Why do you call Chinese EVs ‘functional’? Even if they are not junk, a big if, they will have all the limitations of any EV - especially range, and charging time.
I’m sure by now you’ve seen the Rivian blaze in Normal, IL. The Gateway Pundit broke the news for me at least. DC is chock full of Rivians by the way. Okay looking but yuuuge for such an old city.
Well researched article. I hope many more people see this and recognise that the carbon lifecycle of EVs is more than it coming out of a factory and not emitting CO2 while driving. The reality is much more complex including where the energy for the EV is sourced, resource extraction in mines, production of batteries in factories etc etc. Many people haven't been exposed to the other side of the story because we're led to believe otherwise
Mental! Amazing article and very insightful into the financial ruin that is EV. Thanks for your continued loyalty to the cause. Your articles are more than worth the price of admission LOL.
As you point out, the only way Tesla shows a “profit” is with almost $1billion in subsidies, it’s been shown that the us govt allows them to claim multiple more carbon credits than even their fanciful accounting can manufacture.
Without those massive handouts Tesla would be as big an economic basket case as all the rest.
There are NO profitable “green” companies anywhere, they only exist due to massive govt intervention, stealing money from viable enterprises and shoving it at these loser industries.
Eventually we will run out, it’s happening already, the only reason it hasn’t collapsed is there are far too many elites that will be ruined when it does.
There’s actually an even deeper backstory re: those ongoing subsidies. It’s wonky, and we’re trying to think about how to write it in a way that isn’t. The $7,500 is the least of it.
Outstanding post, folks! Thank you very much. Being a nuclear proponent, I am particularly focused on "cradle-to-grave" concerns. The greenies seem to have little understanding or are even willing to acknowledge the pending waste disposal issues. It would be interesting to see a true, life-cycle comparison of energy sources. Mining-processing-construction- operation-decommissioning-waste disposal. Is anyone aware of such a study? Given their diffuse energy density, I would expect renewables to fare poorly in such a contest.
We're not aware of such a study but you got our juices flowing...... good topic for a piece. Worth some effort to research.
Agree on the disposal issues. We believe the fluff about "recycling" Li ion batteries oversimplifies the difficulty and underestimates the economic realities.
More broadly, we always come back to view the question of the metals required and the mining impacts resulting therefrom through the lens of the UN Brundtland Commission's definition of "sustainable development" from the late 1980s: "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
It is not obvious to us that future generations won't look at the choice to use these particular resources for this specific purpose and quickly conclude, "they used those for THAT and pretended that was 'sustainable'?!? WTF were they thinking!?"
Unfortunately, spending is rewarded politically-through increase in GDP a horrible measurement but I digress-profits are reward privately-increase in share prices-the inverse also holds true. Profits are privatized while risk/lost are socialized. Forcing us to ask the question what traded offs are we willing endure for the goals we want to accomplished. And what we see is that we are not willing to trade much for the stated goals. Looking at the data, what we clearly see is that society was willing to allow an increase in GDP-spending-to offset the amount of debt allocated over the years-inflation. The "energy transition" was just the medium. The evidence is overwhelming, we have spent over $5 trillion dollars so far yet fossil fuels makes up 81% of energy, emission is at an all-time high, coal production and consumption is at an all-time high, etc. Because if we wanted to a rEVoltion we would build out fission-current tech that works very well thereby lower the overall cost-with a war like effort complemented with grid updates. But what we got is a GAAP solution or as I like to call it: The shuffling of the carbon musical chairs.
Very true. The third big lie is the left’s long time conflation with government spending and “investment.” That is total B.S. Only investment by the private sector benefits society. Most government spending other than voting, courts, elections, and defense, is mostly useless and frequently detrimental. Unfortunately, most people don’t understand the concept of public debt, don’t pay enough attention to it, and generally think of it as an abstract issue that doesn’t impact them.
