Just bought a 2006 Subaru Forester with 139K miles for $3500. Cost to license was $283.20. Drives like a new car. Uses gasoline. I'm 75 years old so probably no electric car for me
That should go to 400000 miles if taken care of. I own a 2004 Subaru Impreza Outback. Has to have some maintenance, but with only 120 k miles, it could go to 400k😊
Just give it up Mark. I remember when you said EVs could never compete with ICE cars. You were obviously wrong. I can’t find that video anymore. 😂😂 The mandates were wrong and will go away but EVs have already succeeded and will continue to do so. I’ve been wrenching on my own cars for 60 years and I’d love to have an EV. No more busting knuckles on serpentine belts, timing chains, oil changes, air cleaners, injectors, belts, etc. I have a garage and could plug it in when I get home. I put very few miles on my car anymore so one charge on a 300 mile range EV would last me 5 effing weeks. You can buy a two year old Model 3 with 25-30,000 miles on it for $25 grand. Where they make sense, they’re great, and cheaper to operate than an ICE car.
Exactly... This "C02 bad" agenda is a United nations (one world government/ U.s. Dems and rhinos uni-party) talking points to fullfil their 2030 agenda and take away and or control freedom/rights and liberties.
Everyone is focused on vehicles…..which only represent 11% of CO2 emissions. They’re doing this because this is the easiest sector to manipulate……..think about it people, YOU are the lowest, most manipulatable entity in this discussion.
I'll start taking the climate change authoritarians seriously when they stop flying private jets to their climate conferences and stop buying huge homes and beachfront properties they say will be worthless in a decade or two.
@chestrockwell8328 Yeah the politicians know common sense is lacking in this country, at least in the portion of fools who think going all electric is a good idea
There isn't enough electricity production, worldwide, to power every single individual internal combustion engine passenger car, truck, moped, scooter, or motorcycle in the United States of America if each vehicle were instantaneously converted into the most efficient electric version of the same type vehicle. The internal combustion engine commercial trucks, busses, trains, ships, planes, and construction equipment in the United States alone would account for approximately 10,000 times the current worldwide maximum electrical generation capacity. Then, throw into the equation that nuclear power generation is the most efficient, followed by hydroelectric dams, and anyone who has the ability to think critically can immediately understand that the entire Green Energy narrative is nothing more than a grand Ponzi Scheme designed to defraud taxpayers in every single Westernized nation into voting for a Marxist/Socialist WOKE agenda that is not in their own best interests, much less the best interests of future generations. Just look at the collaspe of Germany over the past 3 decades as the entire country was de-nuclearized and de-fossil fuelalized as far as electricity production was concerned and its current inability to meet even a small percentage of its total electricity requirements. Where once it had been able to meet all of its requirements, civilian, military, and industrial.
California had a nuke generator that used sea water for cooling (no ugly cooling towers). It warmed the sea water near-by and the marine life blossomed although non locally native. Therefore it's been decommissioned. They didn't want blossoming sea life and they got rid of it. California buys electricity from Arizona and New Mexico.
I agree. I try to tell everyone I meet to please do their own research on everything the Government tries to sell us. I don’t care what side of the isle.
The German auto industry is in collapse mode. Labor costs and they can't compete with EV's. His whole argument is based on what now exists. Henry Ford proved that doesn't fly . Necessity is the mother of invention
Just wait until home insurance companies will refuse you a policy if you park your EV in your garage, or your condo or apartment complex won't allow you to park them in parking garages, and that might even go for shopping center and airport parking garages, etc. And then you won't be allowed to charge your EV if you park on the street because cables laying on the sidewalk is a tripping hazard, not to mention charging efficiency goes down with distance from the charger and you can't do fast charging unless you are parked right next to the charger. And then the time spent waiting in line for an expensive supercharger and then the time waiting for the charge to complete, even if only to 80% because charging to 100% will be illegal due to the battery failure fire hazard, will really turn people off of EVs. Unless you have a fireproof concrete bunker in which to park and charge your EV at home, the EV experience will become a nightmare for you.
Lol ALL insurance companies refuse you a policy !?!? Insurance is an illusion - you pay premiums and are NOT covered. This is just an increase in the carve out. The government must get rid of private(pirate) insurance. Insurance is inherently bankrupt as it is the government that bears the risk in the end. < end rant >
Home insurance is denied if you park a private plane below your home even though they always have the battery isolated by a master switch when parked and 12 volt lead acid batteries do combust just sitting there. EV batteries may while charging.
You are correct. The EV fire emits toxic smoke and toxic chemical particles that negatively impact the environment for years. Then there is the problem of waste management. When a typical EV is several years old, and the battery needs replacement which cost over $20,000 to $30,000 and no one wants to buy it, it has to be sent to a recycling center. But most recycling is not cost effective so it’s hard to find such a recycling center. Bottom line, the used old EV is not sellable as no person is limited in Intelligence to purchase someone else’s financial failure products. And let’s not forget that many cities in North America have stated that they do not have the capacity to provide the amount of electricity to such enormous levels. Good luck.
