The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Like how VW claimed they could build diesel engines that met government regulations? And I doubt GM can build EVs profitably considering they can't build sedans profitably or really anything smaller than a midsize crossover/truck. Given how GM has been steadily losing ground even in North America, the EV move is probably a hail mary in a recognition that it couldn't compete long-term against Honda/Toyota or Hyundai-Kia in the current market place. Honda missed a golden opportunity to compete head-to-head with Toyota when it didn't buy Chrsyler for Jeep and Ram, perhaps it can pick up Silverado and GMC in 15-20 years.

I'm sure any EV profit at this time comes from:

a) Government subsidies and incentives helping to raise average transaction price
b) Acquiring credits to be used to offset penalties on the profitable bigger oil powered cars

If EVs are just a ponzi scheme/scam, are there some automakers betting against this? Honestly I don't know, but if the market is as you say, then the smart automakers would think long term and stick with gas. I'd also expect you'd see short sellers betting against those investing in EV production. Maybe they are, I don't know?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

People are probably defensive because they have been responding to the same criticisms of EVs and renewables for going on decades now, and I'd have made those criticisms in the past when they had credibility. But today, the writing is on the wall and pointing out that electric vehicles take longer to charge than gas vehicles isn't a particularly illuminating piece of information.

The article specifically says that 70% of those who returned their EVs did so because they didn't have L2 charging at home or work. I think that's a very legitimate concern. And probably something that the average uninformed buyer might have trouble with.

The part that is bullshit in the article is the drive by smear that EVs aren't profitable and that profits all come from EV credits, an assertion that is based on the practices of exactly one EV maker: Tesla. And of course, just ignore all the CEOs now saying they'll be able to make these things as profitable as ICEVs in half a decade.

Heck, Volkswagen is now pushing for an even higher ZEV mandate in Europe. Now that it's figured out how to build EVs profitably, it wants share from the rest.

https://www.reuters.com/business/sus...et-2021-05-05/

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If EVs are just a ponzi scheme/scam, are there some automakers betting against this? Honestly I don't know, but if the market is as you say, then the smart automakers would think long term and stick with gas. I'd also expect you'd see short sellers betting against those investing in EV production. Maybe they are, I don't know?

Nah dude. He's just a secret genius who chooses to sit in Alberta and troll this forum instead of leading a board in Detroit or Munich. It's his reward after making millions shorting all these companies. Surely.

I'll never understand people who think companies are spending tens of billions of dollars/euros on a whim or some green hippy feeling. They didn't give a fuck for decades. But suddenly they had a Disney movie revelation moment and the entire board decided they needed to spend billions on going green. People actually believe that to be the case and not that some MBA came in with numbers and said, "This makes us more money in 5 years."?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If EVs are just a ponzi scheme/scam, are there some automakers betting against this? Honestly I don't know, but if the market is as you say, then the smart automakers would think long term and stick with gas. I'd also expect you'd see short sellers betting against those investing in EV production. Maybe they are, I don't know?

The Japanese Big 2 of Honda/Toyota have been more deliberate about models and dates, with timeframes far enough into the future to allow for reversals once the subsidies eventually go away and show that the total addressable market for EVs is smaller than what optimists currently believe. Meanwhile they continue their development cadence of new vehicles that people currently want, like Honda with their new Civic, HR-V and CR-V which will probably sell 125K/year combined in Canada and 800K in the US. And what the marketplace has really shown is that it can't get enough crossovers and SUVs, no matter the size.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Heck, Volkswagen is now pushing for an even higher ZEV mandate in Europe. Now that it's figured out how to build EVs profitably, it wants share from the rest.

Or that it being more profitable, thanks to Audi and Porsche (and especially their crossovers) it can successfully fight a war of attrition against the rest of Europe. A callback to the old Franco-German rivalry with an automotive version of the Battle of Verdun.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This bullshit again. Every 6 months.

I'll take the word of Volkswagen and GM executives when they say they can build EVs profitably.