PS - I like “The shuffling of the carbon musical chairs.” 😂
We're not economists so maybe you can help. It almost seems to us like the West's $5 trillion+ "energy transition" (that's not going very well) was not only spending the dividends of past economic activity generated by FFs to kill FFs, but simultaneously borrowing against future economic activity that cannot - by virtue of the capacity of what those borrowed funds are building - every possibly repay the debt created for said "transition"?
Very well said 👏. I have a different view of the implications of our debt compared to most-which requires its own post, so I'll be breif. On the surface what you are saying making sense but the fiat system we currently have doesn't operate so elementary-otherwise we would have had Werminar Germany already. In sense we (The U.S.) have set up the greatest arbitrage system to have ever existed. We send people worthless-backed by nothing physical-pieces of paper in return for real stuff-iron, copper cement, uranium, steel, & most importantly 🛢. What we see on the books is an accounting representation of the "value" we have been able to extract. The interest we pay is a serect stimulus, getting dollars out globally. Not the way I would run things but the system is the system. Now their is much to said about inflation and how it plays out throughout the population-again it needs its own post.
Sadly, none of this is surprising to those that pay attention and don’t live on EV Fantasy Island. Yet, it clearly exposes to big lies: first, that environmentalists actually care about the environment. What far too many of them really care about is getting rich on the EV scam, getting subsidies for the EV toys, and taking in millions and millions of dollars to support their leftist (ahem, environmental) organizations: and second, that central planners have even the slightest clue of what they’re doing (destroying our automotive industry in the name of climate religion is only one example of many). As always, the market knows better: consumers buy cars to get from point A to point B. They don’t want more expensive cars that require them to wait 30 minutes to recharge (or that might simply catch fire in their homes). And they definitely won’t accept the inconvenience just because a bunch of environmentalists and politicians who are ignorant of physics, thermodynamics, engineering, and economics demand they do so.
Average Tesla owner makes $150K a year and drives 8400 miles/ year vs 12,000+ for average US car so benefit of CO2 is reduced (forgetting that US electric grid averages 0.86 lb CO2 per KWh so someone is still generating CO2.
If there were no tariffs on Chinese EVs, how do you think that would play out in the market? Do you think EV demand would significantly go up, because it's price that is the key limiting factor?
Great questions. If we're plumbobbing it we'd speculate yes in terms of demand. It's not supply limited, that's for sure. Whether price is the key limiting factor or not remains to be seen.
The one thing we can say with certainty is actual concern about the environmental impact of EVs by the people who purchase them is definitely not a limiting factor. ;)
I like reading your stuff because I want to understand all sides of this argument. You also seem rational and you don’t appear to be a denier of human-caused climate change (please correct me if I’m wrong).
Your comment about Chinese EVs further suggests that you have nothing against EV technology or electrification per se; it’s more a question of when and how we get there.
By the way, I fully agree that we should let Chinese EVs into USA. But isn’t it the case that China came to dominate EVs through extremely aggressive and effective industrial policy? Is your argument that western industrial policy is incompetent?
We believe human emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels contribute to some warming, but that it is not presently dangerous, and certainly no existential crisis. We also know that fossil fuel combustion aside, land use changes also contribute in significant ways to warming.
Our position is that EVs should not receive a dime of subsidy. Ever. (Nor should any other vehicle.) If people want them, for functional reasons, or for green bling to demonstrate their commitment to Sustainabilchemy, we encourage that. It's called freedom. But to backdoor mandate them by restricting tailpipe emissions for something that never was intended to or should have become regulated under the CAA (CO2) is not "how we get there". That's how we "get forced to get there". No thank you.
China came to dominate wind and solar and eventually EVs for the simple facts that they have become masters at stealing western IP, using low-cost labor and CCP subsidies, producing green tech effectively mandated into existence by the U.S. and Europe. Said what we were going to do, let them steal our green tech (solar/wind) IP, let Chinese State pick winners, subsidize the winners, outcompete the western countries to sell them the very green tech they chose to switch to, most of which is made in China. Yes, Western energy and environmental and economic policy are incompetent. That is the correct term.
