[Newfie]

FWIW, and I don’t want to get into this pissing match, but I have some personal experience.

In the marine field insurance companies are changing how they evaluate based upon battery types. I personally have been asked if I have lithium batteries, I don’t. But if I did then I would have further restrictions, perhaps based on the exact chemistry (?) and I may have to show proof the batteries were installed by a professional and have all the required bells and whistles.

Apparently there is a significant difference in risk based upon the likelihood lithium battery chemistry with some being quite high. The marine insurance industry is looking a this, hard.

[Newfie]

Carinke,

To my knowledge in the USA (and Canada) TIDAL riparian rights are Generally a Federal matter but non-tidal areas state regulated. However there are exceptions. At one time my Father leased some bottom from the state. I know a guy in Nova Scotia who bought land with a couple of acres of deeded bottom attached.

From what I know you need to look at the deed, your rights will be spelled out there. Most likely you have a surveyed property line defined.

It is more likely a problem when you have incursion and loose land. You have a happy situation. As long as you are not taxed for it.

[theluckycountry]

That's interesting that move by the insurance companies Newfie, they only act on real life conditions, not on predictions or wishful thinking. There has been a rash of house fires down here, all related to electric scooters being recharged. I use quite a few Lipo batteries, the largest on an e-bike, and I would never dream of recharging it, or storing it, inside the house.

When you get to a boat or a car though you can't easily monitor these banks because they are buried in the guts of the vehicle and often you are in there with them. These insurance hikes, and I assume that's what you are referring to, is just another example of the real world catching up with the marketing promises of a new technology. I know I harp on about the Segway's failure in adoption as mass transit but there are real parallels between it and the current batch of EV's.

The Segway was actually a cool idea, very practical as a personal vehicle for inner-city commuting, it could have solved a host of issues but in the end it was rejected by the "consumer" before the infrastructure needed (secure parking and recharge stations) was put in place. There was also the inconvenience of riding in the rain etc. EV's also have a host of inconvenient aspects to them, the need for long recharge times, the limited ranges for all but the most expensive ones, the danger of fires, the necessity to write them off after a moderate accident. Large swathes of the buying public are just now waking up to these shortcomings and I'm sure more downsides will become apparent.

It's clear that there is more than enough oil for a decade or two of driving and if gas does become too expensive in the interim people can simply move to super economical small cars. The current trend of buying a huge SUV tells me that consumers are not at all worried about gas prices, and those that lost jobs or are forced onto reduced incomes certainly can't afford an EV at any rate. The whole push behind the EV concept was that it was assumed to be the replacement for ICE, that a a mass transition from ICE to EV was to take place, like from the horse to the car.

But it won't happen. The EV is like Ethanol fuel, the more expensive oil becomes the more expensive ethanol becomes, for the simple reason that ethanol is literally made from oil. From the herbicides and fertilizers to the farm machinery, production, and transport of it. It's totally Oil dependent, and so is the EV. When the oil goes, the novel EV goes with it. The only choice people have is whether that want to put up will all the myriad downsides of the EV for the sake of feeling trendy while we wait till said oil depletion runs its course.

[Plantagenet]

It's long been a mystery to me why some people get so upset when I post about the fire problems with electric scooters and EV cars and trucks. For instance Adam has kvetched for years over my concerns over spontaneous EV battery fires in spite of hundreds of thousands of news reports about spontaneous EV battery fires and now Kublaiklan is irate that I posted about insurance companies cancelling insurance on EVs that get in minor accidents, in spite of many recent news stories about EVs having their insurance cancelled after being in minor accidents due to concerns over spontaneous combustion of the EV battery systems.

So why can't people just accept the facts? Why do some people get so wee-wee'd up when someone tells them a truth they don't want to hear?

I think I have found the answer.

