GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

We are becoming acutely aware of how much we want fossil fuel to go away.

China says a third of electricity will come from renewables by 2025

SHANGHAI, June 1 (Reuters) - China will aim to ensure that its grids source about 33% of power from renewable sources by 2025, up from 28.8% in 2020, the state planning agency said on Wednesday in a new "five-year plan" for the renewable sector.

China's total renewable energy consumption is set to reach about 1 billion tonnes of standard coal equivalent (TCE) by 2025, as the country bids to raise the share of non-fossil fuels in total energy use to 20%, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said.

China, the biggest source of climate-warming greenhouse gases, has pledged to raise total wind and solar capacity to 1,200 gigawatts by 2030, almost double the current rate, with plans to build large-scale renewable energy bases in northwestern desert regions.https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/china-says-third-electricity-will-come-renewables-by-2025-2022-06-01/

We have heard that story before, and what happened? Coal production in China soared and is planned to take off into the stratosphere.

The reality is that governments are not really worried about the wild stories of climate change related to CO2, reality trumps panic.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

51 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

We have heard that story before, and what happened? Coal production in China soared and is planned to take off into the stratosphere.

The reality is that governments are not really worried about the wild stories of climate change related to CO2, reality trumps panic.

For the umpteenth time. Coal production went up to replace imports but coal consumption barely changed.

China's daily coal output in April jumped 11% from the same month a year earlier, boosted by Beijing's order to increase supply to ensure security of the country's energy supply, but the volume dropped from a record high set in March.

The immediate outlook for demand is not strong, however.

The government has also urged regions that largely rely on imported coal to sign more contracts of at least a year's duration with domestic coal producers, to secure supply. 

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-april-coal-output-leaps-11-year-demand-downturn-looms-2022-05-16/

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[notsonice + 1,067]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Yes, it is the misguided Green agenda which has discouraged refinery capacity and helped to drive up the price of oil.

More babble from the Babbler Ecochump

Trump was the King of refinery closures, not the Green agenda.......

 

reality the main reason capacity shrunk under Trump was the 2019 fire in Philadelphia which destroyed a refinery (now tell me how this was related to renewables) Plus closures in 2020 related to the fall in demand due to Trumps failed COVID response in 2020 (thanks to Trumps babbling about a virus that would go away by itself)

total U.S. operable capacity  closed in the past 5 years

• 2019 Fire......The Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 335,000 b/cd
• 2020 no one one would buy it really was too old to run anymore...wore out.....The Shell refinery in Convent, Louisiana: 211,146 b/cd
• August 2020 The Tesoro (Marathon) refinery in Martinez, California: 161,000 b/cd
• August 2020 The HollyFrontier refinery in Cheyenne, Wyoming: 48,000 b/cd
• The Western Refining refinery in Gallup, New Mexico: 27,000 b/cd
• The Dakota Prairie refinery in Dickinson, North Dakota: 19,000 b/cd

 

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

52 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

For the umpteenth time. Coal production went up to replace imports but coal consumption barely changed.

China's daily coal output in April jumped 11% from the same month a year earlier, boosted by Beijing's order to increase supply to ensure security of the country's energy supply, but the volume dropped from a record high set in March.

The immediate outlook for demand is not strong, however.

The government has also urged regions that largely rely on imported coal to sign more contracts of at least a year's duration with domestic coal producers, to secure supply. 

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-april-coal-output-leaps-11-year-demand-downturn-looms-2022-05-16/

 

That old bromide of "energy security" is being used by the Chinese to justify a massive growth in coal production going forward.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

53 minutes ago, notsonice said:

More babble from the Babbler Ecochump

Trump was the King of refinery closures, not the Green agenda.......

 

reality the main reason capacity shrunk under Trump was the 2019 fire in Philadelphia which destroyed a refinery (now tell me how this was related to renewables) Plus closures in 2020 related to the fall in demand due to Trumps failed COVID response in 2020 (thanks to Trumps babbling about a virus that would go away by itself)

total U.S. operable capacity  closed in the past 5 years

• 2019 Fire......The Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 335,000 b/cd
• 2020 no one one would buy it really was too old to run anymore...wore out.....The Shell refinery in Convent, Louisiana: 211,146 b/cd
• August 2020 The Tesoro (Marathon) refinery in Martinez, California: 161,000 b/cd
• August 2020 The HollyFrontier refinery in Cheyenne, Wyoming: 48,000 b/cd
• The Western Refining refinery in Gallup, New Mexico: 27,000 b/cd
• The Dakota Prairie refinery in Dickinson, North Dakota: 19,000 b/cd

 

No one will invest in an industry where the government has declared war on the product.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

That old bromide of "energy security" is being used by the Chinese to justify a massive growth in coal production going forward.

