Tags

, , , , , , ,

After yesterday’s EV article on the Mummified Meat Puppet’s attempt to destroy the American automobile industry and the economy, I thought it worthwhile to examine several more reasons why that’s an extremely bad idea, and why, if there is any sanity left in the federal and state governments, it probably can’t happen.  I mean, apart from the facts there aren’t enough rare earths and metals in the world to build all those EV batteries, and China has a lock on most of those commodities.  The SMM EV archive is here.  For another example, our national electric grid is largely old and wearing out.  Many of the components, such as small transformers, are made in China.  If one wears out, or a terrorist destroys it, it’s going to take a very long time—or never—to replace, particularly if China goes to war with us.  We don’t have sufficient electric generation capacity for our present needs, let alone what will happen when 70% of vehicles are EVs.  That’s not stopping our communist (blue) states:

At least eight states are planning to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars in the next decade – and others are considering joining them.

Only zero-emission vehicles can be sold in participating states beginning from the 2035 model year, according to the Advanced Clean Cars II legislation.

The rule, which was first adopted by California, means that automakers and dealerships would be banned from selling new gas cars in these states from that point onwards.

Which other states are that self-destructive?

Rhode Island was the most recent state to join the list of states pledging to ban the sale of gas-powered cars, joining Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington.

According to the site, the District of Columbia has also made the commitment.

Other states have adopted versions of the legislation, but not yet pledged to ban gas-powered cars entirely by that date.

For example, Delaware and Colorado last year finalized rules that would require 82 percent of new cars to be zero-emissions vehicles in 2032, but officials have not adopted 2035 bans.

New Mexico, meanwhile, announced in July that it will set annual targets for the sale of zero-emission vehicles and may adopt parts of the Advanced Clean Cars II legislation. But it has not yet endorsed the 2035 ban.

Yeah.  That’ll work.  This is a bit confusing:

Luxury electric automaker Rivian made several big announcements this week related to its expanding product line. At the same time, though, the company announced that it would pause construction on a factory in Georgia that received some of the most generous taxpayer-funded incentives in state history.[skip]

‘To enable R2 to be launched earlier and with a considerable reduction in the capital required for its launch, Rivian plans to start production of R2 in its existing Normal, Illinois manufacturing facility,’ the company announced. It is also pausing construction in Georgia: ‘Rivian’s Georgia plant remains an extremely important part of its strategy to scale production of R2 and R3. The timing for resuming construction is expected to be later to focus its teams on the capital-efficient launch of R2 in Normal, Illinois.’

This is confusing, because there are also a number of reports indicating Rivian is on the verge of bankruptcy.  It lost $6.8 billion alone in 2023.  That’s hardly surprising in that its current offerings retail around $100,000.  The R2 and R3 vehicles are supposed to be much cheaper, which must reduce profit margins, which would seem to be counterproductive for a company facing bankruptcy.  Gee, if they can only hold on until 2032 when everybody has to buy EVs…

But how about Fisker?  How are they doing? 

EV sales are up, but the companies that are hinging their entire existence on plug-in power are not doing so well. Production struggles, waning demand, and high interest rates are threatening to wipe some of them off the map. The latest is Fisker, the California-based company with big ambitions but dwindling cash.

Fisker said that there is “substantial doubt” that it will have enough money to make it through the year, the company said in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday. As such, it’s embarked on a cost-cutting spree, laying off 15 percent of employees, while casting around for more investment. Fisker said it’s ‘in discussions with an existing noteholder about potentially making an additional investment in the company.’

Actually, no, EV sales are not up, which is why Fisker is also on the verge of bankruptcy.  But what about Apple?  Won’t its decade-long EV project save EVs?

Breitbart News reported this morning that Apple has scrapped its plans to produce an EV, nicknamed the ‘iCar’ in honor of Apple’s notorious product naming scheme. The cancelation comes just a month after a 2028 release date for the EV was announced by the company.

Reports first emerged in 2014 that Apple was recruiting automotive engineers and talent from major car companies, kicking off an ambitious but quiet effort to break into the electric vehicle market. While Apple never publicly acknowledged the project, internal teams worked for years to develop self-driving software and test prototype Apple cars around the San Francisco Bay Area.

At its peak, Apple’s ‘Special Projects Group’ employed thousands of employees; however, the project failed to gain traction within a company focused on consumer electronics and software. On Tuesday, Apple announced it would be winding down the electric car team and reassigning some engineers to other divisions, signaling an end to nearly a decade of work.

My guess is Apple finally figured out (1) the EV market is cratering because enough Americans have finally figured out just how bad EVs are, and (2) getting into the auto manufacturing business isn’t anything like making consumer electronics and is very, very expensive. Duh.