Just this morning there is an editorial about EVs in the Guardian Newspaper (the Guardian is the preeminent left wing newspaper in England). This editorial was written by Rowan Atkinson, the very very funny English comedian and actor who created the characters "Mr. Bean" and "Johnny English".. Mr. Atkinson says that he was an early adopter of EVs because he thought they were good for the environment. Mr. Atkinson says he now realizes that the carbon footprint of a new EV is ca. 70% GREATER than that of similar ICE vehicle (something I've been posting about here for years)...Mr. Atkinson goes on to say that the very best way to protect the environment and reduce CO2 emissions is not to buy a huge, heavy new EV with a gigantic carbon footprint, but to instead continue to drive your old car. When you keep your old car....or buy a used car.....there are zero new carbon emissions released compared to buying a new EV. And there is zero use of new resources. Thats good, say Rowan Atkinson. Thats what we want, says Rowan Atkinson (and so do I).



Mr. Atkinson says he now feels that he was DUPED by the EV industry. Yes...he said he was DUPED!!!

electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson-duped

Synonyms for the word duped include:

bamboozled
beguiled
bilked
burned
conned
deceived
finessed
gypped
hoodwinked
overcharged
ripped off
scammed
swindled
taken in
baited
betrayed
culled
fooled
gulled
had
hoaxed
lured
played
scammed
snared
taken

And thats why I think EV owners get so wee-wee'd up when there is criticism of EVs.

People really identify with their cars....and no one wants to think they were duped or tricked or fooled or scammed or bamboozled when they bought their beloved EV.

A mature person, like Rowan Atkinson, will come to the realization that he was duped when he bought his EVs, and then he will graciously face the facts and learn from the experience. But there are other people who see their cars as an extension of themselves, and will get very upset if you tell them there is a little teeny tiny problem with their beloved car. Such people don't want to learn anything bad about their EV, and respond to any suggestion that EVs might be less than perfect by personally attacking anyone who tells the truth.

Cheers!

[kublikhan]

I have no problem with news reports. I called you out on your BS about 40-75% of EVs getting scrapped. You know, the stuff that wasn't in the news reports that you completely made up? The same news source that said the rate was actually an order of magnitude smaller than that? You know, the truth you pretend to care about? But you don't actually care about the truth. What you care about is spreading FUD. And not just about EVs. I have seen you do this with politics, economics, the fuel tax, the Saudi Aramco IPO, etc. Even when our opinions on an issue fall on the same side, you still go into troll mode.

[AdamB]

So why can't people just accept the facts? Why do some people get so wee-wee'd up when someone tells them a truth they don't want to hear?

Because you insinuate, if not outright claim, that hybrids like yours aren't the most likely to burst into flames, but the EVs are. And they aren't. And they are better than ICE machines as well.

And then you pretend that your insinuation is scientifically accurate, because someone told you those words once and they seemed like they might add some credibility to your so easy to refute claim.

[Plantagenet]

I called you out on your BS about 40-75% of EVs getting scrapped.....

Whoa there. Calm down. You've got no justification for your ad hom attacks, especially since you've been upset for five days now. Lets try to discuss this together in a calm way.

The problem here is that once again you are accusing me of something I didn't do.

The whole reason you are so upset is that you are not understanding what I post. You are making things up and then getting all wee-wee'd up about your own imaginings.

I never said 40-75% of EVs are getting scrapped.

What I did was try to estimate how many EVs MIGHT get scrapped if insurance companies continue to cancel insurance on EVs that get in minor accidents. I clearly said this was a "thought experiment". That means its an attempt to estimate what MIGHT happen if we extrapolate the current realities forward.

Here....let's look again at my first thought experiment from five days ago.....My first estimate was based upon the real world estimate that ca. 40% of the cars on the road today have unrepaired damage from minor accidents. If EVs have accidents at a similar rate to the current auto fleet, one might expect at least 40% of them to get in accidents that create minor damage. But there are also a large number of ICE vehicles in the current fleet that have been in minor accidents but had that damage repaired....damaged that might cause an insurance to cancel the insurance on an EV so the number of cars in accidents should be higher then 40% at any give time. And there would continue to be some number of additional accidents every single year, year after year. So the actual number of EVs that might get scrapped over some period of time....say 8 years, would be quite large, i.e. in the range that I guesstimated in my initial post.