No they are phasing coal out.

The Chinese capital Beijing will largely wean itself off coal by 2035, when its total energy use is expected to peak at the equivalent of 90 million tonnes of standard coal, under the municipal government's energy development plan released on Friday.

By 2025, electricity, oil and natural gas will each meet roughly one third of energy demand for the Chinese capital, the country's second most populous city of 22 million people.

 

Coal will supply 0.9%, or at one million tonnes, of the city's energy mix by 2025, down from 1.5% in 2020, before the fossil fuel is fully phased out in 2035, the government said.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinese-capital-sees-energy-consumption-peak-weaned-off-coal-by-2035-2022-04-01/

Edited June 1, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

IEA: Current Energy Crisis Is “Much Bigger” Than 1970s Oil Crunch

Back then it was just about oil,” Birol told the news outlet. “Now we have an oil crisis, a gas crisis and an electricity crisis simultaneously,” said the head of the international agency created after the 1970s shock of the Arab oil embargo.

It almost appears the Zombie apocalypse has arrived..enjoy the ride.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/IEA-Current-Energy-Crisis-Is-Much-Bigger-Than-1970s-Oil-Crunch.html

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

For the umpteenth time. Coal production went up to replace imports but coal consumption barely changed.

China's daily coal output in April jumped 11% from the same month a year earlier, boosted by Beijing's order to increase supply to ensure security of the country's energy supply, but the volume dropped from a record high set in March.

The immediate outlook for demand is not strong, however.

The government has also urged regions that largely rely on imported coal to sign more contracts of at least a year's duration with domestic coal producers, to secure supply. 

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-april-coal-output-leaps-11-year-demand-downturn-looms-2022-05-16/

 

Why The World Can’t Kick King Coal

By Felicity Bradstock - May 28, 2022, 4:00 PM CDT

• Europe has made some big promises relating to coal, but it is struggling to meet them.
• This month, Europe conceded that it will have to continue its coal production if it wants to meet the regional energy demand.
• Although the EU is positive that an increase in investment in renewables will help to create a balance, it seems to be greenwashing the effects of coal on the world’s carbon emissions.

Join Our Community

Despite big promises, Europe is acknowledging the importance of coal, as it continues to impose sanctions on Russian energy before having the necessary oil, gas or renewable alternatives ready to take its place. At the same time, the G7 is trying to help several Asian countries transition away from their coal dependency to less carbon-intensive alternatives. But can Europe continue its coal addition while telling others to stop producing the dirty fossil fuel? This month, Europe conceded that it will have to continue its coal production if it wants to meet the regional energy demand, as sanctions on Russian energy take their toll. The European Commission has launched a strategy, the REPowerEU plan, to increase its renewable energy production in order to reduce its reliance on Russian energy. However, it also stated that coal plants across the region may need to be running for “longer than initially expected.” 

The Commission anticipates an additional $220 billion in investment in renewable energy developments over the next five years if it is to increase Europe’s renewable energy output to the amount required to speed up the clean energy transition. And it is now recommending the aim of 45 percent renewable energy by 2030. 

While this demonstrates the EU’s commitment to the transition, the Commission expects the region will require up to $2.14 billion in financing to secure its crude supply, and a further $10.7 to meet its natural gas needs. With the supply of natural gas falling, EU climate chief Frans Timmermans stated “you might use coal a bit longer — that has a negative impact on your emissions.” But “if at the same time, as we propose, you rapidly speed up the introduction of renewables — solar, wind, biomethane — you then have the opposite movement,” he added. 

This wording seems like a classic case of greenwashing, particularly as many European powers vowed to give up coal entirely long before 2030. But with consumer prices rising dramatically due to oil and gas shortages, there may be little available alternative in the mid-term. 