Team Clean Diesel

Whether or not one thinks predictions on mass market EVs are accurate, the fact that certain corporations have jumped on the EV bandwagon is not evidence of that.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Team Clean Diesel

Whether or not one thinks predictions on mass market EVs are accurate, the fact that certain corporations have jumped on the EV bandwagon is not evidence of that.

This is becoming another red herring to cite every 6 months. It was more than just Volkswagen on the diesel scandal. But I'm not sure what relevance that is to the current electrification trend, which involves more than just Volkswagen and Tesla. And is happening in more than one market.

Posts like yours also seem to insinuate that it's marketing fluff or misdirection. I don't think a company spends €30B and retools half their production on three continents on a marketing stunt. They could have bought green cred for a lot less.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is becoming another red herring to cite every 6 months. It was more than just Volkswagen on the diesel scandal. But I'm not sure what relevance that is to the current electrification trend, which involves more than just Volkswagen and Tesla. And is happening in more than one market.

Posts like yours also seem to insinuate that it's marketing fluff or misdirection. I don't think a company spends €30B and retools half their production on three continents on a marketing stunt. They could have bought green cred for a lot less.

You’re saying that the proof of the future success of EVs (as a mainstream vehicle) is that Volkswagen management is betting on it. You could have made exactly the same post about clean diesel a decade ago.

I don’t think it is marketing fluff or misdirection, nor am I saying it is the wrong strategy. I am just saying that you can’t assume corporate infallibility, especially from a corporation that has screwed up so spectacularly in recent years. Maybe their bet on EV will pay off, maybe the approach of the Japanese and Korean manufacturers will seem a better bet. However, VW has little to lose with the German government subsidizing EVs by $13k each, so they’re taking on a political risk more than anything.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

You’re saying that the proof of the future success of EVs (as a mainstream vehicle) is that Volkswagen management is betting on it.

I'm saying that electrification is a trend because more than one OEM is betting on it. Nowhere did I say that the proof of success is because Volkswagen's management is betting on them. What I disputed was the argument that EVs can't be profitable when VW's CEO has specifically they will be profitable for Volkswagen. How you conflated all of that to me saying EVs are successful because VW is betting on them, is beyond me.

Originally Posted by acottawa

You could have made exactly the same post about clean diesel a decade ago.

Probably. But that is hardly proof of much. Are we to assume that every single technology automakers bet on will be a failure because of the diesel scandal?

You aware of the term FUD?

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don’t think it is marketing fluff or misdirection, nor am I saying it is the wrong strategy. I am just saying that you can’t assume corporate infallibility, especially from a corporation that has screwed up so spectacularly in recent years.

Again. This is about more than just Volkswagen. They just happen to be in the vanguard of Western automakers on this. Doesn't mean they are alone. Heck, arguably the electrification of logistics is far further and more impactful than consumer vehicles.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Maybe their bet on EV will pay off, maybe the approach of the Japanese and Korean manufacturers will seem a better bet.

We talking about the same Koreans now pushing hard into EVs too?

The only laggards here are the Japanese, who for a whole bunch of domestic reasons, bet hard on hydrogen. At this point, it's just Toyota whining that nobody is buying Mirais.

Originally Posted by acottawa

However, VW has little to lose with the German government subsidizing EVs by $13k each, so they’re taking on a political risk more than anything.

You get that VW aren't spending €30B and retooling plants in the US, China, Spain and another somewhere in Eastern Europe, just to serve a few home market customers getting rebates?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This bullshit again. Every 6 months.

I'll take the word of Volkswagen and GM executives when they say they can build EVs profitably.

I'm shocked at how cheap the new ID4 is. They are putting in a bigger battery and getting horrible efficiency with it (compared to Tesla), but if they are turning a profit, more power to them. Even breaking even at those prices.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm shocked at how cheap the new ID4 is. They are putting in a bigger battery and getting horrible efficiency with it (compared to Tesla), but if they are turning a profit, more power to them. Even breaking even at those prices.

Not just a profit. See the Reuters article above. Herbert Diess is saying he can make as much on EVs as gas cars within half a decade. If true that's a gamechanger.

