E-car Sales Collapse

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

11 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Moore's Law is a CAGR of 42%. EV sales grew at almost twice that rate and Petrol car sales grew at less than a third that rate. You clearly don't understand Moore's Law. This is from your link:

Last month, new registrations of battery electric cars in the EU experienced a significant boost, rising by 70.9% to reach 129,847 units. This equates to a market share of 13.8%, and a four-percentage-point increase compared to May 2022.

In May, the EU market for petrol cars grew by 12.6% to reach 342,806 units. Despite this, market share stood at 36.5%, nearly two percentage points less than in May 2022. 

Your link:

https://www.acea.auto/pc-registrations/new-car-registrations-18-5-in-may-battery-electric-13-8-market-share/

You skipped the fact that 87% of NEW sales were for fossil fuel vehicles, and the equivalent growth rates are very impressive, regardless of  Moore.

A slower RATE of growth as against a massive base number translates into huge actual numbers of new fossil fuel vehicles. You always have trouble with that , Jay.

And this is in the EU where furious government intervention is being brought to bear to reduce fossil fuel vehicles.

The corresponding figures for new and used sales would show an even greater predominance of fossil fuel vehicles.

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You skipped the fact that 87% of NEW sales were for fossil fuel vehicles, and the equivalent growth rates are very impressive, regardless of  Moore.

And this is in the EU where furious government intervention is being brought to bear to reduce fossil fuel vehicles.

The corresponding figures for new and used sales would show an even greater predominance of fossil fuel vehicles.

 

The growth rate is all that matters. As long as EVs are growing faster than petrol they will take over. That is how math works. The transition is just beginning and every year petrol loses market share. Or are you finally ready to tell us when EV growth will decrease below petrol?

Edited June 21, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

7 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The growth rate is all that matters. As long as EVs are growing faster than petrol they will take over. That is how math works. The transition is just beginning and every year petrol loses market share. Or are you finally ready to tell us when EV growth will decrease below petrol?

No, as far as oil demand is concerned, the actual number of fossil fuel vehicles is all that matters.

And with 87% of NEW personal vehicle sales now fossil fuel, that means gigantic numbers of new fossil fuel demand for oil products.

EVs appear set to hit a road bump again. EVs may end up being the play toys of the wealthy. When the average Joe or Jay loses his personal vehicle transport, the EV revolution will get stalled.

I guess you still drive your own reliable fossil fuel vehicle, Jay? Good driving.

"The UK will need between 53,000 and 70,000 tonnes of lithium per year to meet EV demand by 2030, but is currently on track to secure only around 35,000 tonnes, according to energy research firm Rystad."

Edited June 21, 2023 by Ecocharger

[specinho + 440]

If EV intends to solve problem of air quality and carbon dioxide emmission, we might have Air pollution solved to 10 other problems arisen... 

A small town state in europe is said to be a retiree town. Not many cars on the road, electric trams travel across the city in half an hour, and such. Quality of air used to be excellent. From here, we could deduce that:

1. Number is the key.

- Number of cars, number of active people, number of industries per section, etc

2. Coexistence of different types of fuel powered vehicles is possible.

Imagine average traffic congestion takes two hours or more over half an hour journey when no jam; or one and a half hour stuck time over 5 to 10 minutes distance on low traffic time.....

People stuck in traffic daily, to and back from work.

If an average 400 km range gives battery 4 hours lifespan, they will need to charge their cars two three times a day depends on their job function.

Imagine if millions of workers in a city need to charge their EVs two three times a day... 

That is only one place....

Imagine all vehicles are EVs throughout the country...... 

What we are going to face will not be only shortage of lithium for battery, metal for body of car, but a lot more.... Is it not? 

 

 

[Rob Plant + 2,635]

13 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Government subsidies, punitive taxes on alternative transportation options, etc.

Government subsidies exist for a whole host of different industries including FF production.

Norway is leading the world in EV adoption per capita

This is their road map, as you can see taxation is increasing on EV's and subsidies reducing .

https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

11 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Government subsidies exist for a whole host of different industries including FF production.

Norway is leading the world in EV adoption per capita

This is their road map, as you can see taxation is increasing on EV's and subsidies reducing .

https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/

And plans in Europe to abolish fossil fuel cars by government fiat...that is Big Brotherism in capital letters.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

And plans in Europe to abolish fossil fuel cars by government fiat...that is Big Brotherism in capital letters.

I can tell you that the majority of the people in California support our mandate to abolish fossil fuels. It is called Democracy.

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I can tell you that the majority of the people in California support our mandate to abolish fossil fuels. It is called Democracy.

Some joke, it is called Climate Panic fueled by quack science...political charlatanism.

You should know better.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Some joke, it is called Climate Panic fueled by quack science...political charlatanism.

You should know better.

No joke, it is really called Democracy. 

California Hits New Record for Renewable Energy Generation

Including solar, wind and nuclear power as well as hydroelectricity via large dams, 59 percent of California's electricity now comes from carbon-free sources. The state has a goal of 90 percent by 2035.

May 26, 2023 • 

Paul Rogers, Silicon Valley

https://www.govtech.com/smart-cities/california-hits-new-record-for-renewable-energy-generation

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No joke, it is really called Democracy. 