Did you know that LFP won't catch fire? Did you know that gas and diesel catch fire FIFTY times as much as EVs? Gas and diesel burn fast enough to classify as an explosion. EVs take minimum five minutes, average one hour to actively burn. Tesla EVs are already saving many lives, including saving me from bodily injuring recently. Also much cheaper to own, best driving experience ever, fastest car I've ever owned. And, drives me where I want to go. For the same cost as the ten yr old Camry I traded in. I've always liked Hillsdale, but these videos are very disappointing. None of us want government control. Would you trade your LED lights for incandescent? Would you trade your gas car for a horse? Would you trade your modern gas car for a hand crank gas car? Why do people use scare tactics to discourage new technology? I'm super conservative, but my DIY off grid solar is cheaper than grid power, will outlast me and zero monthly cost, and charges my $25k Tesla for free. I'm secure from the government shutting down the grid. I use Starlink which government can't shut down. In the near future, energy will be extremely cheap. Short run flights will be electric. New batteries are non toxic, cheap, and much higher power. Teslas new motors coming out use zero rare earth materials and over half of their cars already use zero cobalt. All EV batteries are being recycled, so easily obtained lithium will eventually be 100% recycled. Lithium now comes from brine, not rock. New processes rinse the lithium from the underground brine without chemicals. The US has massive underground liquid brine that is already being developed. Sodium will soon replace the use of lithium, cheap. No matter what this guy says, EVs are already cheaper to build with fewer parts and labor is less. We are in the Model T stage of EVs. We are only seeing the initial improvements. Batteries are already used in avionics with double the energy per pound. When they go to mass production, we will see 100 passenger planes taking over short hop flights, much safer and cheaper. This guy is terribly uninformed and is a scare monger. I could go on, but if anyone wants more education, it's all over the internet. So far though, Tesla is the only company with real technology. Legacy auto thought like this guy, so they will likely go broke in the next ten years.
The most energy efficient car you can drive is the one you’re driving now. Meaning, the resources consumed to provide the new car more than offsets any energy savings of the new car. The key is don’t buy a new car until the wheels fall off the one you have now.
Heck, I put new and used engines, transmissions, and wheels in to perfectly good vehicles all the time that would otherwise be scrapped. I guess I'm doing my part for the environment 😂
They already know. Remember when he said that the point of all of this was to reduce the number of people with cars as well as the number of miles that people are allowed to drive? I heard this years ago while watching a presentation from the World Economic Forum. If you think that these politicians have your best interests at heart, you missed the point of the entire presentation.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Henry Ford already proved his argument based on what is not what will be is wrong. He could have made the same argument about the personal computer or the internet. How did that go.
Here’s a scenario. I live in the mountains near a national park. We often get large tourist buses going to the park. Let’s say it starts snowing and one of those buses has a major accident with multiple injuries. Emergency services can’t reach the bus due to the snow. People are stuck in their EVs for many hours and many drain their batteries staying warm in the storm. Once emergency workers care for the injured, now they have to clear the road, but it’s clogged with dead EVs. You can’t get tow trucks to the scene. You can’t bring each vehicle a gallon of gas to get it going again. You can’t bring in portable generators large enough to actually charge the vehicles. You can’t get plows in because the road is blocked. You’re screwed.
It is always possible to imagine a scenario which might happen. You now need to think of an unlikely scenario with ICE vehicles. In fact, there already will have been one, but it will have been normalized.
Mr Mills is part of the Manhattan Institute which is an organization that believes strongly in the free market and rejects any government involvement in the markets. It rejects global warming and supports nuclear and fossil fuel energy. In fact Mills worked for the fossil fuel industry.
During preparation for the last hurricane Governor DeSantis spoke of specific dangers of fires that had occurred in EVs when not removed from evacuation zones. I was unaware.
By now, it should be obvious to all that the primary objective of the religion of Climate Catastrophe that drives the EV mandate is not about replacing all gasoline and diesel vehicles with electric vehicles. The objective is elimination of personal transportation. The WEF has made this clear in their policy documents. That is why the timeframe for achieving the climate targets is so divorced from reality as to seem like a form of psychosis or, perhaps, evidence of panic associated with fear that one of these days, people will wake up and realize they have been duped. Germans are presently getting a dose of that which is not going away. We'll see if it wakes them up. On the exit from urban living, city governments have done everything they can to encourage the trend. Crap urban schools, high crime accompanied by "defund police" lunacy, unjustifiably high city taxation for little benefit, filthy cities, dangerous subways and prosecution of people with the temerity to defend themselves or others...why wouldn't people relocate to the burbs?
I got a 2015 Kia Soul EV with 110,000 miles. I live in Kahlifornya and I’m the second owner- bought it for only $10K in 2019 off a Volkswagen lot with 50K miles on it, where it had been sitting for 366 days. Primary battery has now been replaced twice so it’s on its THIRD battery under warranty. It’s a fun car to drive and feels close to normal Kia Soul. This is not a good deal for automakers and I don’t see EV’s replacing gas cars. You MUST have a gas car or rent one for trips or any distance. The infrastructure is horrible for charging.