Related: Biden Administration Seeks Restart Of Idled Oil Refineries

Just a few weeks ago, at the G7 talks in Berlin, Germany's Economy Minister Robert Habeck said that the G7 should play a leading role in the phasing out of fossil fuels, including coal, and encourage the transition to renewable alternatives. At this point, more countries across the region were discussing a return to coal to avoid damaging energy shortages. But, according to Reuters, a draft communique outlines the commitment from the G7 to phase out coal by the end of the decade – although a pushback was expected from the U.S. and Japan.

Habeck said that the sanctions being imposed on Russian energy should provide the “first step to quickly exit fossil fuel energy altogether.” John Kerry, the climate envoy for the U.S., also voiced his concern over the war’s interference with global climate goals. “It is absolutely critical, that we heed the science that dictates that we must accelerate our efforts for conversion to independence, to renewable energy,” he stated at the conference. 

At the same time as the European Commission is starting its ongoing reliance on coal, the G7 is encouraging India, Indonesia, and Vietnam to reduce their dependence on coal power plants. The seven powers in the organization will establish a strategy to support developing countries in their plans to phase out coal. The G7 already pledged $8.5 billion in funding for South Africa to help it switch from coal plants to renewable alternatives. This initiative would see the expansion of the scheme across other regions. The scheme will receive additional financing from the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

While funding the transition away from coal to renewable energy developments is a positive step, the organization may appear someone hypocritical in its approach, with France, Germany, and Italy forming almost half of the G7. If EU countries cannot reduce their reliance on the dirtiest fossil fuel, it seems contradictory to ask several developing nations to do just that. 

While there is a clear need to find a mid-term alternative to Russian oil and gas, Europe’s ongoing reliance on coal is a step backward in reducing global carbon emissions. Although the European Commission is positive that an increase in investment in renewable energy will help to create a balance, it appears to be greenwashing the detrimental effects of coal on the world’s carbon emissions. In addition, asking developing countries in Asia to substantially reduce their dependence on coal, while continuing to rely on it itself, is somewhat contradictory and may hinder the effort to encourage a worldwide movement away from coal. 

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

And you really believe the Chinese ??  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

10 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Why The World Can’t Kick King Coal

By Felicity Bradstock - May 28, 2022, 4:00 PM CDT

• Europe has made some big promises relating to coal, but it is struggling to meet them.
• This month, Europe conceded that it will have to continue its coal production if it wants to meet the regional energy demand.
• Although the EU is positive that an increase in investment in renewables will help to create a balance, it seems to be greenwashing the effects of coal on the world’s carbon emissions.

Join Our Community

Despite big promises, Europe is acknowledging the importance of coal, as it continues to impose sanctions on Russian energy before having the necessary oil, gas or renewable alternatives ready to take its place. At the same time, the G7 is trying to help several Asian countries transition away from their coal dependency to less carbon-intensive alternatives. But can Europe continue its coal addition while telling others to stop producing the dirty fossil fuel? This month, Europe conceded that it will have to continue its coal production if it wants to meet the regional energy demand, as sanctions on Russian energy take their toll. The European Commission has launched a strategy, the REPowerEU plan, to increase its renewable energy production in order to reduce its reliance on Russian energy. However, it also stated that coal plants across the region may need to be running for “longer than initially expected.” 

The Commission anticipates an additional $220 billion in investment in renewable energy developments over the next five years if it is to increase Europe’s renewable energy output to the amount required to speed up the clean energy transition. And it is now recommending the aim of 45 percent renewable energy by 2030. 

While this demonstrates the EU’s commitment to the transition, the Commission expects the region will require up to $2.14 billion in financing to secure its crude supply, and a further $10.7 to meet its natural gas needs. With the supply of natural gas falling, EU climate chief Frans Timmermans stated “you might use coal a bit longer — that has a negative impact on your emissions.” But “if at the same time, as we propose, you rapidly speed up the introduction of renewables — solar, wind, biomethane — you then have the opposite movement,” he added. 

This wording seems like a classic case of greenwashing, particularly as many European powers vowed to give up coal entirely long before 2030. But with consumer prices rising dramatically due to oil and gas shortages, there may be little available alternative in the mid-term. 

