BMW Ends ICE Production in Germany! Mercedes?

Deaths are the only objective and accurate measure of safety. One is either still either breathing or pushing up daisies. Binary. With a death certificate.

Injuries can't be credibly counted. Every jurisdiction has its own way of counting that. And there are probably 1000 or more jurisdictions in this country, most of them with limited, if any, reporting up to the Federal level. Consider someone who is in an accident, feels confused and sore, with a huge bruise on his chest. When asked by the responding officers, he tells them he doesn't want help. He then calls a friend and gets a ride home.

Was he injured if it was never reported?

And safety is still, and always will be, a human driven factor. Sure, airplanes have autopilot. But you still need a pilot when taking off, landing, unforeseen bad weather, unintentional descents due to any number of factors, etc. And that's with a strictly controlled airspace. Roads aren't that controlled and drivers aren't that professional.

And there are limits to how much computing power can pack into a vehicle. And we're pretty close to those limits and have been for several years.

Self-driving vehicles won't happen. And until then, allowing drunk guys to fall asleep behind the wheel due to illusory claims of safety will likely be the death of this kind of technology.

 

There's a lot of bad news for EV enthusiasts. I note, in particular, that Volvo is pulling out of Polestar.
Mr. Bean Was Right – and So Was Toyota
Guest Blogger
What Mr. Bean and Toyota are truly saying to the world is that mandates – government deciding what can and cannot go to market – and the huge subsidies that…

 

Atkinson is right in that a broad view is important.

There have been years of serious work on other fuel types, and that work is continuing.

There are FABULOUS stacks of money being used in studying and creating better energy storage for all ranges of storage, from powering cell phones to cities.


Toyota even got to the point where they manufactured a hydrogen car that has been sold in California's two main population centers.

The 2018 Mirai gets about 312 miles when fully fueled. A full fuel load costs $180. That's $.58 per mile in fuel. Another issue is that there is a relative shortage of hydrogen, and the fueling stations have a habit of not having hydrogen available. In the car, hydrogen is used to create electricity to run the motor.

This is like an EV, only with FAR less available fuel and FAR more expensive per mile.



I can't claim to know exactly what Atkinson is actually thinking, but there is no slow down in the search for ways to store energy.

And, there is no reasonable argument against using the best technology available today.

 

Which is still the standard internal combustion engine which runs on common, easily available fossil fuels.

 

Unless an electric train gets its power from accompanying overhead electrical lines, they need diesel engines to charge the batteries and keep the train moving. Link: https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/diesel-locomotive.htm#:~:text=Batteries,the electronics in the locomotive.

I've got nothing against EV's, but it's a proven fact that their batteries lose a lot of their capacity in cold weather. I also have to chuckle as I listen to EV enthusiasts go on and on about how good they are for the environment, and yet they get their power from grids that are powered primarily by natural gas, and in some cases still by burning coal or oil. Why doesn't "Woodsy Owl" know about that?

. "Hey, don't rain on my parade!"

 

Yes, we don't have an energy storage technology that is sufficient for independent locomotives. But, what's your point after discovering THAT?

What I note is that electric motors are preferred for modern ships and locomotives. So, the issue becomes one of energy, not motors.

Burning oil on our city streets is not something to laugh at. Cars are not the most effective way to extract energy from fossil fuels. ICE engines are noted for being significantly inefficient and their exhaust is costly in health care. Besides, the cost of oil is internationally controlled, and thus spikes without our ability to have an effect. That was a major contributor to our spike in inflation, economists point out.

More importantly, our general energy plan is shifting away from the fossil fuels you mention.

As I've mentioned, in Iowa the primary source of electricity is WIND.

Wind and solar are improving in efficiency rapidly and are currently the cheapest form of new energy generation.

One can't expect an immediate change in energy creation, as it is cost effective to continue using our working sources. However, as they age out and as our energy needs increase, we will see continuing movement as per economics.

 

The best technology available today is the ICE.

 

So far, it seems your argument has been that EVs can not succeed.

But, that's not what is happening.

We're seeing EVs move forward in the opinion of the entire world, not just the USA.

It's taking new technology, and thus isn't instant. But, there are no signs of the incompetence you and your WUWT constantly attempt to claim..

 

And if the massive subsidization is taken away, ICE is the only technology that will continue to succeed pretty much worldwide.

One always has to account for market distortions, of which ICE never required any.

 

In terms of capability and utility, the EV is a step backward from ICE.

 

As I SAID, I have nothing against EV's... my tongue-in-cheek criticism is aimed at the hypocrisy in the 'environmental' lobby which extols EV's 'über Alles' -- while it blithely ignores the fact that the very GRID which generates the power necessary for EV's to function at all is itself powered by burning fossil fuels! It's also worth remembering that the dreaded Carbon Dioxide (necessary for life even to exist on this planet at all) makes up a whole, whopping 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere! -- "Wait! I thought it was, like, more than, you know, 40%!?"

But before you jump down my throat -- no! -- I don't want the Earth to be enveloped in some kind of horrible, "science fiction-esque" black cloud! There are indeed several other alternatives to fossil fuels, including latest-gen nuclear power technology and hydrogen (the Germans have big plans involving hydrogen now). And if we ever find a way to develop hydrogen-fusion reactors, that would probably be the 'gold star' solution, in spite of all the ancillary problems that have been identified in hydrogen-fusion research and development. Besides, under the best of circumstances, we wouldn't have hydrogen-fusion reactors for another fifty years anyway.... (I was on a staff that provided computer resources for nuclear-fusion research at a university laboratory way back in the mid-1970's!)