EVs have a major issue in accessibility and therefore are not scalable. Not just in cost, which is a huge obstacle, but also many people do not live in residence that have garages. Many people live in apartments, townhomes, duplexes that have no way to charge EVs. Even people with garages need to pay thousands to install a supercharger at home, adding more costs. You don’t see any significant wave of supercharging stations being built. Charging times are still too long. The electric grid is no where near capable of providing electricity for EVs at the scale of gasoline cars. Without that ability to charge at home, it is just not accessible to many people. The reality is, the goal is to restrict automobile access to most people.
EVs aren't for everyone, or every scenario. The fact that you can think of those impossible scenarios doesn't mean that EVs aren't appropriate for the reasonable scenarios. For example I have a two-car garage and we both hate getting fuel. The thing that stops us getting EVs is because they cost too much, and because I loathe touch screens. Those things will change.
@@saar2411 You are wrong - they are not mandated for anyone. There are about 2bn vehicles in the world. Max capacity is 100m per year. So even if every single new vehicle was an EV, it would still take 20 years to replace all ICE. We still only make around 20% EVs, so it would take 100 years to make as many ICE vehicles as we currently have. At some point in the future, many countries have made plans to stop selling new ICE vehicles. We don't know if that will definitely happen, but even if it does - you will still be able to buy an ICE as long as it has already been made. And there are 2bn of them available. So no need to panic - you'll be able to drive an ICE until the day you die if you want to pay the market price.
That's because half of our public and more, is uneducated uninterested in being educated, and consequently elect sneaky, lazy, and uneducated leaders, who truly are not leaders in the first place, lol.
Just the facts. In the US gasoline sales peaked in 2003 and has continued to decline. This is due to increased efficiency, the use of hybrids and now electric vehicles. The growth in oil and gasoline is in developing countries but it is proven that improving the performance of cars reduces gasoline usage significantly. Live in the past it was cheaper.
Mark said, "You don't want what is happening in England". He is correct. I live here and in the recent elections we exchanged a poor government for an even worse one.
...And all in order to prevent carbon emissions - completely unnecessarily. When considering matters surrounding the current political narratives of the day, we should bear in mind the wise words of past figures of some merit; the American man of letters Henry Brooks Adams observed that 'Practical politics consists in ignoring facts'; Churchill famously noted that 'United wishes and goodwill cannot overcome brute facts; panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is'. Burns was a little more frank: 'Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed'. I’d like to see the scientific proof or evidence that man-made carbon dioxide emissions (globally accounting for 18 of the 420 odd parts per million found in the atmosphere) somehow are more injurious to the prospects of the planet wellbeing than the remaining 402ppm of natural origin - carbon dioxide (comprised of one atom carbon and two atoms oxygen) is an ESSENTIAL TO LIFE gas, the steady and slight increase (appx 6ppm per annum) of which has been reckoned to increase crop yields globally, and also helped to ‘green’ the periphery of desert regions globally, as observed by satellite imaging these past six decades. It should also be borne in mind that global manufacturing giant China alone is calculated to have pumped more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere within the last five years than has been produced GLOBALLY since the Industrial Revolution began, (even in 2003 they emitted three times as much as in 2002). This has yet to show up in increased overall carbon dioxide levels however, as this carbon dioxide is simply absorbed by oceanic algae, phytoplankton and land based vegetation. Carbon dioxide only acts as a warming agent to the planet in concentrations between 50-100 parts per million, and this level was achieved without Man's influence some six hundred million years ago; this level thereafter needed to increase by a further 100% to permit all vegetation to barely begin to grow, ie far earlier than the evolution of dinosaurs, etc, by which time levels were orders of magnitude greater than today, ranging between 2000-7000ppm, resulting in a superabundance of vegetation for the herbivores of their day. This warming effort (constituting around 10% of the total, the other 90% is provided by water vapour and clouds, which we are of course neither able to reduce nor even control, much less set a pretend tax or levy upon) keeps the planet some thirty two degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, thus rendering the planet more agreeably habitable than otherwise; were we to double, triple or indeed increase by tenfold - to typical tolerable ‘submarine-level’ concentrations - it would hardly raise the global temperature by a single degree Celsius. Levels of carbon dioxide beyond 100ppm do not have any significant propensity to increase global temperatures, and in any event increased levels are as a consequence of temperature increases, NOT the cause of same. The temperature rise of the early medieval period some 800 years ago is the cause of present day carbon dioxide level increases - steady away at around 6ppm per annum - despite the industrious efforts of China. To spunk billions on such a clown initiative (- trees absorb practically all of our generated CO2 for free) is indicative of the lunacy of the calibre of idiots running the show. Perhaps Red Ed Milliband can advise us of his intended explanation of quite how the monies allocated are going to make the slightest difference to the incoming cyclical energy levels of the Sun, which are the true cause of the temperature fluctuations of the planet; a perfect correlation between the monthly mean sunspot number and the mean seasonal temperature variation clearly demonstrates that solar activity is the principal driver of global warming/cooling, depending on solar activity levels - in short, it's the Sun, not us. Well over one thousand scientific, peer-reviewed papers have been produced demonstrating the link between Earth’s climate (which produces no heat to speak of sufficient to drive its own climate) and the Sun - our SOLE meaningful means of warming the planet. It has furthermore been comprehensively proven by the two Professors, Dr. William Happer- chief Scientific advisor to three US presidents - and Willem Van Wijngaarden, both at Princeton, USA that carbon dioxide does not and indeed cannot warm the planet in the way that the scammers and charlatans would have us "believe", and yet despite ALL this, rather than ‘looking up’ and finding out basic facts for ourselves, a global industry has been created around this foolish notion; they persist with the myth, trusting in the supposition that no one else was paying much attention to physics and chemistry in school… Shakespeare wrote, ‘What a terrible era, in which idiots govern the blind’..
