Four months ago, the Antiplanner observed that the market for electric cars was supposedly booming. Yet I was skeptical. Ford, Toyota, and other mainstream manufacturers were making very limited runs of electric vehicles, making it hard to get one. Others, such as Fiat-Chrysler, weren’t making any at all. Other than Tesla, many of the all-electric manufacturers such as Lucid and Fisker seemed to be mainly producing vapor-ware and what they did produce was pretty high priced. Only Tesla was doing well.
The wave of the future or a dead end?
Since I wrote that post, there were media reports of a glut of nearly 100,000 unsold electric vehicles on dealer lots. Manufacturers were forced to deeply cut prices, which still didn’t end the glut.
Now Ford, which got a lot of publicity for its F-150 Lightning pickup, has announced that it is postponing a planned $12 billion investment in electric vehicle factories. Even with government subsidies to electric cars, says the company, people aren’t buying them as fast as it hoped. General Motors is delaying production of the pickup that would have been its answer to the Lightning. Toyota’s chair, Akio Toyoda, is openly questioning the viability of electric vehicles.
How can Tesla make money when more traditional manufacturers can’t? The answer is that a large share of Tesla’s revenue, and the key to its profits, comes from selling EV credits to companies like Chrysler that don’t make their own fully electric vehicles. In 2020, the credits Tesla earned were twice as much as its reported net profits, indicating it lost money on the cars themselves.
Click image to download a 1.7-MB PDF of this report.
A new report from the Texas Public Policy Foundation says that the real cost of electric cars is far greater than would be suggested by the price tags manufacturers put on those cars. The report calculated that the various subsidies combined with regulatory credits totaled to nearly $50,000 per vehicle in 2021.
Ford, which doesn’t sell enough electric vehicles to earn EV credits from other companies, lost nearly $73,000 for each electric vehicle it sold in the second quarter of 2023. The Texas Policy report also questioned the cost of increasing the nation’s electrical generation capacity sufficiently to power large numbers of electric vehicles, an issue raised by the Antiplanner two years ago.
All of this makes me wonder if electric vehicles are the wrong solution to the climate issue. Perhaps we should stick with internal combustion engine vehicles but explore whether biofuels can reduce net carbon emissions better than battery-powered vehicles. There are still plenty of ways we can make motor vehicles more fuel efficient, including using hybrid electric motors. But to completely end net carbon emissions, biofuels might be the answer.
“The downside to biofuels,” says one website, “is the massive amounts of land that would need to be devoted to their production.” But the United States, at least, has a huge amount of land. The Department of Energy estimates that just the waste from some of our land uses could produce enough biofuels to power all domestic airlines. Highway vehicles use about seven times as much energy as airliners, but it might be possible to reduce that while increasing biofuel production on existing croplands.
Biofuels might be more expensive than fossil fuels, and they will probably require some adjustments to engine designs. But people who truly believe that climate change is a serious problem, and aren’t just using it to promote their social agenda, should consider biofuels as an alternative to EVs.
The biofuel scam is a subsidized monster tha’ll never die.
While the first generation of biofuels wreaked havoc on food markets by diverting agriculture food staples into our gas tanks.
The second generation wreaked havoc on the environment, by diverting tropical nations into growing palm oils and jatropa to produce in home fuel blends by bulldozing the rainforests.
The third generation of biofuels will ruin both and make matters worse. The taxpayer funded debacles of ethanol and biodiesel made from food crops did more harm than good, the hope for finding a substitute for oil had shifted to algae and cellulose. Both of which are scams……..
plant matter and crops have to be planted, fertilized, harvested, transported, and converted; ALL those stages use energy predominantly using fossil energy. And if Biofuels themselves cant meet the sustained demand to provide energy or feedstocks for those manufacturing requirements it’s a net drain.
All plant matter uses cellulose in it’s biology, It is too early to say whether or not cellulosic ethanol can ever be produced with a net energy gain as a result – at the moment, it is impossible. We can only hope that scientists will NEVER succeed, because what we do know for sure is that cellulosic ethanol will be an even larger threat than the first generation of biofuels.