California Hits New Record for Renewable Energy Generation

Including solar, wind and nuclear power as well as hydroelectricity via large dams, 59 percent of California's electricity now comes from carbon-free sources. The state has a goal of 90 percent by 2035.

May 26, 2023 • 

Paul Rogers, Silicon Valley

https://www.govtech.com/smart-cities/california-hits-new-record-for-renewable-energy-generation

How much of that 59% is from solar and wind? Or is this just more empty wind  from the Green Brigade?

Really, Jay, you are always good for a laugh.

You know, they had democracy in Germany in the 1930s, and that did not work out too well.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

23 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

How much of that 59% is from solar and wind? Or is this just more empty wind  from the Green Brigade?

Really, Jay, you are always good for a laugh.

You know, they had democracy in Germany in the 1930s, and that did not work out too well.

How nice of you to admit that you are an anti democracy traitor.

Aw shucks, the best laugh is that if you had simply read the article like an intelligent person would have done you would have read this:

In 2021, 37 percent of the state's electricity was generated by renewable sources such as solar and wind — more than double the 16 percent total in 2012, according to new numbers released Thursday by the California Energy Commission.

More broadly, when nuclear power and hydroelectricity from large dams are included, 59 percent of California's electricity now comes from carbon-free sources. The state has a goal of 90 percent by 2035 and 100 percent by 2045.

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

9 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

How nice of you to admit that you are an anti democracy traitor.

Aw shucks, the best laugh is that if you had simply read the article like an intelligent person would have done you would have read this:

In 2021, 37 percent of the state's electricity was generated by renewable sources such as solar and wind — more than double the 16 percent total in 2012, according to new numbers released Thursday by the California Energy Commission.

More broadly, when nuclear power and hydroelectricity from large dams are included, 59 percent of California's electricity now comes from carbon-free sources. The state has a goal of 90 percent by 2035 and 100 percent by 2045.

Jay, you managed to miss the point yet again...how much of that 59% is generated by wind and solar?  The 59% includes hydro-electric and nuclear.

And, no, democracies are not always stable when unprincipled charlatans whip up public panic, we saw that in the 1930s in Germany. We are seeing it again today.

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, you managed to miss the point yet again...how much of that 59% is generated by wind and solar?  The 59% includes hydro-electric and nuclear.

 

So now you can't read? Let's try again:

"Aw shucks, the best laugh is that if you had simply read the article like an intelligent person would have done you would have read this:

In 2021, 37 percent of the state's electricity was generated by renewable sources such as solar and wind — more than double the 16 percent total in 2012, according to new numbers released Thursday by the California Energy Commission.

More broadly, when nuclear power and hydroelectricity from large dams are included, 59 percent of California's electricity now comes from carbon-free sources. The state has a goal of 90 percent by 2035 and 100 percent by 2045."

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

9 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So now you can't read? Let's try again:

"Aw shucks, the best laugh is that if you had simply read the article like an intelligent person would have done you would have read this:

In 2021, 37 percent of the state's electricity was generated by renewable sources such as solar and wind — more than double the 16 percent total in 2012, according to new numbers released Thursday by the California Energy Commission.

More broadly, when nuclear power and hydroelectricity from large dams are included, 59 percent of California's electricity now comes from carbon-free sources. The state has a goal of 90 percent by 2035 and 100 percent by 2045."

"Such as" is not an answer....the question is, what percentage is from solar and wind.

Your quotes demonstrate what happens when public discourse in a democracy is overburdened with unprincipled and dishonest rhetoric. Nonsensical concepts such as "carbon-free" are posited as if they were holy writ and societal norms. No one bothers to investigate the validity of the claims. We get deluged with cries of "Don't think, just believe us."

When democratic rights of free speech and free research and enquiry are compromised, democracies can very quickly become subverted by authoritarian charlatans. We are now witnessing that process in America.

Democracy requires vigilance, not unthinking assent.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

10 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

"Such as" is not an answer....the question is, what percentage is from solar and wind.

You are demonstrating what happens when public discourse in a democracy is overburdened with unprincipled and dishonest rhetoric. Nonsensical concepts such as "carbon-free" are posited as if they were holy writ and societal norms. No one bothers to investigate the validity of the claims. We get deluged with cries of "Don't think, just believe us."

When democratic rights of free speech and free research and enquiry are compromised, democracies can very quickly become subverted by authoritarian charlatans. We are now witnessing that process in America.

Democracy requires vigilance, not unthinking assent.

Yes we are but he is going on trial for espionage in August.

It is actually not really relevant how much of our green energy comes from solar and wind. Our plan is to use all of the above carbon neutral sources.

If you actually stood for your principles you would have done the simple search to find the data:

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes we are but he is going on trial for espionage in August.

It is actually not really relevant how much of our green energy comes from solar and wind. Our plan is to use all of the above carbon neutral sources.

If you actually stood for your principles you would have done the simple search to find the data:

There are a lot of demagogues out there that need attention, I will help you see the way.

We need to know the actual contribution of  solar and wind, you tried to avoid this, but I am holding you to account for the rampant gibberish on this matter.