AND I've thought about this a bit more and now I can do this thought experiment in a totally different way, if you'd like. I anticipated you might bring this up so I've looked for other data to help us understand the accident rate and the scrappage rate. One report I found said that for vehicle fleets, like corporate cars or rental cars, the expected accident rate is about 20% per year. That means 20% of those cars get in minor to major accidents each year. How many of those would be scraped if they were EVs? Hard to say, but let's just make a guesstimate. Let's guess that some percentage are serious accidents, that require scrappage of the ICE vehicle...say roughly 10% of all the accidents are serious, with 90% being minor? And let's assume that EVs in the future have serious accidents at a similar rate and lets assume of the minor accidents that roughly half dent fenders or scratch the battery case ---which require scrapping of an EV.....OK......pushing buttons on my calculator......that means about 2% of EVs might have serious accidents each year that would require immediate scrappage, and another 18% might have minor accidents. The big question is how many of those minor accidents to EVs will require scrappage. Thats an evolving question...but right now cars with even minor fender bender damage are being scrapped. Minor accidents that could be repaired on an ICE car now require scrappage of an EV due to the fear that the minor accident makes the car more susceptible to spontaneous combustion. I'll make another guess....let's say 2/3 of the minor accidents result in scrappage. That gives us 2/3 of the remaining 18% of EVs that were in minor accidents wind up getting scrapped. That gives us 14% of EVs being scrapped per year, which over...say....8 years.....gets us to a really really high percentage of EVs being scrapped. IN fact 14% each year results in essentially all of them being scrapped in 8 years. So maybe my first guesstimate at the EV scrappage rate is too high? Let's try a lower percentage of the 20% that get in accidents each year wind up getting scrapped....instead of 2/3 let's try 50% getting scrapped. Now we've got 11% per year getting scrapped which over 8 years results in........whoa....they are still about 90% scrapped. Let's do a third run of the thought experiment. Lets assume that only 1/3 of all the EVs in minor accidents wind up getting scrapped (BUT THE NEWS ARTICLES SAY THEY ARE MOSTLY GETTING SCRAPPED NOW) but lets try only 1/3 get scrapped.....lets run it again. We've got 2% totalled per year in major accidents and of the remaining 18% per year in minor accidents we're going to say only 6% get scrapped (BUT THE NEWS ARTICLES SAY THEY ARE MOSTLY GETTING SCRAPPED NOW AFTER MINOR ACCIDENTS). Now we've got 2% plus 6% equals 8% per year getting scrapped, which over 8 years runs to roughly 64% getting scrapped, i.e. once again entirely consistent with my first thought experiment.

Those are the numbers I get, in both thought experiments, even when I make rather conservative estimates of scrappage rates. AND by the way....ICE cars don't last forever either. It's just a fact that cars get in accidents every year and more get scrapped every year. The new thing here is that EVS are getting scrapped at a HIGHER RATE then ICE cars because the insurance companies won't pay to repair EVs when they get in minor accidents.

The bottom line is my point still stands, i.e. the decision by insurance companies not to insure EVs that have been in minor accidents out of fear they will be more susceptible to spontaneous combustion fires is BAD NEWS for EVs. Its going to take a lot of EVs off the road long before a comparable ICE car, because the insurance companies will not pay to repair minor accident damage.


Just had a minor accident in your new EV? There's a good chance insurance won't pay for repair out of the fear the LI battery system might be damaged. This means the car will have to be scrapped and if you still want an EV you'll have to go out and buy a another brand new EV

Cheers!

[kublikhan]

Some of the assumptions you used for your thought experiment are incorrect.

1. Data from insurance companies shows EVs get into accidents at a lower rate than ICE vehicles, not the same rate:

Electric vehicles continue to show significantly lower collision and PDL claim frequencies compared with their conventional counterparts.

Insurance losses of electric vehicles and their conventional counterparts

2. We don't have to guess at what rates EVs are scrapped at. The data shows that even after a decade, the total scrappage rate was 6.6%:

Between 2013 and 2022, 6.6 percent of electric vehicles in operation were scrapped.