Cellulosic ethanol is made using inedible parts of the plant…stalks, roots and leaves. It can also be made of non-edible plants, like switchgrass or stuff like wood waste, branches, tree trimmings, conifer needles, shit like that…..sounds like a good approach. However this leaves behind one crucial element; THE SOIL. In nature, the concept of waste does not exist. “WASTE” is food in nature. The so-called “waste” that we plan to transform into fuel, is an essential element to keep the soil productive. Leaves, twigs and stalks, even whole fallen trees are decomposed by underground organisms, or munched on by bugs and invertebrates whose wastes (Poo) feed bacteria and fungi; which turn it into humus that feed the next generation of plants and other organisms. If you take away this material, the soil will become less and less fertile until all you are left with is a mineral laden soil with no organic material, essentially desert soil. A process offset with more fossil based fertilizers, 2nd failure those fertilizers are good for plant growth but bad for soil health.
1st gen biofuels was reversible, we can decide any time to change our minds and use corn, etc as edibles.
A similar deployment of cellulosic fuels would destroy our agricultural soils, without any chance to repair them afterwards. We will have mined the soil – a process that is largely irreversible except with 2-3 times more fertilizer than we currently use. When the soil is exhausted, even fertilizers are useless. Just ask a soil scientist…
https://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=1
So “Algae” fuels , another croc cooked up by visionaires with no regards for physics. If algae don’t produce more energy than it takes to produce them, driving cars on algal fuel does not make much sense. And if they also use resources that are needed by agriculture, it’s a waste. To grow algae, you also need phosphorus (besides other minerals), an element that is very much needed by agriculture. Algae needs Huge volumes of water which agriculture also already demands. Some have proposed pumping seawater into sunny deserts but that is VERY energy intensive, which is why desalination plants are not built inland to meet Nevada, Arizona water needs. Just for measure it takes 1,400 to 20,000 liters of water to produce ONE liter of biofuel or 5,300 gallons to make ONE gallon of fuel. To make a million gallons a day in a serious manufacturing plant would need huge amounts of water.
Electric cars are simply lesser of two evils. Thou they require huge new technological mineral demands, electricity as fuel poses no threat to agricultural soils. Can be produced thru various means. The point is, electric cars storage medium is 80x less dense than fossil fuels, meaning 80x material demand per unit of energy storage is needed.
Of course we solved short distances transportation with another remarkable energy efficient technology year ago…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle
Electric bicycles! Yeah, maybe for young people who eat out all the time and live in expensive low crime areas with a subtropical highland climate.
For the rest of us?
Antiplanner wrote: “All of this makes me wonder if electric vehicles are the wrong solution to the climate issue. … explore whether biofuels can reduce net carbon emissions better than battery-powered vehicles.”
Here is a better idea – admit that there is no climate problem – it is all just a big scam – the “Climate crisis” is the greatest science scam of all time:
There is NO CLIMATE CRISIS!
THE CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS CHANGED!
5000 years ago, there was the Egyptian 1st Unified Kingdom warm period
4400 years ago, there was the Egyptian old kingdom warm period.
3000 years ago, there was the Minoan Warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
1000 years later, came our current warm period.
Climate alarmists are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years to stay on schedule. Not very believable.
The entire climate scam crumbles on this one observation because it shows that there is nothing unusual about today’s temperature and thus CO2 is not causing warming or any unusual climate effects that are frequently blamed on warming.
Evidence that those warm periods actually occurred:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/climatehistory.html
Evidence that the Roman & Medieval warm periods were global:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/warm_periods.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/page216.html
Feel free to disagree by showing actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming. (Or show your unwillingness to learn by posting a laughter emoji.)
Please note:
1-Evidence of warming, unusual weather, storms, floods IS NOT evidence that man’s CO2 is the cause.
