to lose $3 billion on electric vehicles in 2023, bringing its EV losses to $5.1 billion over two years. In 2021, Ford reportedly lost $34,000 on every EV it made. This year, it was losing more than $58,000 on every EV. In a normal world, Ford would be dramatically scaling back EV production, not expanding it. Remember that next time we need to bail out Detroit.

Then again, we’re already bailing them out, I suppose. Last week, the U.S. Energy Department lent Ford — again, a company that loses tens of thousands of dollars on every EV it sells — another $9.2 billion in taxpayer dollars for a South Korean battery project. One imagines no sane bank would do it. The cost of EV batteries has gone up, not down, over the past few years.

Ford says these upfront losses are part of a “start-up mentality.” We’re still pretending EVs are a new idea rather than an inferior one. But scaremongering about climate and a misplaced romanticizing of “manufacturing” jobs have softened up the public for this kind of waste.

In the real world, there is Lordstown. In 2019, after General Motors — which also loses money on every EV sold — shut down a plant in Lordstown, Ohio, then-President Donald Trump made a big deal of publicly pressuring the auto giant to rectify the situation. CEO Mary Barra lent Lordstown Motors, a new EV outfit, $40 million to retrofit the plant. Ohio also gave GM another $60 million.

You may remember the widespread glowing coverage of Lordstown. After Biden signed his “Buy American” executive order, promising to replace the entire U.S. federal fleet with EVs, Lordstown’s stock shot up.

By the start of this year, Lordstown had manufactured 31 vehicles total. Six had been sold to actual consumers. (Most of them would be recalled.) The stock was trading at barely a dollar. Tech-funding giant Foxconn was pulling its $170 million. And this week, the company filed for bankruptcy.

Without massive state help, EVs are a niche market for rich virtue signalers. And, come to think of it, that’s sort of what they are now, even with the help. A recent University of California at Berkeley study found that 90% of tax credits for EVs go to people in the top income strata. Most EVs are bought by high earners who like the look and feel of a Tesla. And that’s fine. I don’t want to stop anyone from owning the car they prefer. I just don’t want to help pay for it.

Really, why would a middle-class family shun a perfectly good gas-powered car that can be fueled (most of the time) cheaply and driven virtually any distance, in any environment, and any time of the year? We don’t need lithium. We have the most efficient, affordable, portable and useful form of energy. We have centuries’ worth of it waiting in the ground.

Climate alarmists might believe EVs are necessary to save the planet. That’s fine. Using their standard, however, a bike is an innovation. Because even on their terms, the usefulness of EVs is highly debatable. Most of the energy that powers them is derived from fossil fuels. The manufacturing of an EV has a negligible positive benefit for the environment, if any.

And the fact is that if EVs were more efficient and saved us money, as enviros and politicians claim, consumers wouldn’t have to be compelled into using them and companies wouldn’t have to be bribed into producing them.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist. Harsanyi is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of five books – the most recent, “Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent.” His work has appeared in National Review, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Reason, New York Post and numerous other publications. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.

[Rob3D]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Yeah, it just sucks that we’re forcing you to read it.

Lighten up. It’s just a little joke.

[MyNameIs]

EVs=Big Money Pit for Detroit.

[MyNameIs]

He be truthing....

[Silveradoss573]

Good stuff...����

[Martinjlm]

A lot to unpack in today’s Autoline Daily, so I’ll just link to the complete episode. It’s a bit over 9 minutes viewing time for those interested in viewing. The key takeaways, at least EV related, are

• EVs hit 1 million US Sales in a year for the first time in November; still a month to go
• EV sales growth is 4x market sales growth (but didn’t we just see a video posted here saying EV sales are slowing?)
• Interest growing in bi-directional charging
• Global oil demand dropping at a rate equivalent to Canada’s annual oil production. Canada is 4th largest oil producing nation. (US and Russia are #1 and 2)
• Daimler Truck reusing retired E-Bus batteries (as opposed to assumptions that Li-Ion batteries will clog landfills)

https://www.autoline.tv/daily/ad-370...onal-charging/

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

Oops:

FORD EVS COULD LOSE FEDERAL TAX CREDITS UNDER NEW GUIDELINES

https://fordauthority.com/2023/12/fo...ew-guidelines/

"Under the new guidelines, Ford EVs may become ineligible for the tax credit, which currently tops out at $7,500."

"The newly issued guidelines could severely impact the BlueOval Battery Park Michigan plant, which is slated to come online in 2026. The plant is the result of a partnership with CATL, which is licensing its battery technology to Ford. The automaker recently announced it will proceed with constructing the plant, albeit with a smaller footprint, due to lower forecasted demand for EVs."