The NY Post explains EV costs:  

‘Fewer drivers are interested in electric vehicles today than ever before,’ as ‘electric cars are inferior products . . . bad for the environment and damaging to the economy in hidden ways,’ explains Jason Isaac at The Hill. ‘The most obvious reason for consumer disenchantment is the hassle of charging EVs.’ On top of that, ‘cobalt, an essential component of EV batteries, is primarily mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,’ where ‘children as young as four labor in toxic dust, earning just a dollar or two a day.’  ‘Every EV sold places nearly $50,000 in additional costs on taxpayers,’ and ‘overwhelmingly, it is coal and natural gas that generate electricity for EVs.’ ‘The Biden administration should . . . let the free market tell auto dealers what it is consumers want.’

Wait a minute!  Aren’t D/S/Cs the party of caring, particularly about children?  Well sure, just not when EV batteries, locking down the country and forcing Covid vaccines, denying kids an education, drug deaths or sex trafficking at the border, and protecting Jeffrey Epstein’s clients are concerned.

OK, but what about Tesla, the American EV giant?  How are things going for them?  

Tesla Inc. is no longer a red-hot growth stock. CEO Elon Musk has said as much.

But even by that new standard — with growth forecasts on Wall Street sinking rapidly — the grim sales prediction from a key Tesla analyst on Wednesday was still shocking. There’ll be zero growth in sales volumes for the electric-vehicle maker this year, Wells Fargo’s Colin Langan said. And in 2025, it’ll be worse yet: volumes will drop.

The EV-maker is now a ‘growth company with no growth,’ Langan wrote in a note to clients. He highlighted that sales volumes rose only 3% in the second half of 2023 from the first half, while prices fell 5%. Tesla has cut prices in China repeatedly since late 2022, sparking an international price war.

Yow.  Only about 7% of all vehicles on the road are EVs.  Part of the reason for that is insurance costs.  EVs cost far more than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to repair:

*The 10 top selling EVs cost an average of $253 per month to insure compared to the national average rate of $157. Insurance for the No. 1 bestseller, the Tesla Model Y, costs an average of $261 monthly, while No. 2, the Tesla Model 3, costs a staggering $320 per month.

*Two-thirds of U.S. car dealerships reported they didn’t have a single EV for sale in a nationwide survey by Sierra Club. Only 11% of Honda and 15% of Toyota dealers had EVs in stock, compared to 34% across all surveyed dealerships.

OK, OK, so EVs cost a lot more to buy, insure and repair, but they’re better for the environment, right?  Right?

Electric vehicles release more toxic particles into the atmosphere and are worse for the environment than their gas-powered counterparts, according to a resurfaced study.

The study, published by emissions data firm Emission Analytics, was released in 2022 but has attracted a wave of attention this week after being cited in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Sunday.

It found that brakes and tires on EVs release 1,850 times more particle pollution compared to modern tailpipes, which have “efficient” exhaust filters, bringing gas-powered vehicles’ emissions to new lows.

Today, most vehicle-related pollution comes from tire wear.

As heavy cars drive on light-duty tires — most often made with synthetic rubber made from crude oil and other fillers and additives — they deteriorate and release harmful chemicals into the air, according to Emission Analytics.

Well, that sounds bad, but so does this:

The most popular EV in the US, Tesla’s Model Y, boasts a lithium-ion battery that weighs in at a hefty 1,836 pounds.

Another sought-after electric model, Ford’s F-150 Lightning pickup truck, also has an approximately 1,800-pound battery.

The study throws doubt on the practicality of the Biden administration’s EV mandates, which tout electric cars as ‘zero-emissions vehicles’ in a quest to force two-thirds of new cars in America to be all-electric by the year 2032.

No kidding.  But EVs have to be better and safer in some ways, don’t they?  Not so much:  

House subcommittee hearing revealed the extent of the hazard posed to firefighters and other first-responders from the effects of electric vehicle battery fires.

‘EV [electric vehicle] fires are fundamentally different from traditional internal combustion engine fires, and they present new dangers that our first responders need to be prepared for,’ said Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., chair of the House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology. [skip]

He [Olbernote] said that the fires from electric vehicles produce a number of risks to firefighters, including exposure to toxic gasses and electrocution. The fires burn very hot, can take hours or even days to put out, and are at risk of reignition.

‘As the presence of these vehicles continues to grow on our roads, so does the threat and danger of the fires they can produce,’ Obernolte said.

He said firefighters in Wakefield, Massachusetts, had to dump 22,000 gallons of water on a burning EV for two hours to put it out. That’s enough water to fill more than 300 bathtubs.

Firefighters in Sacramento, California, Obernolte said, had to create a makeshift pond to submerge a smoldering EV in because it kept reigniting.