 

Tesla and some others would be profitable whether or not there were subsidies.

ICE vehicles do and have in the past imposed market distortions. Consider that reliance on oil for transportation has been a major contributor to serious inflation, as more than 60% of our consumption is for transportation while price is set internationally, including issues over which we have no market control. There are the issues of health impact on the public. Etc.

The subsidies for EVs were put in place to make it more possible for US ICE manufacturers to compete in the growing EV market. While that has perhaps helped, our legacy auto manufacturing industry continues to seriously struggle.

 

There is a better way of looking at the comparison. One can not rely on a simple categorical rejection like that.

We can see this is true by noticing that:

- an EV model is the highest selling car in the world, including the USA specifically. This is true even though that model is not advertised, where infrastructure is limited in some regions and where some states have law that provides headwinds against EVs.

- there are tasks for which no EV is sufficient at present.

This is not a situation that lends itself to a categorical denial of the technology.

One has to listen to the market.

 

Exactly.

The fact that our grid is still focused on fossil fuel is a problem.

None of your suggestions helps with ICE emissions - at least 12M barrels per day, with the final product burned on our city streets, where we then pay for the health cost of that.

EVs ALLOW for your ideas to be brought to bear on this problem

Today, Iowa's primary electricity generation comes from WIND. And, they are working on expanding their wind production.

Hydrogen might be good, except that today it is seriously expensive and is mostly produced by using energy to heat fossil fuel to the point where the hydrogen molecules separate. Toyota has been selling a hydrogen car, so this technology direction is being seriously considered. Hydrogen cars are EVs, by the way.

If one of your other energy ideas comes to fruition, it would require that cars be EVs so they can take advantage. They are all being studied here and around the world. But for today, the lowest cost new energy comes from wind and solar. Those are the economic choices we have.


Scientists know exactly what that concentration is - that's where you got those numbers. And, your snide remark about 40% is a serious miss as we would be DEAD if it were true. Small numbers does not mean little impact.

 

Then let EVs compete without subsidies.

Then we'll see if they're legitimately competitive.

 

It may be time for that.

The reason subsidies were created was to make it more possible for legacy auto manufacturing to catch up.

That seems not to have been successful. That will have an impact on industry in America, I think. Auto manufacturing is important.

Chinese companies are building major EV manufacturing in Mexico. BYD and GEELY make good EVs - competitive with Tesla. Making some law to prevent them from coming to America seems unrealistic - about as unrealistic as blocking Japanese brands coming to America the last time US Auto didn't listen to customers.

 

No. The reason for the subsidies, both monetary and regulatory, is the EPA's relatively newfound ability to regulate CO2. The only non-CO2 emitting vehicle is an EV. Sadly, it's just a major pimping for our descent into totalitarianism.

For reference:

But the elimination of those corrupt subsidies should be just a couple months from now when the Supreme Court reverses Chevron and obliterates EPA's ability regulate CO2 and mercifully shuts down this whole "climate change" nonsense, or at least make it harmless enough to ignore.

Then we'll see whether EVs can compete on a level playing field in a free market economy.

 

There would be far fewer EV sales if they were not so heavily subsidized. Even with the subsidies, sales are stalling.

 

No level of subsidy can defeat the market over the long term.
How a crashing second-hand market slammed the brakes on EVs
Guest Blogger
There is no reason why demand for second hand EVs will increase from last year’s level, and if it does not prices really will collapse. . . . .

 

Government subsidies of ALL kinds should be made completely illegal! They're nothing but political tools designed to manipulate the population into whatever 'behavior' a current regime wants to see enacted. How can it be fair to make "Peter" pay part of the cost of "Paul's" new car -- no matter how that new car is propelled?!

The responsibilities and functions of a national, Federal Government are clearly described in the Constitution and its Amendments, and nothing in there hints at some kind of alternate-reality where "Peter" owes "Paul" any damned thing but common courtesy and freedom to live life as one wishes, as a result of his/her own efforts -- without manipulative, smothering interference from the government! But, as we all know, starting over ninety years ago, Frankie Roosevelt set the process in motion to change all that....

. "Just give 'em lots of unearned 'free-stuff', Lyndon, and they'll vote Democrat forever!"

 

I've never mentioned it here, but my first name is actually Peter. LOL.

 

Subsidies have never been considered to be permanent.

Each year subsidies have been reexamined - whether they should continued, what cars would qualify (based on parts sources, etc.), what the income limits for buyers should be (I can't get a subsidy), etc. These have gotten tougher, but still exist.

I'd be surprised if this isn't the last year for subsidies. The number of EV models has expended, costs are coming down, legacy manufacturers have made their choices. Low priced models are nearing delivery dates.

As for the constant claims that EV sales are slumping:

https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/1...eases-year-over-year-every-month-of-the-year/

Why do you keep posting BLOGS from WUWT???

How long before you recognize that your site is bogus?

 

And yet investors are pulling out, companies are shutting down EV production and unsold inventory is mounting.

 

Yes, imho there is going to be a fairly long shake out, as there are a LOT of EV companies.

As of some time last year, there were 90 EV manufacturers in China, for example. And, startups are entering and also departing. There is a major battery company that is selling the "skate board" (motor, battery, frame, wheels) to companies that then productize. SKorea and Japan aren't very sold on EVs as they invest in hydrogen while producing a few EV models.

It's crazy out there. Being a venture capitalist must be scary.

Also, the used car market has real questions to answer.

Hilariously, the largest short seller on EVs is Bill Gates - a few years back he put a ton of money on Tesla failing.


>> But, that's not how one gauges demand.

 

Hybrids are well on the way to cannibalizing EV demand.