This is not a big surprise to Ford, Tesla, or any of the manufacturers of EVs that will potentially lose half the incentive value on January 1, 2024. This has been written into the rules since day 1. What is happening here is that the full rollout of the Inflation Reduction Act EV incentives requires

1. Vehicles are final assembled in North America (+jobs)
2. Battery packs must be final assembled in North America (+jobs)
3. Battery minerals processing cannot be sourced more than 50% in unfriendly nations (ie - China, Russia, Iran, etc)
4. Active materials for cathodes and anodes must not be sourced more than 40% from or processed in unfriendly nations (same as #3)

The percentages for #3 and #4 increase every year.

Number 3 and #4 have always been set to phase in with threshold % increasing each year. So that’s what’s happening now. Tesla Model 3 and Model Y are eligible for full $7,500 incentive for vehicles purchased and delivered by 12/31/23. Starting 1/1/2024 the incentive value drops to $3,750 because they have more than 40% anode and cathode active material sourced through China, more than is allowed in the IRA phase in. If they can source that through friendlier nations they can get that piece of the incentive back. In 2025 the requirements for mineral sourcing (#3) go up again. In 2026 the requirements for both go up again. Both go up again in 2027. And #4 goes up again in 2028 and 2029. Every time one or both go up, different EVs will fall out of qualification for part or all of the incentive unless they change their sourcing to more friendly locations, including the US (jobs).

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

A lot to unpack in today’s Autoline Daily, so I’ll just link to the complete episode. It’s a bit over 9 minutes viewing time for those interested in viewing. The key takeaways, at least EV related, are

• EVs hit 1 million US Sales in a year for the first time in November; still a month to go
• EV sales growth is 4x market sales growth (but didn’t we just see a video posted here saying EV sales are slowing?)
• Interest growing in bi-directional charging
• Global oil demand dropping at a rate equivalent to Canada’s annual oil production. Canada is 4th largest oil producing nation. (US and Russia are #1 and 2)
• Daimler Truck reusing retired E-Bus batteries (as opposed to assumptions that Li-Ion batteries will clog landfills)

https://www.autoline.tv/daily/ad-370...onal-charging/

Great! Now we can finally roll back the subsidies and regulations driving this whole thing and let EVs sell themselves on based on their own merits, finally!

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by Capricio

Great! Now we can finally roll back the subsidies and regulations driving this whole thing and let EVs sell themselves on based on their own merits, finally!

Hold on, let me buy one first so I can get my tax dollars back.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Capricio

Great! Now we can finally roll back the subsidies and regulations driving this whole thing and let EVs sell themselves on based on their own merits, finally!

The main point of the incentives is not to get people to buy EV over ICE. The main point is to say, because it is clear that buyers will continue to buy EV, let’s get them to buy EVs that are made in North America (+jobs) using high tech materials that are soured in North America or friendly countries (not China, Russia, Iran, etc) so that even some of those jobs are staffed here instead of sending the $$ back to China.

In other words, since it’s apparent that our lunch is going to be eaten, let’s at least make certain we’re the ones eating it.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

A lot to unpack in today’s Autoline Daily, so I’ll just link to the complete episode. It’s a bit over 9 minutes viewing time for those interested in viewing. The key takeaways, at least EV related, are

• EVs hit 1 million US Sales in a year for the first time in November; still a month to go
• EV sales growth is 4x market sales growth (but didn’t we just see a video posted here saying EV sales are slowing?)
• Interest growing in bi-directional charging
• Global oil demand dropping at a rate equivalent to Canada’s annual oil production. Canada is 4th largest oil producing nation. (US and Russia are #1 and 2)
• Daimler Truck reusing retired E-Bus batteries (as opposed to assumptions that Li-Ion batteries will clog landfills)

EV sales - Sales are going to be 1 million yet over 20% of the car dealerships in the U.S. are writing letters to Biden telling him to stop because inventory is piling up. So maybe that 1 million number is not really that meaningful.

Growth 4x ICE - If I sell 100,000 of something and my sales increase to 150,000 my sales increased 50%. If you sell 10 of something and your sales increase to 30 your sales increased 200%, 4x mine. Big deal.

Global oil demand - Listen to the guy carefully. The predicted reduction of oil demand is for when the EV percentage is 40-45% by the end of the decade, not currently.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

The main point of the incentives is not to get people to buy EV over ICE. The main point is to say, because it is clear that buyers will continue to buy EV, let’s get them to buy EVs that are made in North America (+jobs) using high tech materials that are soured in North America or friendly countries (not China, Russia, Iran, etc) so that even some of those jobs are staffed here instead of sending the $$ back to China.

In other words, since it’s apparent that our lunch is going to be eaten, let’s at least make certain we’re the ones eating it.

With all due respect, and believe it or not I am basically with you on most of this, please don't insult our intelligence. Of course the main point of the incentives is to get people to buy EV's over ICE. To try to spin it otherwise damages your credibility... but certainly does keep this thread more interesting