I envisioned a world full of dinosaurs most of which were bovine with a few carnivores. But my vision was of a thriving planet although those co2 emitting bovines must have been emitting a lot of co2 that as we know is ruinous to the planet. However somehow they were able to survive for about an estimated 170 million years. Go figure.
Electric Vehicles, or EVs, Are Not Cars Our cars and the eco-system built them around are one of the most integral parts of our society and lifestyle. The government and auto industry wants us to believe that EVs are interchangeable with gas-powered vehicles. EVs are not a “car” as we know them. EVs are experimental transportation devices that the government wants us to accept as a car replacement. I believe the rollout of them was extremely premature. They look like cars, and seem to function like cars, but they are not cars. Words and their traditional definitions matter. Using the word Car for an EV is misleading. Please avoid it. EVs are a completely different machine and when purchasing one that should be our mindset. EVs have their own ecosystem. We need to demand the following: Replacements For Vital Machines (Evs For Cars) Must Outperform Their Predecessors To Be Universally Adopted For a new product or invention, which an EV is, to replace a tried and true significant part of our daily lives, like our cars, it has to be a better choice. Do EVs outperform cars in all important areas? No. How should a car replacement be better? At a minimum they should be a seamless and transparent replacement for our current experience with cars. 1) Cheaper purchase price, lifetime maintenance and disposal. 2) Better performance, road handling and driving range. 3) As many or more locations to “refuel” and lower recharging times than refueling. Overall more convenient and time saving than gas powered vehicles. 4) Safer in all ways 4(a) Including charging away from home, compared to traditional gas stations. 4(b) Fires in the vehicle should less frequent, burn cooler, be easier and safer to extinguish, and not release more volatile and dangerous chemicals. 5) EVs should be less expensive to insure. 6) Manufacturing, including procurement of parts, should be more environmentally friendly. 7) End of Life Disposal must be cheaper and more environmentally friendly. 8) Depreciation of value must be slower than cars. How do EVs stack up in those categories? 1) When you include government subsidies, ($50,000 average per EV) EVs are much more expensive than cars. Overall costs over time are much higher for EVs. Even if they were cheaper, the current negative impacts of the loss of convenience and functionality make EVs not worth replacing our cars with experimental replacements. An EV is less functional, yet more expensive? 2) EVs have much higher acceleration, but other than that the driving experience is not much different and is sometimes deficient. Range anxiety is real and total miles available on a full charge falls terribly behind a full tank of gas. 3) Gas stations are much safer and more convenient than EV charging stations. On the road charging can average ten times longer than refueling with gasoline. EVs fail miserably here. 4) EVs are Less safe in all ways 4(a) The level of danger using an unmanned EV charging station at night in a deserted parking lot is not tenable, compared to gas stations which have personnel, lights and security cameras. 4(b) EV fires burn much hotter and longer, are much more difficult to extinguish, and release many more dangerous chemicals than a combustion engine vehicle related fire. EV battery explosions are commonplace. Once exstinguised, EV fires can restart at any time. 5) EVs are much more expensive to insure. A true car replacement would be cheaper to insure. Middle class families already can’t afford car insurance. 6) Manufacturing of Evs is much less environmentally friendly. 7) EV End of Life Disposal? Is there even a plan? What is the tested process for dismantling and disposing of the dead batteries? I am sure this will be very costly for the unfortunate consumer who is the last owner. 8) Depreciation of EV values is exponentially higher than cars. EVs fail on almost every measure. This certainly does not make a great case for EVs. Using EVs dramatically changes your entire ownership and driving experiences, one of the most important parts of our daily lives. There are so many unanswered questions about the impact on us if the government were to ban gas-powered vehicles in favor of EVs. Mandating EVs will change our way of life. As with other government experiments in the recent past, they want us to be the test subjects. I propose we opt out of this government experiment and all others in the future.
@20m I think Mills is wrong on how fast new mines can open outside the US. In Western Australia the rules are thin. They just opened Finniss Lithium Project 2023, Mt Holland 2022 (0.4Mt/yr), and Kathleen Valley is about to open (0.5Mt). I hear from US gold miners that the Aussies and S Africans are the largest share of miners in the world, don’t care about hurting people or the environment, but there we are, plenty of Lithium and that’s just Australia so far.
E, Musk is the no.1 advisor to Trump and Musk is the no.1 producer of EVs. Hmm, we'll see how that plays out.Meantime Cubans are getting around in 50s gas cars. Classics.
No, not number 1 advisor. He’s just biggest voice online, media. Trumps family, chief of staff, Vance, all have far more history w Trump, thus more trust. No doubt when Musk/Vivek recommend a DOGE cut somewhere, Trumps going to do it, because Trump gave him that job, but it ends there.