Thanks for engaging with me. I don't agree with everything there, but it's internally consistent and I'm 100% with you on land usage. What's your position on subsidies for fossil fuel production and agriculture?
Always happy to engage with reasoned, civil readers!
Depends on what you mean by "subsidies for fossil fuel production" and "agriculture". Direct subsidies or indirect subsidies? Direct subsidies in western nations - bad. Indirect subsidies, depends. For example, ordinary expensing and amortization of certain oilfield infrastructure and expenses that are effectively no different that tax treatment of other capital assets for other businesses is not the same thing as handing a green tech company hundreds of millions or billions of direct cash, loan guarantees, etc.
This nonsense is how we have gotten to this point with such monumentally bad policy, no debate and endless lies allows crap policy choices to survive and multiply.
Has anyone done a global analysis of the TOTAL $ invested by all governments and companies to systems to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 15 years?? I would say it is a good $3-4 TRILLION, probably more. Yet all this investment has done nothing to “bend the curve” to slow CO2 growth. Yes billions of man hours of work, billions of tons of rock moved, Mega Billions of money made (and some lost) in financial instruments. Gee what could have been done with that money and manpower? Improved roads, build schools, train people for real jobs (doctors, engineers, technicians, nurses), build hospitals. But NOOOO! This does not even account for damage to national security by getting trapped with these materials being almost monopolized by China (see https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/infographic-electric-vehicles-need-imported-minerals)
The best we've been able to piece together is that the figures spent by the U.S. and EU, Japan, Australia and Canada run to about $5 trillion just in the last 10-15 years, globally. But it's late and my figures may be off.
The best that can be said looking at the data, which are clear, is that all the "renewable" efforts are simply reducing the portion of increasing energy demand being met by FF over time. As the recent World Review just documented, total oil, coal, and nat gas, all went up in 2023.
That $3-4 trillion excludes the massive investment by China. The real issue with the “Global” green movement is that it is NOT global. Do you think China, India, Bangladesh, etc worry about a little CO2 when they have major economic and social challenges and home and nearby. If you tabulate the population of the countries that have real Green programs, it is only 11-12% of global population. The Green Movement is absolutely NOT a global movement.
Great essay. A thing that gets me about the unceasing promotion of EVs is the notion that they are better in every way. I read a news article last year where the author suggested that EVs are an advancement on the scale of the change from horse and buggy to the first ICE powered vehicles. Bollocks! Even if you remove the problems of charging infrastructure and long charging times EVs hold no utility advantage over ICE vehicles. The ridiculous assertion inspired me to write an EV piece in May of 2023 titled: "An EV is just a horse that doesn't poop." Link below if anyone is interested.
I don't own an EV, but have talked with many people who have. Some of these vehicles DO seem to have greater utility, not because of their use of batteries, but rather because of their integration of lots of computing power. What I mean is that some people say that fully autonomous driving works and is amazing.
My counter to that would be that there's nothing inherent to EVs that makes autonomous operation more achievable. Elon Musk just made the push to integrate that technology a little ahead of the others.
Thank you for another well-done piece on the insanity of this NUT-zero crowd. These are the actual "inconvenient truths" of this scam. Keep up the good work!
Why do you call Chinese EVs ‘functional’? Even if they are not junk, a big if, they will have all the limitations of any EV - especially range, and charging time.
I’m sure by now you’ve seen the Rivian blaze in Normal, IL. The Gateway Pundit broke the news for me at least. DC is chock full of Rivians by the way. Okay looking but yuuuge for such an old city.
Yup.
Little Green Guy did NOT start that fire the week after that post!!!!
😉
Superb piece. Do you know Mark Mills’ work on EVs? It’s on the Manhattan Institute’s website.
Well researched article. I hope many more people see this and recognise that the carbon lifecycle of EVs is more than it coming out of a factory and not emitting CO2 while driving. The reality is much more complex including where the energy for the EV is sourced, resource extraction in mines, production of batteries in factories etc etc. Many people haven't been exposed to the other side of the story because we're led to believe otherwise
Mental! Amazing article and very insightful into the financial ruin that is EV. Thanks for your continued loyalty to the cause. Your articles are more than worth the price of admission LOL.