Insurance company total loss values back up the scrappage data as well. It shows that while accidents involving EVs can be more costly than ICE, the lower accident rate results in lower overall losses for EVs vs ICE:

Insurance losses of electric vehicles and their conventional counterparts

3. The news reports do not say most EVs are scrapped after minor accidents. In fact, they say the exact opposite: most crashes do not affect the battery.

Safety and reliability
Tests conducted by the Allianz Center for Technology Automotive (AZT Automotive) have shown that the high voltage components of electric cars are well-protected and will not be affected in most crashes. Statistical evaluation of Allianz claims also shows that electric vehicles are less likely to be involved in accidents today.

[AdamB]

AND IN CONCLUSION: Once again, since this issue seems important to you I am perfectly willing to have a friendly discussion what I believe is a serious flaw in the way you are interpreting the statistical data comparing EV and ICE scrappage rates. I already invited you once to repost those numbers with links if you'd like to have a friendly chat about that data. I'm inviting you again now. Perhaps I can entice you into a friendly discussion by telling a story......... sometimes I charge a fee when I do consultations on technical and scientific issues. I think the most I was ever paid was $150/hr to consult for the State of Alaska on a case that was before the US Supreme Court involving isostatic rebound----the case was to determine who owns the new land created when isostatic rebound causes formerly submerged land to emerge from the sea. This is actually a big issue in southeast Alaska because ongoing glacier retreat is causing quite a bit of isostatic rebound. And the state of Alaska won the case. I like to think the technical report I prepared as a scientific consultant helped a tiny bit, and the money wasn't bad either. But usually I don't charge for technical advice, and I'm perfectly happy to to discuss that scrappage data with you for free, if you are still interested, and if you promise not to make up anymore false claims about what I post after our discussion.

The question was who owns the land that emerges from the sea after glacier retreat......and the Supreme Court of the United States agreed with me!!!!

CHEERS!

Excellent story. Can you elaborate on, say, the geology of Southeastern Alaska in general for those of us unfamiliar with it? Glacier Bay perhaps, I hear it is quite beautiful from my parents and kids who have done the cruise ship tourist gig there, plus the geology must be fascinating.

[Plantagenet]

la la la la la la!

We're having a beautiful sunset here in Alaska and it lasts all night.

We've gotten to the point of the summer where it never gets dark!

Cheers!

[kublikhan]

You misunderstood the scrappage data. It was not saying 6.6% of EVs are scrapped every year. It was saying that of all the EVs that entered the vehicle fleet between 2013 and 2022, 6.6% of them were scrapped, or 93.4% are still on the road.

According to S&P Global Mobility analysis, of the nearly 2.3 million BEVs registered in the US from 2013 to 2022, about 2.12 million are still on the road today—about 6.6% have left the fleet. When it comes to other fuel types excluding BEVs, of the roughly 158 million sold in the same timeframe, are around 149.8 million vehicles on the road today—reflecting that 5.2% have left the fleet over the time frame.

S&P Global Mobility: average age of light vehicles in US hits record high 12.5 years

[Plantagenet]

You misunderstood the scrappage data.

According to S&P Global Mobility analysis, of the nearly 2.3 million BEVs registered in the US from 2013 to 2022, about 2.12 million are still on the road today—about 6.6% have left the fleet. When it comes to other fuel types excluding BEVs, of the roughly 158 million sold in the same timeframe, are around 149.8 million vehicles on the road today—reflecting that 5.2% have left the fleet over the time frame.

S&P Global Mobility: average age of light vehicles in US hits record high 12.5 years

Thank you for that link.

I'm going to have to look into this more, but right off the bat I see the S & P data at your link shows that EVs are being scrapped at a higher rate than ICE vehicles, with 6.6% of EVs being scraped as opposed to 5.2% of Ice vehicles. I googled this up myself and found an estimate of 4.4% for ICE scrappage, which is even lower than the S & P number. But since you linked to the S & P data, lets use the S & P data.

This is important....the S & P data set pretty much proves that EVs are being scrapped at about a 20% higher rate than ICE vehicles.