Musk has previously stated he thinks it should be a slow movement to all EV’s and a forced and quick “conversion”. I don’t think Musk is going to try to get Trump to change it.
@@Nill757 - Interestingly enough…Chinese EV cars have problems and have an enormous huge stocks of unsold cars. Teslas appear to have a better reputation quality/safety, also they don’t have have stocks of unsold ones.
Now use the same analysis towards the oil industries and how much government subsidies are used to create and maintain the oil industry. How much conflict cobalt is used to remove sulfur from oil to create gasoline and diesel.
Which subsidies? If they are getting any actual subsidies, those subsidies are certianly getting washed out by taxes. And that's just on the producer side. On the consumer side, gas is definitely not subsidized. In fact, it is taxed heavily. Up and down the line, from supplier to producer to consumer there is no comparison. EVs are propped up while IC is burdened.
What is even more comical is CA restriction on small gasoline engines. Landscapers will need to revert to hand tools horse drawn mowers and goats to maintain Silicon Valley homes for the Tesla driving uber rich.
Can’t wait for the battery replacement catastrophe within 10 years. It will crush the EV market. The new battery will cost more than the car will be worth. This will be more true as EVs become cheaper.
@@tonycatman even if that was true Ice engines can be fixed Parts can be replaced by any independent shop Good luck fixing a battery at home or at a shop
I’ve been searching and listening to Marks stuff for about 4 years now Always new nuggets to comprehend I will say tho even Marks been sparing and a lot of others too about the link between a lot of these projects and low interest rates I’m in the UK but it’s worldwide we’re at the 5ish -% interest rates for many many years now That seems to me the biggest thing that’ll stop this movement in large part Amongst other things it makes the possible hopefully affordable subsidies at lower rates a real impossibility at compounded 5% etc
EV are OBSOLETE. Why? It will cost 10 to 30 times MORE to charge an EV ON a 100% RE grid than to make fuel from 100% RE or nuclear. EV = 60 cents/kwh house, 90 cents/kwh super charger. Combustion = 3 cents/kwh house (fuel making or Natural gas), 6 cents/kwh (oil, nuclear or RE gasoline). Do the math: 60/6=10 ... 90/3=30. So, 10 to 30 times MORE for energy. New combustion tech will have CO2 capture in a combined cycle that gets 75% efficiency at the wheel in cruise and low power and 60% at peak power. EVs are 75% from the plug to wheel. Just do the math. 0.91 inverter loss at charger, 0.93 motor loss, inverter in car 0.97 = 0.75. this does NOT include line losses of 7% from plant to charger, so the actual figure is 69.4% at best. EVs are 25% heavier than old ICE and 66% heavier than new ICE. This give a superior MPGe than EV by 1.3 to 1.5x. So, reality is an EV will cost 15 to 45 times more per mile than a new combustion car with combined cycle. As for CO2, the CO2 for a 100% RE grid is 300 gCO2/kwh. The EV battery is 300 too. Total is 600 gCO2/kwh. At the wheel, the total is 800. 600/0.75=800. New RE fuel will be 3 gCO2/kwh and at wheel 4 gCO2/kwh. This give a ratio of 200:1. 800/4=200. EVs fail to provide low CO2. New combustion tech is nearly CO2 neutral. Add in a greenhouse for home crops and you have enough to sequestor the remaining CO2 for a net zero tech with no battery, wind/solar PV. NONE. The entire agenda of wind/solar PV/battery/EV junk can be taken down if people will wake up and listen.
genius, impressive presentation.. delivered in such a fact-of-the-matter nice balanced way.. the absurdity of the climate-fraud financials will bring it down.
With regard to his comments about how EV’s are useless when the batteries stop working after years of use, can’t the raw materials that make EV batteries and most of the other materials used to construct the vehicles, be recycled?
There is a new firestation in Berlin Germany full of new EV fires trucks. One of them started to go nasty and the whole station burned down. No sprinklers in the new building. Same happened in garage in Singapore burned down to the ground. If a combustion car stars to burn fighting the fire is more or less quite easy. My main problem is the destruction of the environment for example in Mongolia the size of Franse or Texas. Read The great Metals war of G. Pitron very shocking.
Talk about repairing an electric vehicle, or an hybrid...the auto garages have a steep learning curve...plus, replacing that battery pack, frequently in 5 years, costs between $5-$10k!! So many issues; this as a way is someone's pipe dream, and as reality hits, they're not willing to change/adapt.... I guess that's why they want us in 15 minute cities, back to walking and biking...
The battery packs last much longer than 5 years. Most governments actually mandate that the minimum life is 8-10 years, which is longer than the warranty for an ICE. The likely life for a battery made today is longer than for an ICE.
@tonycatman 2019, I bought a Fird hybrid, by 2021, I had spent $2000 in repairs, and then, the battery bank started failing. They said that I didn't drive it enough. Quoted $3500 to $5000 to replace, and I must drive it everyday. Took a huge loss, and sold it to a young man who drives every day, and understood a near expense of the battery bank. Have a Toyota now.