Related: Biden Administration Seeks Restart Of Idled Oil Refineries

Just a few weeks ago, at the G7 talks in Berlin, Germany's Economy Minister Robert Habeck said that the G7 should play a leading role in the phasing out of fossil fuels, including coal, and encourage the transition to renewable alternatives. At this point, more countries across the region were discussing a return to coal to avoid damaging energy shortages. But, according to Reuters, a draft communique outlines the commitment from the G7 to phase out coal by the end of the decade – although a pushback was expected from the U.S. and Japan.

Habeck said that the sanctions being imposed on Russian energy should provide the “first step to quickly exit fossil fuel energy altogether.” John Kerry, the climate envoy for the U.S., also voiced his concern over the war’s interference with global climate goals. “It is absolutely critical, that we heed the science that dictates that we must accelerate our efforts for conversion to independence, to renewable energy,” he stated at the conference. 

At the same time as the European Commission is starting its ongoing reliance on coal, the G7 is encouraging India, Indonesia, and Vietnam to reduce their dependence on coal power plants. The seven powers in the organization will establish a strategy to support developing countries in their plans to phase out coal. The G7 already pledged $8.5 billion in funding for South Africa to help it switch from coal plants to renewable alternatives. This initiative would see the expansion of the scheme across other regions. The scheme will receive additional financing from the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

While funding the transition away from coal to renewable energy developments is a positive step, the organization may appear someone hypocritical in its approach, with France, Germany, and Italy forming almost half of the G7. If EU countries cannot reduce their reliance on the dirtiest fossil fuel, it seems contradictory to ask several developing nations to do just that. 

While there is a clear need to find a mid-term alternative to Russian oil and gas, Europe’s ongoing reliance on coal is a step backward in reducing global carbon emissions. Although the European Commission is positive that an increase in investment in renewable energy will help to create a balance, it appears to be greenwashing the detrimental effects of coal on the world’s carbon emissions. In addition, asking developing countries in Asia to substantially reduce their dependence on coal, while continuing to rely on it itself, is somewhat contradictory and may hinder the effort to encourage a worldwide movement away from coal. 

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

And you really believe the Chinese ??  

So Europe had a plan to transition using Russian natural gas but then because of the war they had to change the plan so that coal sticks around a little longer but renewables are moved forward. I like how the dumb author called out Italy and France. Both of those countries barely use coal at all. They are both at 0.2% of world coal usage. A real nothing burger.

[notsonice + 1,067]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

No one will invest in an industry where the government has declared war on the product.

No one will invest in an industry where the government has declared war on the product.?????

it is true that no one has invested in a new greenfields 100,000 bpd plus refinery in the US since 1977...........yet existing refineries keep getting bigger...Only under Trump did the US lose refining capacity.

Government War on refining or the product??? what are you smoking????? 

Please keep babbling your ignorant rants ....

Edited June 2, 2022 by notsonice

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

No one will invest in an industry where the government has declared war on the product.?????

it is true that no one has invested in a new greenfields 100,000 bpd plus refinery in the US since 1977...........yet existing refineries keep getting bigger...Only under Trump did the US lose refining capacity.

Government War on refining or the product??? what are you smoking????? 

Please keep babbling your ignorant rants ....

Where have you been the last ten years...the government has declared war on fossil fuels. 

Why would someone invest in long term refinery capacity when the government wants to eliminate the product?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

18 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Where have you been the last ten years...the government has declared war on fossil fuels. 

Why would someone invest in long term refinery capacity when the government wants to eliminate the product?

So you are claiming that Trump made war on fossil fuels and that is why refinery capacity and coal use dropped under his rule. That's hilarious!

[notsonice + 1,067]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So you are claiming that Trump made war on fossil fuels and that is why refinery capacity and coal use dropped under his rule. That's hilarious!

Ecochump stated .........Oil companies don't appear to be interested in reopening shutdown refineries, which is probably at least partially due to the push for renewables......

Which was not the reason that any of the refineries shutdown...

He loves blaming everything that he does not like on the Green Agenda and Biden....

Love the fact that his dear leader, Trump , was the guy who reigned over the refinery closures....

I enjoy watching him eat crow......

 

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So you are claiming that Trump made war on fossil fuels and that is why refinery capacity and coal use dropped under his rule. That's hilarious!