2-Correlation is not causation
3-An expert’s assertion, government’s assertion, consensus of experts, polls or majority belief are not evidence. They are hearsay.
4-Climate models are not evidence.
5-Warmest weather in 100 years means it was warmer 100 years ago when CO2 was lower.
6-If an event is NOT unprecedented, then you have to explain why whatever caused the earlier events is NOT the cause of the latest occurrence of that event.
Evidence is actual data PRO AND CON with reasoned analysis and logical conclusions while FULLY CONSIDERING OPPOSING evidence.
—— MORE INFORMATION ON CLIMATE ——
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/historic_news.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/failedpredictions.html
https://wattsupwiththat.com/failed-prediction-timeline/
https://judithcurry.com/2021/07/11/5-minutes/
Even the IPCC debunks climate alarmism:
–>The Earth only warmed 0.78degree C since 1850 (to 2012). (0.48 C/century)
–>We do not have enough data to say that hurricanes have increased.
–>We do not have enough data to say that storms have increased.
–>Sea level has been rising for centuries, it HAS NOT RISEN FASTER recently.
–>There is little, if any, global scale changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods.
–>Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness
–>Prediction of future climate is not possible.
–>Evidence is here: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/ipcc_says.html
—-
Thousands of peer reviewed papers debunk the “Crisis”
populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
31,487 scientists, including Edward Teller, signed a petition against man made global warming: http://petitionproject.org/
CO2 follows temperature:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/VostokGraph.html
(Be sure to follow the links to the peer reviewed sources on DebunkingClimate.com)
http://www.debunkingclimate.com
https://www.history-of-geo-and-space-sciences.net/2021-05-26_hgss-2021-1_latest-version-of-the-manuscript.pdf
https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/26/causality-and-climate/
Climate Was Extreme Even Before Man Emitted Much CO2
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/historic_news.html
Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
Man only emits 6% of total annual CO2 emissions (Nature emits 94%).
CO2 only causes 26-32% of the greenhouse effect. (H2O is 60-75%). (Some scientists claim this CO2 adds up over the years, other dispute this, based on actual observations of CO2 isotope decay after the end of atmospheric atom bomb tests.)
1) Climate Alarmist Claim Fact Checks: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/alarmist_claim_rebuttals_updated/
2) Climate issues in one- or two-page summaries: https://climateataglance.com/
Book version: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/CaaGbook30vWeb2021.pdf
How environmentalism works: Create a fake problem. Scare people with it. If they send money, keep it up. If they don’t send enough money, create another fake problem.
Expose of the Multi Billion dollar Environmental industry:
ENVIRONMENT INC – Special Series in the Sacramento Bee: journeytoforever.org/bflpics/EnvironmentInc.pdf
They say its OK to lie: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/oktolie.html
Examples of their lies: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/lie_to_you_1.html
Russian Money: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/russia-articles.html
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/tag/Greatest+Scientific+Fraud
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-7-28-what-the-future-holds-for-our-climate-leaders
Onshore Wind power is ~7 times the cost of Gas-firing
Offshore Wind power is ~16-20 times the cost of Gas-firing.
Solar power is about ~10-12 times the cost of Gas-firing
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/11/Menton-Energy-Storage-Conundrum.pdf
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/07/11/top-climate-scientists-slam-global-warming-so-called-evidence-as-misrepresentation-exaggeration-and-outright-lying/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/20/column-the-humanitarian-horror-that-electrify-everything-would-unleash/
Books on climate: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Vinos-CPPF2022.pdf
https://patricepoyet.org/
VERY GOOD: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j69jIKMPqTDMwQCQVN451lXNLp22KkOe/view?usp=sharing
Rebuttals of alarmists:
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Challenging-Net-Zero-with-Science-download.pdf
This is why we won’t see an Apple Car in the near future. There is no profitable business model for EVs. Apple has to price the car ~90k to make a decent return. But the demand in the EV market is so low, it won’t justify the investment.