@@betty8173 Your personal experience can't be taken as the norm, and the past is no guide to the future. Don't forget that this is a relatively new industry. At one point, the Tesla S was the least reliable car on the road. It has gone up in rankings every year, and will certainly end up above average. The early Nissan Leaf models didn't have battery cooling tech, and this meant that their batteries were crap with low life expectancy and high degradation. That is now fixed, and all electric car batteries have temperature management. At the same time, EV batteries are now 20% of the cost that they were 10 years ago. This speaker is also speaking about historical rather than future figures, and there are some things that he states which are 100% wrong.
@@jtjones4081 The model X and S are 240,000 miles. Almost all EV manufacturers offer battery warranty of 8 years or more. ICE engine warranty : VW/Audi, Ford, Nissan : 5 years. Most GM : 3 years. In fact I'm struggling to find the longest ICE warranty which is as high as the lowest EV battery warranty. The battery replacement myth seems to be one of the most widely repeated, and easiest debunked.
Concerning '15 minute cities' and similar redesigns, I think part of the failure of the West has been to promote suburb designs after the factories were shuttered in the 1970s and '80s. Isn't it true suburbs were created to get workforces out of the cities and to factory towns. The factories were built and designed by engineer workforce of our time and the industrialists who respected engineering disciplines. So the industrialists would, in building factories, assure thru rigorous engineering disciplines to make sure water, workers, power, and security from fires and floods were kept to a minimum, as well as ensure logistics for supplies and finished goods. Our landscape was built by engineers. But post industrial America starting in the 1970s, the engineer pool and political incentives to listen to them dried up on the vines. There was less money and respect for them. Yet we kept the suburban dream alive and made it a pillar of personal wealth measurement. The result has been larger houses than families need at every income level. Poor respect of fires and floods of area. Destruction of water ways that would have otherwise been respected for their industrical applications. And roads for huge but relatively empty and unburdened autos. I see only waste and abuse in what we've done across the U.S. and much of Americas and the world. The McMansions or barbie dreamhouse concept is flawed and harms the ability for the U.S. to compete with the vertical living nations that have taken on the industrial burdern. Didn't Pres. Theodore Roosevelt warn us that the industrial blueprint for housing could get out of hand?
This fellow says 10 to 16 years to set up a new mine . Siom Michaux in his presentations says 20 years and he worked with mines . I don't really know .
On a planet where the main business philosophy is growth. Capitalism calls for growth. It is irrelevant what cars we drive. Bty there is no better system…
Willie Nelson sums up what it is to be human, "Moving is Freedom". Technology exists and will be made to extend this quotes meaning to greater levels. The monopoly board and it's autonomous conveyor belts can not compete against the human spirit to be free.
Battery chemistry won't evolve any more than gasoline will evolve. The gasoline vehicles and the electric vehicles of 2025 are just refinements of what existed in 1925. The reason electric vehicles are being pushed is the failure of mass transit. Mass transit failed because of high costs and limited service, too many delays such as waiting for a bus or subway transfer. The electric vehicles share all of these problems. This is not to say that either mass transit or an EV won't work for you - but EVs are not a universal solution.
My daughter's neighbour is an Industrial Chemist. Battery Chemistry will not follow Moore's law. The best that we can expect is a 30% increase in energy density.
Auto Expert John Cadogan has a really good video on the amount of CO2 produced when an EV is produced. This video destroys the argument that they produce less CO2.
Ahhh, the "15 minute city," also known as a small town... that has been the bedrock of Western Civilization for centuries. But now you can never leave. Chattering Class trying to re-invent the wheel.
What ICE car has an 80lb fuel tank? Maybe a small one that is full of fuel. The tank is much lighter. I could easily lift a mostly empty 20gallon tank with one arm.
He's leaving out the motivation of utilizing Full Self Driving, the millions of lives saved and the economics those saved lives contribute, and autonomous bots work input
The most environmentally friendly car is probably a LNG hybrid. True environmental advocates would push for those if they really want to have a positive impact on the environment. If the USA pushed a love towards LNG cars, there would be an economic boom and help the environment. But the market should drive the supply and demand.
Trump voter here. People should buy what they want. No mandates. I prefer my EV, since it is quieter, simpler, faster, and more fun than all the gas cars I had prior.
@dks13827 I’m also retired. After 35 years of working, saving, and investing. EV’s keep getting cheaper, and soon will be cheaper than gas cars. Lots of cheap used ones now..
@@paulrybarczyk5013 Reserves abound and Trump is in to win. One CME or hack and all EV ends. One Carrington Event and Poof! All the EV and Crypto are gone. China has big plans for the USA. EV is rich man toy. Working man and Companies cannot afford this nonsense. The war on freedom of movement weather from above or here on earth is visible. Road diets are designed to make it unpleasant to go anywhere. Also makes it unsafe. Cars are intentionally so expensive to own in every way poor people are suffering at a time when millions of poor need transportation to work.
You guys do understand when ev+auto drive means co-ownership. That will drop the cost of ownership to 1/100th of private ownership and if an accident should happen, it will be between a human operator against a machine. In other words you are on the hook paying for that insurance if you insist operating your own. The cost alone shall cause 99% of people to think twice not to mention the population is aging. And you will lose garage/parking lots and the streets/signaling shall change, etc. We don’t have much of Adrenaline in our body when you get older. For those still do and ready to pay up, pay up.