Okay, that is 11.5% Wind and 15.9% Solar, which is  a lot less than 37%you were promoting..

Small potatoes. And hidebound by battery restrictions.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

12 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes we are but he is going on trial for espionage in August.

It is actually not really relevant how much of our green energy comes from solar and wind. Our plan is to use all of the above carbon neutral sources.

If you actually stood for your principles you would have done the simple search to find the data:

That is only 11.5 %Wind (there is a lot more wind than that generated by the Green Agitators) and only 15.9% Solar.

And you were trying to pawn off on us that 37% number? Have you no shame, Jay? I guess not.

As I stated above, 

Your quotes demonstrate what happens when public discourse in a democracy is overburdened with unprincipled and dishonest rhetoric. Nonsensical concepts such as "carbon-free" are posited as if they were holy writ and societal norms. No one bothers to investigate the validity of the claims. We get deluged with cries of "Don't think, just believe us."

When democratic rights of free speech and free research and enquiry are compromised, democracies can very quickly become subverted by authoritarian charlatans. We are now witnessing that process in America.

Democracy requires vigilance, not unthinking assent.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

There are a lot of demagogues out there that need attention, I will help you see the way.

We need to know the actual contribution of  solar and wind, you tried to avoid this, but I am holding you to account for the rampant gibberish on this matter.

Okay, that is 11.5% Wind and 15.9% Solar, which is  a lot less than 37%, the figure you tried to pawn off on us.

Small potatoes.

So? You are such a clown. Solar and wind now make up 27.4%, over one quarter of all the electricity needed to drive the 5th largest economy in the world, that is a hella lot of potatoes. Oh and solar was the number one source of carbon neutral electricity and wind is larger than nuclear.

We only need to cover 41 more percentage points over the next 22 years (we only started 10 years ago) and we haven't even started with the off shore wind (it blows like nuts along our coast) or the geothermal lithium extraction in the Salton Sea. We will easily make our goal.

And I didn't vote for the traitor Trump but I bet you did.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[turbguy + 1,405]

42 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

There are a lot of demagogues out there that need attention, I will help you see the way.

We need to know the actual contribution of  solar and wind, you tried to avoid this, but I am holding you to account for the rampant gibberish on this matter.

Okay, that is 11.5% Wind and 15.9% Solar, which is  a lot less than 37%you were promoting..

Small potatoes. And hidebound by battery restrictions.

Ahhh.

25% from wind and solar is hardly a "drop in the bucket" or "small potatoes"..

FOR EVERY WATT-HOUR SUPPLIED BY WIND AND SOLAR, ONE LESS WATT-HOUR IS SUPPLIED BY FOSSIL SOURCES.

No wonder why California hardly burns any coal for power anymore.

Edited June 23, 2023 by turbguy

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

And since this is the E-car Sales Collapse thread:

[Rob Plant + 2,635]

U.S. Department Of Energy Splashes $9.2B On Ford EV Batteries

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Department-Of-Energy-Splashes-92B-On-Ford-EV-Batteries.html

Thats a serious investment from the US govt into Ford!!

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

9 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

U.S. Department Of Energy Splashes $9.2B On Ford EV Batteries

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Department-Of-Energy-Splashes-92B-On-Ford-EV-Batteries.html

Thats a serious investment from the US govt into Ford!!

Of course, this is a government program using taxpayer's money, not a free market development.

That is the problem.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Of course, this is a government program using taxpayer's money, not a free market development.

That is the problem.

No it is called good government policy driven by democracy. The free market is a lie. The market is created by regulation and works best when well managed by government. The market is a tool not a god.

Just keep watching the Democrats drive our economy up and up.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[notsonice + 1,080]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Of course, this is a government program using taxpayer's money, not a free market development.

That is the problem.

we have a representative government........for those who vote ...we are getting what we voted for.....and I vote for moving the Battery world forward...IE Good for Ford

if you do not like it , Russia is looking for some cannon fodder

I do not like that our government spends hundreds of billions year after year to fund added resources to our Military solely to protect the Oil producers in the Middle East, however this it the government we voted for. Is it a problem? one  can always move to Russia. I myself just deal with it by accepting that my way is not the only way.

 

In the mean time the transition is on, enjoy it as it does lead to clean air and a better planet with less global greenhousing.....A majority of Americans voted for renewables and EV's it by electing their representatives (PS the GOP had a chance to undo a bunch recently.....they passed and let the transition fly full speed ahead..Guess the GOP figured out defaulting on the debt was not an option.)

Edited June 23, 2023 by notsonice

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No it is called good government policy driven by democracy. The free market is a lie. The market is created by regulation and works best when well managed by government. The market is a tool not a god.

Just keep watching the Democrats drive our economy up and up.

No, it is bad public policy driven by mindless climate panic. The result is suboptimal social policy.

Anytime demagogues create panic in order to stampede the public, you can be sure that the final product is a disaster for your pocketbook.

This project is is waste of taxpayer money and is designed to destroy the standard of living of average Americans.

Yes, I expect the Democrats to cause more trouble for middle class Americans, Thank you.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Ecocharger