How amazing is that??? EVs are clearly less sustainable the ICE vehicles since their scrappage rate is higher. This is quite a surprise to me, as I assumed all the hype about EVs being sustainable had some substance to it. But numbers don't lie.......EVs are clearly LESS SUSTAINABLE than ICE vehicles, since they get scrapped at a higher rate.


Actually EVs are significantly LESS SUSTAINABLE than ICE Vehicles , since they get scrapped at a higher rate

------------------

And, in addition to showing the EVs have higher scrappage rates then ICE vehicles, the S & P Data also supports the main point I made five days ago, i.e. that the scrappage rate of EVs is likely to go even higher.

Recent news reports say that insurance companies are changing their rules so more EVs will now be scrapped after minor accidents. Scrapping a higher number of EVs after minor accidents will inevitably raise the EV scrappage rate.

AND, consistent with what I've been saying, the S & P report you cite above also predicts that EVs are likely to see higher mechanical failure rates in the future as the EV auto fleet ages. This will also lead to even higher scrappage rates. One weird thing about the S & P data is that EVs have higher scrappage rates then Ice vehicles, even though the average age of the EV fleet is much less then the average age of the ICE vehicle fleet. One would expect the younger cars to be scrapped less often, but the S & P data shows the young EVs being scrapped at a HIGHER rate than the much older Ice vehicles. S & P predicts the EV scrappage rate will go even HIGHER as the EV vehicle fleet ages.

So the S & P report provide SUPPORT for my prediction in my post five days ago that EV scrappage rates will go even higher in the future.

How high???.....it's very hard to say as we don't know yet exactly how the new insurance rules will affect the scrappage rates but potentially this could be a quite large effect as auto experts quoted in the news reports predict a growing problem with a significant number of relatively new EVs being scrapped after minor accidents.

Cheers!

[kublikhan]

Wow. So first you make a claim that I had a "serious flaw in the way I am interpreting the statistical data." Then when you finally get around to actually posting it, it turns out you were the one who made the serious flaw. Do you own up to your serious flaw? Of course not! You edit away your post to la la la la while pretending you were right all along. First it's: "a majority of EVs will be scrapped and off the road after only 8 years of service. That's unsustainable!". Then when the actual truth is over 93% of EVs are still on the road a decade later, you pivot to something else. Just like you did when I called you out on your mistake with the Hyundai Kona EV vs Ford F-150 ICE. I no longer wish to discuss this issue with someone so incredibly dishonest.

[theluckycountry]

So why can't people just accept the facts? Why do some people get so wee-wee'd up when someone tells them a truth they don't want to hear?

It's partly the psychology of previous investment, but it's also the fact that they are trapped. They buy an 80k EV on finance and then realize a year or two later that it was a stupid decision, can they sell it? For anything like what they owe on it? No, used EV's are not like used ICE cars at all, people don't want to pay the perceived value.

The whole EV thing is getting boring, it's like the war in the ukraine, everyone knows it's not going to be "Won" by the west yet the papers keep spinning the delusion it will happen ...soon. I think also the tech journos need to prattle on about something and there really isn't anything newsworthy in that sector these days, so they go on and on about mundane EV developments like a new battery technology (that's slightly better), and the AI bullshit that no one outside of corporate bean-counters seems to care about.

The God of Tech has gone on holiday it seems and his prophets, Musk and gates, have moved on to greener pastures.

[theluckycountry]

You can tell a thread on a subject is dead when all that gets posted is "Negative developments" and squabbles between posters over technicalities.

[AdamB]

So why can't people just accept the facts? Why do some people get so wee-wee'd up when someone tells them a truth they don't want to hear?

It's partly the psychology of previous investment, but it's also the fact that they are trapped. They buy an 80k EV on finance and then realize a year or two later that it was a stupid decision, can they sell it?

You do presume quite a bit for someone with no experience on this topic don't you? I paid $8G's, at an advantageous interest rate, just over 2 years ago and it is already paid off. And in those 2 years the decision wasn't determined to be stupid, but we should have done it a decade earlier. It can't be beat for running around inside the beltway, microscopic running costs, etc etc. The advantages of not being a first adopter for starters, buying used, and knowing that the batteries are still going strong from the previous EV gave me some confidence that the 2nd one would work out.