The speaker is very well prepared in his topic and is able to use every means to put his points across. But sometimes he overuse is words and tends to make things he did like into " garb...". Not a bad view of what is going on in this time of crossing the route.
9:48 Correction to your statement. Infotainment in a vehicle is more important to Millennials (did you forget they exist?) and Gen Z. We Gen X'ers don't care one way or another about infotainment in a vehicle, most probably don't want more than a backup camera.
Why donot we have battery powered trains or ships? Or city fleets like busses, garbage trucks, or cop cars? Seems like these would be far better use for ev than passenger cars. Especially trains. Seems like if battery power could shine anywhere it would be on the rails. The facr that this isnt happening organically makes me think that battery power will never work for general driving
@charlo90952 not really. I know that there are some municipal fleets around, but as far as I know they are all converted passenger vehicles or mail trucks and are not doing well. And I have heard that there are plans to build electric ships, but none are running yet. As for the trains I would love to find out more on this. Do you know where this battery powered train you speak of is running? Or maybe who owns it? In any case, ev technology would seem to not be good enough to be implemented in these other areas organically or even with the benifit of massive subsidies that are given to passenger cars.
@@ronfox5519 just search Google and UA-cam. Several videos on battery electric trains. They're not as good as overhead wires but for low frequency applications they can work. But battery technology is evolving rapidly so in a few years they'll be more viable.
@@charlo90952 Thanks for the info. I look forward to seeing this. But a developmental train is not the same as an economically viable system that is in general use.
Those figures regarding the mining of battery making minerals are incorrect. At that level internal combustion engines and EV probably even out.. How many tons of iron ore go into car engines? Why would this "expert" present such an obviously biased argument?
International markets are somewhat different. EVs that meet the immediate needs of non big city people in the 2nd and 3rd world are available in China for prices we can only dream about. eg USD 3 to 6k. Many are buying them here in Thailand and across Asia. They are not subsidized and are cheap because they are limited range and small. China has developed this new market that is not met by ICE vehicles and they will make inroads into the ubiquitous motor-cycle in many Asian countries. While this may be of less interest in the USA it will impact car demographics over the next few years.
You just told us about cheap short range EVs that are indeed ideal for some big city folk but generally useless in a rural setting. Was that your intention?
@@evanpnz Yes. Most rural people in Asia do not drive long distances, that is an american practice. Rather they drive with their produce to the nearest village or town. 40 or 50 km range is adequate for most farmers etc. This allows even lead acid to suffice though Li-on is now so cheap here.
1st there are not 40 million BEVs - Tesla has sold 4 million BYD 4 million and others combined about 4 million. There are 1.4 Billion light vehicles and 200 million heavy vehicles. That is 0.1 Market penetration w 2025 next week. Total lithium production 168,000 tons. IE if nothing else but Model Y EVs were made you could make 15 million. No battery farms, no cellphones, no hybrids, no laptops, tablets, portable power tools, power walls, THus if 1/2 of all lithium goes to BEVs 7.5 million might be made. a decade to make 75 million, 100 years to reach 750 million roughly half existing vehicles - so using current tech - BEVs will not meet any significant impact..no matter what you think.
Surely wind and solar could be greatly expanded - No they can't. Remember those lithium production figures - you need massive battery farms to retain power for when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. If you only provided backup batteries for 2 days (no enough) it would take 20 years to make Tokyo fully solar/wind powered w the needed batteries; using every ounce of lithium produced in the world. So what about the other 9 BILLION people? The idea won't work w solar or wind / lithium. How about new battery tech? When you have it - when we know it's limitiations - then it can be evaluated. Given a valid reason to do it and a workable plan. Don't put the cart before the horse w no where to go.
The Premis that BEVs would ever make an impact on CO2 or that CO2 reduction would do anything - is in significant doubt. Start with the fact that all human produced CO2 is 1/10,000th of the atmopshere. ALL transport is 16% of that, if 2/3rds of transport were solar powered; you'd reduce 1/100,000th of the atmosphere. Totally insigificant. If you are a believer that CO2 even in tiny quantities effect temprature on earth - then you have a hard time explaining how Mars which receives 1/2 as much sun, but has 950,000 times as much CO2 yet is so cold CO2 freezes into ice -109f. CO2 warms nothing, but it is critcal for plants photosynthesis - essential to most life on earth - sure cut that - smart!
This guy is apparently well-funded by the fossil lobbies. He is spreading completely false information about EVs. Follow the scientific facts. Today's EVs have a range of 600 miles/1000 km, charge from 0-80% in just 10 minutes and are much more efficient. No maintenance, no emissions and no cancer. WE LOVE EVs❤
I don’t believe most people care weather you drive an EV or not it’s the mandate that tells an individual that they can no longer drive a vehicle they choose.
You are way off base on your presentation. The market will drive EV’s. The will be cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate, and will last longer. OEm’s were slow on the uptake. Tesla is way ahead of the game. Ford, GM, Stalantis, VW, and Japan are in big trouble. China will be the dominant auto manufacturer worldwide. Tesla is profitable and will be profitable for a long time. Battery chemistry and physics are changing by the minute.