Why does China appear to be able to charge less and still make a profit on their EVs?
Brilliant. Chairman Mao approves. (*CLAP)
“….You ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow…”
😉
Thanks!
As you point out, the only way Tesla shows a “profit” is with almost $1billion in subsidies, it’s been shown that the us govt allows them to claim multiple more carbon credits than even their fanciful accounting can manufacture.
Without those massive handouts Tesla would be as big an economic basket case as all the rest.
There are NO profitable “green” companies anywhere, they only exist due to massive govt intervention, stealing money from viable enterprises and shoving it at these loser industries.
Eventually we will run out, it’s happening already, the only reason it hasn’t collapsed is there are far too many elites that will be ruined when it does.
Garbage top to bottom.
There’s actually an even deeper backstory re: those ongoing subsidies. It’s wonky, and we’re trying to think about how to write it in a way that isn’t. The $7,500 is the least of it.
Coming maybe Sept.
Outstanding post, folks! Thank you very much. Being a nuclear proponent, I am particularly focused on "cradle-to-grave" concerns. The greenies seem to have little understanding or are even willing to acknowledge the pending waste disposal issues. It would be interesting to see a true, life-cycle comparison of energy sources. Mining-processing-construction- operation-decommissioning-waste disposal. Is anyone aware of such a study? Given their diffuse energy density, I would expect renewables to fare poorly in such a contest.
Thanks!
We're not aware of such a study but you got our juices flowing...... good topic for a piece. Worth some effort to research.
Agree on the disposal issues. We believe the fluff about "recycling" Li ion batteries oversimplifies the difficulty and underestimates the economic realities.
More broadly, we always come back to view the question of the metals required and the mining impacts resulting therefrom through the lens of the UN Brundtland Commission's definition of "sustainable development" from the late 1980s: "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
It is not obvious to us that future generations won't look at the choice to use these particular resources for this specific purpose and quickly conclude, "they used those for THAT and pretended that was 'sustainable'?!? WTF were they thinking!?"
Unfortunately, spending is rewarded politically-through increase in GDP a horrible measurement but I digress-profits are reward privately-increase in share prices-the inverse also holds true. Profits are privatized while risk/lost are socialized. Forcing us to ask the question what traded offs are we willing endure for the goals we want to accomplished. And what we see is that we are not willing to trade much for the stated goals. Looking at the data, what we clearly see is that society was willing to allow an increase in GDP-spending-to offset the amount of debt allocated over the years-inflation. The "energy transition" was just the medium. The evidence is overwhelming, we have spent over $5 trillion dollars so far yet fossil fuels makes up 81% of energy, emission is at an all-time high, coal production and consumption is at an all-time high, etc. Because if we wanted to a rEVoltion we would build out fission-current tech that works very well thereby lower the overall cost-with a war like effort complemented with grid updates. But what we got is a GAAP solution or as I like to call it: The shuffling of the carbon musical chairs.
https://themonentaryskeptic703.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/136342172?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts
Very true. The third big lie is the left’s long time conflation with government spending and “investment.” That is total B.S. Only investment by the private sector benefits society. Most government spending other than voting, courts, elections, and defense, is mostly useless and frequently detrimental. Unfortunately, most people don’t understand the concept of public debt, don’t pay enough attention to it, and generally think of it as an abstract issue that doesn’t impact them.
PS - I like “The shuffling of the carbon musical chairs.” 😂
I try ;)
"The "energy transition" was just the medium.".
Yup...and we fear its even worse than that.
We're not economists so maybe you can help. It almost seems to us like the West's $5 trillion+ "energy transition" (that's not going very well) was not only spending the dividends of past economic activity generated by FFs to kill FFs, but simultaneously borrowing against future economic activity that cannot - by virtue of the capacity of what those borrowed funds are building - every possibly repay the debt created for said "transition"?