No, Trump was pro fossil fuel, the current guy and his people are in the midst of a war against oil.

That is why oil refinery capacity will not increase any time soon, until government policy changes.

We live in the present....time for you to wake up.

Edited June 2, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

Demand for oil is maintaining high oil prices going forward.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Jumps-After-EIA-Confirms-Large-Crude-Inventory-Draw.html

"Refinery runs averaged 16 million barrels daily, with the average utilization rate at over 93 percent. Refinery shutdowns over the last two years have strained existing refining capacity, with the industry warning this utilization rate cannot be sustained for long periods of time.

The fuel squeeze might yet get worse as summer season kicks in across the northern hemisphere while Russian fuel supply abroad shrinks because of the latest wave of sanctions from the EU.

“The crude oil price is $120 per barrel but the product price — what you and I pay for petrol and diesel — is much, much higher. The overarching theme is the lack of investment,” Amrita Sen from Energy Aspects told the FT this week.

“We are in this for the long haul: potentially a decade,” the analyst added."

Edited June 2, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

On 5/22/2022 at 5:14 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Typical mouth breathing, knuckle dragging reply. 

Initiated by the usual suspect with the pork pie hat.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Initiated by the usual suspect with the pork pie hat.

Panama fedora. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Ford CEO Forecasts $25,000 EV Price War, Brand's Future EVs Sold Online

Ford's Jim Farley also noted that its online EV sales model will have non-negotiable pricing.

Ford CEO Jim Farley spoke at the Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference this week. He noted that he believes manufacturing EVs is going to become less expensive over time, which will lead to a price war among electric car makers offering compelling options for around $25,000.

 

It really comes as no surprise that Farley forecasted a "huge price war" on electric cars. GM's Mary Barra continues to reiterate that GM aims to beat Tesla on price, offering a number of relatively inexpensive models. Just yesterday, we learned that the 2023 Bolt EV and Bolt EUV are priced much lower than the 2022 models. GM will also bring a well-priced Equinox EV to market, and other models that start at around $25,000. Farley shared via Electrek:

"So I believe there will be our industry is definitely heading to a huge price war."

According to Farley, batteries are going to eventually become less expensive. He said Ford is working on its new platform to help reduce the cost of manufacturing. Farley also mentioned that Ford's electric vehicles will be sold "100% online," and prices will be fixed and non-negotiable.

https://insideevs.com/news/589721/ford-ceo-price-war-coming-online-sales-fixed-prices/

Sounds like he just announced the end of dealerships.

Edited June 2, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

Someone forgot to advise the President on a basic fact of public policy, namely, if you levy a heavy tax on a certain commodity or product, less of it will be produced. It doesn't matter if that tax is designated as a "windfall" profits tax or not.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Economic-Officials-Says-Biden-Considering-Oil-Tax-Windfall-Tax.html

"A White House economic advisor told a panel on Thursday that the Biden administration is now considering the U.S. congressional proposal that would place a windfall tax on oil and gas as prices at the pumps continue to soar, Reuters reports.

"We are very much open to any proposal that would provide relief to consumers at the pump," National Economic Council deputy director Bharat Ramamurti told a Roosevelt Institute panel, as cited by Reuters.

Ramamurti said the White House was “engaging in conversations” with Congress about a windfall tax, noting there was a “variety of interesting proposals”.   

The National Economic Council official also noted a potential impact on supply if a windfall tax were imposed, though he said he did not see this as an “insurmountable hurdle”, Reuters reported."

Edited June 2, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

14 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Ford CEO Forecasts $25,000 EV Price War, Brand's Future EVs Sold Online

Ford's Jim Farley also noted that its online EV sales model will have non-negotiable pricing.

Ford CEO Jim Farley spoke at the Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference this week. He noted that he believes manufacturing EVs is going to become less expensive over time, which will lead to a price war among electric car makers offering compelling options for around $25,000.

 

It really comes as no surprise that Farley forecasted a "huge price war" on electric cars. GM's Mary Barra continues to reiterate that GM aims to beat Tesla on price, offering a number of relatively inexpensive models. Just yesterday, we learned that the 2023 Bolt EV and Bolt EUV are priced much lower than the 2022 models. GM will also bring a well-priced Equinox EV to market, and other models that start at around $25,000. Farley shared via Electrek:

"So I believe there will be our industry is definitely heading to a huge price war."