I don't get why you're shocked at the price of the ID4. VW is rumored to have a pack price below $100/kWh. And they have more experience building cars than Tesla and are planning for larger volumes. All that allows them to get components at lower prices than Tesla. I'm hoping to see the EV premium to drop to about $3-5k over a similar gas model by 2025. I can't wait for these debates to be passé in 4-5 years.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm saying that electrification is a trend because more than one OEM is betting on it. Nowhere did I say that the proof of success is because Volkswagen's management is betting on them. What I disputed was the argument that EVs can't be profitable when VW's CEO has specifically they will be profitable for Volkswagen. How you conflated all of that to me saying EVs are successful because VW is betting on them, is beyond me.



Probably. But that is hardly proof of much. Are we to assume that every single technology automakers bet on will be a failure because of the diesel scandal?

You aware of the term FUD?



Again. This is about more than just Volkswagen. They just happen to be in the vanguard of Western automakers on this. Doesn't mean they are alone. Heck, arguably the electrification of logistics is far further and more impactful than consumer vehicles.



We talking about the same Koreans now pushing hard into EVs too?

The only laggards here are the Japanese, who for a whole bunch of domestic reasons, bet hard on hydrogen. At this point, it's just Toyota whining that nobody is buying Mirais.



You get that VW aren't spending €30B and retooling plants in the US, China, Spain and another somewhere in Eastern Europe, just to serve a few home market customers getting rebates?

VW has a 150B euro investment budget, so they aren’t exactly betting the farm.

Retooling often attracts significant funds from local government, so it would surprise me if they are paying all of the costs (they got something like 800M for building the plant in Tennessee, for example).

The massive increase in the German EV subsidy and the new Volkswagen production were announced the same day. That would be one hell of a coincidence if they weren’t related.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

VW has a 150B euro investment budget, so they aren’t exactly betting the farm.

Retooling often attracts significant funds from local government, so it would surprise me if they are paying all of the costs (they got something like 800M for building the plant in Tennessee, for example).

The massive increase in the German EV subsidy and the new Volkswagen production were announced the same day. That would be one hell of a coincidence if they weren’t related.

I'm glad we've moved on to new goalposts from, "They are doing this so Germans can get €13 000 subsidies on their car."

Also, nobody suggested they bet the farm on EVs. What is with you and strawmen and new goalposts?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm glad we've moved on to new goalposts from, "They are doing this so Germans can get €13 000 subsidies on their car."

Also, nobody suggested they bet the farm on EVs. What is with you and strawmen and new goalposts?

I am not moving any goalposts. I am still making the point that corporations are not infallible, that a bet on a product line is not a guarantee of that product line’s success, and that corporations make investments for a variety of reasons (including subsidies).

It is still not clear what EVs will be. Are they Laserdisc (niche product beloved by vocal enthusiasts that never really get mainstream acceptance in most markets)? Are they DVD (category killer that gets pretty much 100% market share, at least for a while)? Or are they Blue-ray, a quasi-mainstream technology that never really replaces its predecessor and shares market with a number of technologies. Certain corporations put money into all of those technologies.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am not moving any goalposts. I am still making the point that corporations are not infallible, that a bet on a product line is not a guarantee of that product line’s success, and that corporations make investments for a variety of reasons (including subsidies).

I don't think anybody ever said corporations are infallible. This seems to be a strawman you've inferred on your own.

What I (and a few others are saying) is that the large investments are evidence of serious commitment. We've moved well beyond the compliance car stage.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is still not clear what EVs will be. Are they Laserdisc (niche product beloved by vocal enthusiasts that never really get mainstream acceptance in most markets)? Are they DVD (category killer that gets pretty much 100% market share, at least for a while)? Or are they Blue-ray, a quasi-mainstream technology that never really replaces its predecessor and shares market with a number of technologies. Certain corporations put money into all of those technologies.

Given that acceptance and marketshare is growing, even as subsidies are slowing down or getting wound down, I would argue, it's not going to remain niche. But sure, I guess that argument can be entertained until we see price parity between ICEVs and BEVs.