Oh, this is really bad:

He [ San Bernardino Fire Chief Dan Munsey] told of a department that responded to an EV that caught fire in a Denver-area home garage. The responders used the blanket [a $4000 dollar fire-resistant blanket] to contain the smoke and gasses, and then towed the vehicle to a tow yard, where they dug a pit, filled it with water, and immersed the vehicle in the pool.

Munsey said the San Bernardino Fire Department is looking to buy a heavy wrecker, which is a large towing vehicle, and that will cost about $1.2[ million]. This will allow them to lift and move burning EVs. They’re also looking at investing in a ‘dip tank’ on a trailer that will allow them to submerge burning EVs.

Perhaps places like California with most of America’s EVs can afford that kind of expensive and specialized equipment, but most of America can’t.  

We keep hearing about alternative fuel types like hydrogen.  What about them?

Life’s always been tough on hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEV), and it’s only getting tougher thanks to Shell announcing the closure of its retail refilling stations in California. Hydrogen Insight reported that the energy company ran seven stations for consumer FCEV owners, six of them shut down immediately because of “supply complications and other external market factors.” One light-duty retail station in Torrance remains open at the time of writing while Shell tries to find a buyer (that would be the same one, pictured above, that Autoblog editor James Riswick found to be closed due to maintenance and ongoing parts shortages).

The moves leave Shell with three hydrogen stations in operation in California, exclusively for industry and heavy-duty vehicles. Shell will continue investing in that outlet for hydrogen, allotting $1 billion per year toward heavy duty H2 as well as atmospheric carbon capture and storage. On the consumer side, the focus will be on EV charging infrastructure.

The shutdown here comes two years after Shell did the same in the UK, and follows about six months of winding things down in California. In 2020, when a kilogram of H2 cost about $13, Shell proposed building 48 new stations in the state. California offered a grant of $40.6 million as incentive. Last September, Shell killed the plan and refused the grant money. Those funds, and $8 billion to be disbursed by the U.S. Energy Department in the Hydrogen Hub plan, couldn’t overcome the difficulties in permitting for stations, high build costs, fickle machinery, and ensuring consistent supply.

How pricey is hydrogen?    

With hydrogen fuel a specialized commodity for the general public, the small network of retail stations naturally charges high prices. To quote the California Hydrogen Business Council, “Currently, a kilogram of hydrogen costs between $10 and $17 at California hydrogen stations, which equals about $5 to $8.50 per gallon of gasoline” to cover the same distance. (A Toyota Mirai hydrogen car holds about five gallons of hydrogen.)

Want to guess whether it’s actually $8.50 or $5?  Wait a minute.  So hydrogen vehicles also have huge, heavy battery packs?!

Like electric cars, hydrogen vehicles require dealership service centers to exercise some special precautions. HFCVs have the same high-voltage battery packs as a hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or electric car, but they also have one or more armored, carbon-fiber tanks to hold pure hydrogen under extremely high pressure: 10,000 pounds per square inch (psi), or 700 bar in metric.

That’s a lot of pressure.  More pressure comes from the fact we lack the capacity for large-scale production of hydrogen for automotive use.

Credit: Roger Varley via Cowboy State Daily

Final Thoughts:  Are you, gentle readers, beginning to understand why alternatives to ICE vehicles aren’t going to work?  Do you understand why trying to force them on the public is going to absolutely crater our economy?

Our network of gas stations wasn’t built or subsidized by government.  Americans built gas stations because they are profitable, convenient and useful.  Without vehicles to fuel, many of those will go out of business, and so will the companies that supply them and all the Americans that work for those companies, and the local businesses that serve them, and all the businesses that supply those businesses, and…  One other thing potential EV buyers often fail to realize is when their EV runs out of battery power, they can’t run to a gas station to put a few gallons of electricity in a can.  They’re going to be paying for an expensive tow, and if they run the battery completely out of juice, they may be buying a new battery for a third or more the original cost of their EV.

Remember, Democrats/Socialist/Communists (D/S/Cs) live in their own reality, a reality they create and try, by coercion and ultimately deadly force, to make everyone else live in.  An essential part of their reality is they don’t have to live by the rules—the manufactured reality—they impose on everyone else.  As communists have always done, they must be allowed all the fossil fueled vehicles, including private jets, they want so they can fully exercise their superior intellects and morality to “improve” the lives of the little people.  We eat bugs, they eat steak.  We freeze in winter and bake in summer, they have all the heat and air conditioning they desire.  We drive EVs, they drive whatever they please.  Only they, superior beings all, are fit to tell the little people what they need and must do.

As I noted yesterday, it’s not about saving the planet, it’s about control over every facet of the lives of Americans.  Americans aren’t going to put up with that.