Are there any other misconceptions you have (beyond your entire education at large) that I can help you with?

For anything like what they owe on it? No, used EV's are not like used ICE cars at all, people don't want to pay the perceived value.

Based on what has happened to the car market in the States, right now I could sell it for MORE than I paid for it. Try it sometime, even someone with zero investing ability beyond burying gold in their backyard should understand buying at one price and selling at a higher one.

[Plantagenet]

Wow. So first you make a claim that I had a "serious flaw in the way I am interpreting the statistical data."

Thats because there is a serious flaw in the way you are interpreting the statistical data.... actually, there are two flaws---- one serious methodological flaw and one blind spot.

I've already gone through this in the context of my reply to you in my post above but I didn't want to make a big deal about how you are misinterpreting the data so I just quietly discussed the data.

But I guess for some reason you want me to spell it out for you.

OK....I'm happy to go through this again if it will help you in some way.

There are two problems with the way you are interpreting the S & P data on EV vs. ICE vehicle scrappage.

First, you seem to think the S & P data on scrappage of EVs vs. ICE vehicles actually is a valid comparison of the scrappage rate of EVs vs. ICE vehicles. In fact, as I discuss in the text of my reply to you above, this comparison is flawed in terms of its methodology because the two populations are not controlled to be as similar as possible so other variables can be ruled out as causes of the difference between ICE and EV scrappage rates.

The problem arises because the ICE vehicle population is much older than the EV vehicle population. In order to do a valid statistical comparison of ICE vs. EV vehicles you would have to start by deleting all the scrappage rate data for older ICE vehicles, and just compare the scrappage rate for the relatively new EV fleet of cars vs. a selected subset of the ICE vehicles that are the same age as the EV vehicles. Only after this can a valid statistical comparison between EV and ICE vehicle scrappage rates for vehicle populations with similar characteristic (i.e. similar age profiles) be done.

I discussed this issue in my post above....apparently you didn't see or didn't understand it. This issue has important consequences, i.e. you were blind to the way this issues affects the data. Because older vehicles have higher scrappage rates, removing the older ICE vehicles and just comparing EV vehicles with ICE vehicles of the same age would lower the ICE scrappage rate even further.

In other words.....EV vehicles, according the S & P data, have a HIGHER scrappage rate than ICE vehicles. BUT in order to do a valid statistical comparison you have to be comparing two populations that are identical in every way except for the items being compared. This could easily be done by excising the older ICE vehicle data, and just comparing the population of young EVs to an ICE population with the same age characteristics.

AND, no doubt the scrappage rate for young ICE vehicles would be even lower then for the entire population, meaning ICE vehicles are even LESS likely to be scrapped than EV vehicles then the S & P data shows.

And that is pretty remarkable.

EV boosters have gone on and on for years claiming EVs are "sustainable" and don't need repairs and would outlast the primitive ICE cars. But the data says this claim about EVs is bogus and designed to dupe people, as Rowan Atkinson would say. The actual data show EVs are scrapped and taken off the roads at a MUCH HIGHER RATE than ICE vehicles, i.e. they are less sustainable.

I hope this helps!


Ok, but is that graph based on a statistically valid test?

Cheers!

PS: Its silly for you to be upset if I edit my posts.

Everybody at this site edits their posts when there are typos or other boo-boos in a post. Thats what the edit function is for.

[AdamB]

PS: Its silly for you to be upset if I edit my posts.
Everybody at this site edits their posts when there are typos or other boo-boos in a post. Thats what the edit function is for.

Good thing you chose not to edit this then:

Plantagenet: "I pride myself on writing clear and scientifically accurate posts..." Thu 05 Jan 2023, 15:10:50

5 days later

Unfortunately, Houston is run by the Ds and they've got a George Soros funded wacky far left D in charge of their city justice department.As a result, the armed robber isn't even been held in jail----he has already been released on bail."