Also, I don't see automakers investing in multiple technologies anymore. They are starting to get off the fence and dropping hydrogen development for cars and even further ICEV development in some cases.

https://thedriven.io/2021/03/16/vw-j...en-fuel-cells/

https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/daiml...ts-too-costly/

https://www.electrive.com/2021/03/16...e-development/

https://electrek.co/2019/09/19/daiml...electric-cars/

https://driving.ca/reviews/preview/c...-lyriq-ev-bows

[ssiguy]

EVs aren't going anywhere and there is no reason why they should. Battery advances are occurring at a dizzying pace and they will become ever more efficient and viable. The issue is not whether they will be viable but rather whether they are attainable and in much of the world, it will not be the case.

We naturally see things from our own perspective but one has to remember when doing so that ultra-spoiled and entitled Canadians are a rarity on this planet. We have monstrous amounts of fresh water, unlimited hydro potential, ultra-cheap hydro rates, and the largest uranium deposits on the planet. This makes EVs not only viable but also economic. Of course 99.5% of the planet doesn't live in Canada and they don't enjoy these benefits. Even in many advanced economies, electricity is an expensive and cherished resource and a very good chunk is still made with coal. In developing countries trying to get off the coal that is chocking their cities while simultaneously trying to massively increase overall electric production to fuel their advancing economies and switch all those vehicles to EV at the same time simply won't happen in our lifetimes.

This is why for much of the planet, EVs will not be viable..............they simply don't have enough electric supply to pull it off. Electricity can be exported if you have enough but only to your next door neighbor. This is quite unlike hydrogen which can be exported around the world whether it be blue or green.

Simply put, EVs require you to have excess electric energy supply and hydrogen doesn't. ICE cars weren't sold in Europe, Japan, or China because they had the oil to fuel them but rather because they had the trading partners that could and ditto for hydrogen.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't think anybody ever said corporations are infallible. This seems to be a strawman you've inferred on your own.

What I (and a few others are saying) is that the large investments are evidence of serious commitment. We've moved well beyond the compliance car stage.



Given that acceptance and marketshare is growing, even as subsidies are slowing down or getting wound down, I would argue, it's not going to remain niche. But sure, I guess that argument can be entertained until we see price parity between ICEVs and BEVs.

Also, I don't see automakers investing in multiple technologies anymore. They are starting to get off the fence and dropping hydrogen development for cars and even further ICEV development in some cases.

https://thedriven.io/2021/03/16/vw-j...en-fuel-cells/

https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/daiml...ts-too-costly/

https://www.electrive.com/2021/03/16...e-development/

https://electrek.co/2019/09/19/daiml...electric-cars/

https://driving.ca/reviews/preview/c...-lyriq-ev-bows

I am not really sure that market share without subsidies is growing. China cut its subsidies and EV sales fell and it has had to reinstate them. UK EV sales dropped when subsidies were cut. Sales have gone up in Germany when it doubled its subsidies. Norway (really the only jurisdiction where EVs have become mainstream) has crazy high subsidies and tax exemptions (on the initial purchase and ongoing use), in contrast with nearby Denmark which had no subsidies until recently and EVs had a tiny market share until recently (and have recently shot up after large subsidies were implemented).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am not really sure that market share without subsidies is growing. China cut its subsidies and EV sales fell and it has had to reinstate them. UK EV sales dropped when subsidies were cut. Sales have gone up in Germany when it doubled its subsidies. Norway (really the only jurisdiction where EVs have become mainstream) has crazy high subsidies and tax exemptions (on the initial purchase and ongoing use), in contrast with nearby Denmark which had no subsidies until recently and EVs had a tiny market share until recently (and have recently shot up after large subsidies were implemented).

Sales always drop when subsidies are cut. And then they bounce back. I don't see that as problematic. It's a reaction to any sector resetting to a new normal.

I'm curious why you have to resort to misinformation though. China didn't restore subsidies to where they were before the cut. They still cut subsidies by 20%. And a huge part of why they reinstated them was the sales drop that came with the pandemic. At least for China, this has less to do with environmental concerns and more to do with their industrial policy of cultivating EV manufacturing.