(came out unwieldy.... sorry, late...)
Very well said 👏. I have a different view of the implications of our debt compared to most-which requires its own post, so I'll be breif. On the surface what you are saying making sense but the fiat system we currently have doesn't operate so elementary-otherwise we would have had Werminar Germany already. In sense we (The U.S.) have set up the greatest arbitrage system to have ever existed. We send people worthless-backed by nothing physical-pieces of paper in return for real stuff-iron, copper cement, uranium, steel, & most importantly 🛢. What we see on the books is an accounting representation of the "value" we have been able to extract. The interest we pay is a serect stimulus, getting dollars out globally. Not the way I would run things but the system is the system. Now their is much to said about inflation and how it plays out throughout the population-again it needs its own post.
Sadly, none of this is surprising to those that pay attention and don’t live on EV Fantasy Island. Yet, it clearly exposes to big lies: first, that environmentalists actually care about the environment. What far too many of them really care about is getting rich on the EV scam, getting subsidies for the EV toys, and taking in millions and millions of dollars to support their leftist (ahem, environmental) organizations: and second, that central planners have even the slightest clue of what they’re doing (destroying our automotive industry in the name of climate religion is only one example of many). As always, the market knows better: consumers buy cars to get from point A to point B. They don’t want more expensive cars that require them to wait 30 minutes to recharge (or that might simply catch fire in their homes). And they definitely won’t accept the inconvenience just because a bunch of environmentalists and politicians who are ignorant of physics, thermodynamics, engineering, and economics demand they do so.
They're voting with their wallets.
Average Tesla owner makes $150K a year and drives 8400 miles/ year vs 12,000+ for average US car so benefit of CO2 is reduced (forgetting that US electric grid averages 0.86 lb CO2 per KWh so someone is still generating CO2.
Great points.
If there were no tariffs on Chinese EVs, how do you think that would play out in the market? Do you think EV demand would significantly go up, because it's price that is the key limiting factor?
Great questions. If we're plumbobbing it we'd speculate yes in terms of demand. It's not supply limited, that's for sure. Whether price is the key limiting factor or not remains to be seen.
The one thing we can say with certainty is actual concern about the environmental impact of EVs by the people who purchase them is definitely not a limiting factor. ;)
I like reading your stuff because I want to understand all sides of this argument. You also seem rational and you don’t appear to be a denier of human-caused climate change (please correct me if I’m wrong).
Your comment about Chinese EVs further suggests that you have nothing against EV technology or electrification per se; it’s more a question of when and how we get there.
By the way, I fully agree that we should let Chinese EVs into USA. But isn’t it the case that China came to dominate EVs through extremely aggressive and effective industrial policy? Is your argument that western industrial policy is incompetent?
We believe human emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels contribute to some warming, but that it is not presently dangerous, and certainly no existential crisis. We also know that fossil fuel combustion aside, land use changes also contribute in significant ways to warming.
Our position is that EVs should not receive a dime of subsidy. Ever. (Nor should any other vehicle.) If people want them, for functional reasons, or for green bling to demonstrate their commitment to Sustainabilchemy, we encourage that. It's called freedom. But to backdoor mandate them by restricting tailpipe emissions for something that never was intended to or should have become regulated under the CAA (CO2) is not "how we get there". That's how we "get forced to get there". No thank you.
China came to dominate wind and solar and eventually EVs for the simple facts that they have become masters at stealing western IP, using low-cost labor and CCP subsidies, producing green tech effectively mandated into existence by the U.S. and Europe. Said what we were going to do, let them steal our green tech (solar/wind) IP, let Chinese State pick winners, subsidize the winners, outcompete the western countries to sell them the very green tech they chose to switch to, most of which is made in China. Yes, Western energy and environmental and economic policy are incompetent. That is the correct term.
Thanks for engaging with me. I don't agree with everything there, but it's internally consistent and I'm 100% with you on land usage. What's your position on subsidies for fossil fuel production and agriculture?