Article said this:

HPD: Robber shot, killed by customer at taqueria in SW Houston. A customer at Ranchito Taqueria shot and killed a man who robbed the restaurant in southwest Houston late Thursday night, according to the Houston Police Department. Tue 10 Jan 2023, 22:27:35

Scientifically Accurate Rebuttal: It isn't scientifically accurate when you make something up because you couldn't be bothered to read your own reference. And couldn't even be bothered to use the edit function to hide the proof that you don't do scientifically accurate posts unless you want to, and in this case can't even be bothered to read your own references because political trolling is more important to you.

Wouldn't you prefer to just fill us in on the geology of Glacier Bay? I'll bet you know something about that, and if you'd prefer something other than the geology, how about the icefields feeding them?

[theluckycountry]

Death of the EV dream, er, nightmare

Mcdonagh, however, has barely scratched the surface of the mess created by the hipster culture that believes everything sacred must be sacrificed before the god of carbon (dioxide) reduction. It turns out that manufacturing electric vehicles has to date been a bad investment for automakers, despite all the subsidies.

Ford Motor Co. says it will lose $3 billion on EV sales this year, after losing $900 million in 2021 and $2.1 billion in 2022, when the company sold 96,000 units. Price drops by Ford and Tesla (and doubtless other companies) are not coming because the vehicles are cheaper to manufacture but because demand has slowed despite the new Biden subsidies. As Robert Bryce points out, Ford in the first quarter of this year lost $66,446 on every EV it sold.

One reason for the huge losses is the increasing price of battery materials, reflected in the 7 percent increase in the volume-weighted average for lithium-ion battery packs from 2021 to 2022. The Biden subsidies are supposed to...

https://www.cfact.org/2023/05/13/death- ... nightmare/

It is obvious that the EV boom, such as it is, has been powered nearly entirely by heavy subsidies and marketing hype initiated by bureaucrats and politicians, most of whom have no background in auto sales or any service industries. Their M.O. is bribery and thuggery (forcing people into unwanted choices through market manipulation). Automakers are beginning to balk at these techniques, if only because they see their customer base shrinking once people cannot buy the vehicles they have used for decades.

While Ford and other companies are now boasting of the towing capacity of their EVs, the proof is in the pudding, as they say. MotorBiscuit last month reported that the Ford F-150 Lightning and Rivian R1T can be souped up to tow 10,000 pounds, far short of the gasoline-powered F-150, but with an average range of only 88 miles. That hardly works for multiple tows in a day or for towing a trailer to a campsite 100 or more miles from home.

[theluckycountry]

EV Divide Grows in U.S. as More New-Vehicle Shoppers Dig in Their Heels on Internal Combustion

E-Vision Intelligence Report
April 2023

in February 2023, sales hit a speed bump in March, with monthly market share falling to 7.3%. Although some month-to-month volatility is to be expected, a closer look at the barriers to EV adoption shows that many new vehicle shoppers are becoming more adamant about their decision to not consider an EV for their next purchase.

According to new data from J.D. Power, this steady increase in the percentage of consumers who say they are “very unlikely” to consider an EV for their next vehicle purchase reflects persistent concerns about charging infrastructure and vehicle pricing...

3 years ago I considered getting a Nissan leaf, probably one of the most efficient and reliable EV's out there. The Japanese are the world leader in reliable auto manufacture and why anyone would go substandard is not a mystery to me, most people are stupid and make their purchase decisions based on emotion, nation pride, even political affiliation. I ran the numbers on the Leaf and it quickly became obvious that it was a waste of money. Too problematic with range and recharging, it would be a toy car, a novelty, not a vehicle I could ever rely on.

Most people are figuring this out for themselves now, but not by impartial research as I did, no they are doing it in the way they do everything in life, via the media outlets they slavishly follow. Stupid people following each other in a herd. They stupidly walked in to the EV and now they are being led away from it. I really feel sorry for all those Beta testers who bought into these cars, especially the ones who wanted the semi-autonomous package Tesla sold, and then disabled via an update. Gotta love that modern connectivity