In any event, like I've said earlier, the talking points can keep going till we get price parity. Won't need subsidies after that. And we'll definitely see that in the second half of this decade if the statements from OEMs and their board presentations are to be taken seriously.

For the record, I have always maintained that EVs shouldn't be subsidized. And that government's need to start phasing them out. They made sense when batteries were $500/kWh. They make less sense 2-3 years out from parity ($100/kWh) in Europe and Asia and near-parity in North America.

Hopefully, the trend starts becoming more obvious to skeptics as the commercial sector electrifies. Starting with the Amazon van that drops off packages at your house in the next 2 years. Unlike, consumers, businesses aren't as sensitive to purchase prices and total cost of ownership is a much bigger driver. There won't be a diesel delivery, service, or garbage truck left in a decade.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

EVs aren't going anywhere and there is no reason why they should. Battery advances are occurring at a dizzying pace and they will become ever more efficient and viable. The issue is not whether they will be viable but rather whether they are attainable and in much of the world, it will not be the case.

We naturally see things from our own perspective but one has to remember when doing so that ultra-spoiled and entitled Canadians are a rarity on this planet. We have monstrous amounts of fresh water, unlimited hydro potential, ultra-cheap hydro rates, and the largest uranium deposits on the planet. This makes EVs not only viable but also economic. Of course 99.5% of the planet doesn't live in Canada and they don't enjoy these benefits. Even in many advanced economies, electricity is an expensive and cherished resource and a very good chunk is still made with coal. In developing countries trying to get off the coal that is chocking their cities while simultaneously trying to massively increase overall electric production to fuel their advancing economies and switch all those vehicles to EV at the same time simply won't happen in our lifetimes.

This is why for much of the planet, EVs will not be viable..............they simply don't have enough electric supply to pull it off. Electricity can be exported if you have enough but only to your next door neighbor. This is quite unlike hydrogen which can be exported around the world whether it be blue or green.

Simply put, EVs require you to have excess electric energy supply and hydrogen doesn't. ICE cars weren't sold in Europe, Japan, or China because they had the oil to fuel them but rather because they had the trading partners that could and ditto for hydrogen.

You seem to have a strange understanding of physics and economics.

Where do you think the hydrogen to power all those vehicles will come from? Or do you imagine that it's cheap to ship it from half a world away?

The developing world is going to electrify even quicker than us once parity is hit, because oil is even more expensive (relatively) to them than it is to us. And they aren't going to wait for hydrogen to take off. They don't have the luxury of time to wait for the tech to mature, or the capital to build a hydrogen distribution infrastructure.

And with most of the developing world still not having personal cars, what matters is what happens to buses, taxis and jitneys. And the business case to electrify those is completely different from a personal vehicle.

[WarrenC12]

Cheap batteries and solar will bring reliable electricity all over the world. The same way they adopted cell phones instead of land lines.

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There seem to be a lot of people here who think they are smarter than entire boards at various utilities and automakers. Any of you geniuses sent in your resumes yet? Surely, such wisdom is worth billions. Why waste it on trolling internet forums?

10 days before this post a SSP website manager posted this...

"Hi guys, I've been noticing some intense debates taking place in this thread. This is fine, as long as we all remember to remain polite. There are going to be differences of opinions here and don't expect to be able to change the minds of every person. It's fine to make your point but don't go beyond that and get into foul language and personal attacks as that is overstepping. There are consequences such as being suspended or banned but forum admin would rather not have to do that but we will if the intensity of discussion goes too far. We'd rather see you walk away from your computer or device for a while than to have your actions lead to the above mentioned consequences.

The forum rules state that anti-social behaviour is not allowed and it's up to you limit yourselves in this regard, before forum admin does. Thank you."

Apparently some people just don't get it and resort to name calling, profanity and personal attacks. Mods need to start doing their job and banning that type of behavior. Or better yet, maybe the bully's on this site will change their behaviour because that is the civil thing to do.