Always happy to engage with reasoned, civil readers!
Depends on what you mean by "subsidies for fossil fuel production" and "agriculture". Direct subsidies or indirect subsidies? Direct subsidies in western nations - bad. Indirect subsidies, depends. For example, ordinary expensing and amortization of certain oilfield infrastructure and expenses that are effectively no different that tax treatment of other capital assets for other businesses is not the same thing as handing a green tech company hundreds of millions or billions of direct cash, loan guarantees, etc.
Can you clarify/narrow your question a bit?
The “subsidies” for fossil fuels and agriculture are basically nonexistent.
As a user of the term “denier” I don’t think you belong on substack as use of that term is a fascist tactic to shut down debate.
(It's all good. We don't melt or get shut down if/when people throw that term at us. The only thing that will ever shut us down is us.
And we view the term as reflecting poorly on the user. Bounces off us like water off a ducks back. Or steel shot off concrete.)
You can be nice, I have no such compunction.
This nonsense is how we have gotten to this point with such monumentally bad policy, no debate and endless lies allows crap policy choices to survive and multiply.
These people are the entire problem.
Now the biofuel bubble is bursting 👍 https://x.com/javierblas/status/1824017265869644008?s=61
Has anyone done a global analysis of the TOTAL $ invested by all governments and companies to systems to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 15 years?? I would say it is a good $3-4 TRILLION, probably more. Yet all this investment has done nothing to “bend the curve” to slow CO2 growth. Yes billions of man hours of work, billions of tons of rock moved, Mega Billions of money made (and some lost) in financial instruments. Gee what could have been done with that money and manpower? Improved roads, build schools, train people for real jobs (doctors, engineers, technicians, nurses), build hospitals. But NOOOO! This does not even account for damage to national security by getting trapped with these materials being almost monopolized by China (see https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/infographic-electric-vehicles-need-imported-minerals)
The best we've been able to piece together is that the figures spent by the U.S. and EU, Japan, Australia and Canada run to about $5 trillion just in the last 10-15 years, globally. But it's late and my figures may be off.
The best that can be said looking at the data, which are clear, is that all the "renewable" efforts are simply reducing the portion of increasing energy demand being met by FF over time. As the recent World Review just documented, total oil, coal, and nat gas, all went up in 2023.
That $3-4 trillion excludes the massive investment by China. The real issue with the “Global” green movement is that it is NOT global. Do you think China, India, Bangladesh, etc worry about a little CO2 when they have major economic and social challenges and home and nearby. If you tabulate the population of the countries that have real Green programs, it is only 11-12% of global population. The Green Movement is absolutely NOT a global movement.
Great essay. A thing that gets me about the unceasing promotion of EVs is the notion that they are better in every way. I read a news article last year where the author suggested that EVs are an advancement on the scale of the change from horse and buggy to the first ICE powered vehicles. Bollocks! Even if you remove the problems of charging infrastructure and long charging times EVs hold no utility advantage over ICE vehicles. The ridiculous assertion inspired me to write an EV piece in May of 2023 titled: "An EV is just a horse that doesn't poop." Link below if anyone is interested.
https://open.substack.com/pub/trevorcasper/p/an-ev-is-just-a-horse-that-doesnt?r=1qevah&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I don't own an EV, but have talked with many people who have. Some of these vehicles DO seem to have greater utility, not because of their use of batteries, but rather because of their integration of lots of computing power. What I mean is that some people say that fully autonomous driving works and is amazing.
My counter to that would be that there's nothing inherent to EVs that makes autonomous operation more achievable. Elon Musk just made the push to integrate that technology a little ahead of the others.
EVs have been the coming thing for 120 years, always a failure
Thanks, Trevor. I LOVED that post of yours. I actually go back and read it occasionally!
Thank you for another well-done piece on the insanity of this NUT-zero crowd. These are the actual "inconvenient truths" of this scam. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for being a regular reader and supporter!
You are most welcome!