According to Farley, batteries are going to eventually become less expensive. He said Ford is working on its new platform to help reduce the cost of manufacturing. Farley also mentioned that Ford's electric vehicles will be sold "100% online," and prices will be fixed and non-negotiable.

https://insideevs.com/news/589721/ford-ceo-price-war-coming-online-sales-fixed-prices/

Sounds like he just announced the end of dealerships.

Sounds like science fiction.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Sounds like science fiction.

It is already starting:

2023 Chevy Bolt EV and EUV get $6,000 price cut, start at $25,600

The Chevy Bolt lineup is getting a massive price cut for 2023, dropping from $31,500 to $25,600 (before the $995 destination fee).

This means the Chevy Bolt will have a lower MSRP than the base model Nissan Leaf, though the Leaf still qualifies for the US federal EV incentive, whereas the Bolt does not.

The price cut comes across the entire model line, with every trim and model receiving a similar approximate $6,000 price cut. The upgraded Bolt 2LT trim starts at $28,800.

The Bolt EUV will start at $27,200 base price, and the EUV Premier is $31,700. Chevy has added a “Redline edition” trim to the EUV (and not the EV), which is mainly just an appearance package, and can be added on for $495.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It is already starting:

2023 Chevy Bolt EV and EUV get $6,000 price cut, start at $25,600

The Chevy Bolt lineup is getting a massive price cut for 2023, dropping from $31,500 to $25,600 (before the $995 destination fee).

This means the Chevy Bolt will have a lower MSRP than the base model Nissan Leaf, though the Leaf still qualifies for the US federal EV incentive, whereas the Bolt does not.

The price cut comes across the entire model line, with every trim and model receiving a similar approximate $6,000 price cut. The upgraded Bolt 2LT trim starts at $28,800.

The Bolt EUV will start at $27,200 base price, and the EUV Premier is $31,700. Chevy has added a “Redline edition” trim to the EUV (and not the EV), which is mainly just an appearance package, and can be added on for $495.

That still places the market value of EVs well below the 1% share. Until people actually show a willingness to settle for these go-carts, they will not amount to anything more than a marginal toy.

Which one of these EVs will you be buying, Jay?  None again?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

28 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

That still places the market value of EVs well below the 1% share. Until people actually show a willingness to settle for these go-carts, they will not amount to anything more than a marginal toy.

Which one of these EVs will you be buying, Jay?  None again?

If you knew anything about the market you would know that by far the greatest portion of the market value is in 35-60K cars. EVs are rocking in that segment, Tesla Model Y and 3 are the two best selling cars in California, the largest vehicle market in the USA. Not best selling EVs but best selling vehicles!

Edited June 2, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

15 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

If you knew anything about the market you would know that by far the greatest portion of the market value is in 35-60K cars. EVs are rocking in that segment, Tesla Model Y and 3 are the two best selling cars in California, the largest vehicle market in the USA. Not best selling EVs but best selling vehicles!

That still leaves EVs below the 1% share of market value, Jay. Still just a marginal toy for the well-off people who can afford a third car to park in their driveway as a symbol of liberal political rectitude. Especially in California, which I will visit this summer.

Those same wealthy EV owners are paying huge bucks for gasoline to fuel their real drivers, the fossil fuel cars.

And which of these new EVs is parked in your driveway, Jay? None of the above?

Edited June 2, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

13 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

That still leaves EVs below the 1% share of market value, Jay. Still just a marginal toy for the well-off people who can afford a third car to park in their driveway as a symbol of liberal political rectitude. Especially in California, which I will visit this summer.

Those same wealthy EV owners are paying huge bucks for gasoline to fuel their real drivers, the fossil fuel cars.

And which of these new EVs is parked in your driveway, Jay? None of the above?

That is just stupid and not how the world or economics works. When you get to California you are going to see those EVs driving everywhere! Not sitting in the driveways. That is where the gasmobile sits. EVs are the daily drivers. ICE is definitely the secondary vehicle. 

Be sure and brushup on what a Tesla looks like so that you can try and count them all in LA and SF.

Edited June 2, 2022 by Jay McKinsey