There's an easy way around all this. A carbon surcharge on fossil fuels. No subsidies necessary. Those who use more fossil fuels pay more, and those who use less fossil fuels pay less. This is certainly justifiable by reason of the costs associated with fossil fuel use. It is also a market based solution. By raising the price of fossil fuels, people will find ways to reduce their use of fossil fuels. Businesses will find ways to be more efficient in their use of fossil fuels. One of the things they might do is start thinking about not driving their 2500 lb. vehicle to the corner store to buy a 12 oz pop and a 6 oz candy bar.
The only problem with EVs is they are cheaper to build, operate, maintain and last longer than ICE vehicles and this undermines the fossil fuel investor interests.
I feel really sad after listening to this man. He is very anti-electric spouting patently untrue statements anyone listening to him will have their views skewed just as he intends. Please do some more research especially about upstream emissions for fossil vehicles AND the most important fact that oil is finite when it’s gone it’s gone. The rubbish he spouts about batteries is unbelievable it is true some increase will need to be made in mining what he does not say is that the batteries can and will be RECYCLED GOOD LUCK IN RECYCLING BURNT OIL.
But there are better alternatives. And please tell me how and whe. Lithium batteries will be recycled. There is abundace of fossil fuel. What will charge EV's. Imagine all vehicles on earth are EV. How do you propose to charge all these plus run industry.
Hillsdale's reputation for truth is certainly going to be tarnished by this guy's presentation. I heard him state 4 different misrepresentations in just the first 11 minutes. He needs to get up to speed on the facts because they're changing quickly.
thank you Kathy. This guy has not seen the changes in China, which are proving him wrong nor does he see that the cost of batteries is dropping so fast with Chinese technology that e-cars will be cheaper than fossil in about 2 or 3 years. This is like the economist complaining when govt forced people to buy LED bulbs before they got to be cheaper than incandescent.
Don't be too confident in your ignorance. Bear in mind that most of what is presented to you on the media now is not journalism, it's propaganda. You are being deceived and you fell for it.
Just bought a 2006 Subaru Forester with 139K miles for $3500. Cost to license was $283.20. Drives like a new car. Uses gasoline. I'm 75 years old so probably no electric car for me
Yes, Sir, at almost 70, I am blessed to drive a 2007 Toyota Corolla and just pray it lasts!
@@betty8173 It's Toyota. It will last.
I drive a Toyota Tundra made in Indiana in 09/00. I love my old pickup 👍
That should go to 400000 miles if taken care of. I own a 2004 Subaru Impreza Outback. Has to have some maintenance, but with only 120 k miles, it could go to 400k😊
Just give it up Mark. I remember when you said EVs could never compete with ICE cars. You were obviously wrong. I can’t find that video anymore. 😂😂 The mandates were wrong and will go away but EVs have already succeeded and will continue to do so.
I’ve been wrenching on my own cars for 60 years and I’d love to have an EV. No more busting knuckles on serpentine belts, timing chains, oil changes, air cleaners, injectors, belts, etc. I have a garage and could plug it in when I get home. I put very few miles on my car anymore so one charge on a 300 mile range EV would last me 5 effing weeks. You can buy a two year old Model 3 with 25-30,000 miles on it for $25 grand.
Where they make sense, they’re great, and cheaper to operate than an ICE car.
Nothing wrong with CO2, at all.
Exactly... This "C02 bad" agenda is a United nations (one world government/ U.s. Dems and rhinos uni-party) talking points to fullfil their 2030 agenda and take away and or control freedom/rights and liberties.
Except storage and production and distribution on a scale large enough.
Something wrong with everything in nature if there’s too much of it. Water, oxygen. Everything.
EV's
No need. No benifit.
@@TiesOfZip CO2 actually works great in soda pop...and of course plants also "drink it" in mass quantities, they love it.
Everyone is focused on vehicles…..which only represent 11% of CO2 emissions. They’re doing this because this is the easiest sector to manipulate……..think about it people, YOU are the lowest, most manipulatable entity in this discussion.
CO2*
Not CO (carbon monoxide)
Most people don't understand this.
I'll start taking the climate change authoritarians seriously when they stop flying private jets to their climate conferences and stop buying huge homes and beachfront properties they say will be worthless in a decade or two.
You are correct; unfortunately, people are stupid.
@chestrockwell8328 Yeah the politicians know common sense is lacking in this country, at least in the portion of fools who think going all electric is a good idea
There isn't enough electricity production, worldwide, to power every single individual internal combustion engine passenger car, truck, moped, scooter, or motorcycle in the United States of America if each vehicle were instantaneously converted into the most efficient electric version of the same type vehicle.
The internal combustion engine commercial trucks, busses, trains, ships, planes, and construction equipment in the United States alone would account for approximately 10,000 times the current worldwide maximum electrical generation capacity.
Then, throw into the equation that nuclear power generation is the most efficient, followed by hydroelectric dams, and anyone who has the ability to think critically can immediately understand that the entire Green Energy narrative is nothing more than a grand Ponzi Scheme designed to defraud taxpayers in every single Westernized nation into voting for a Marxist/Socialist WOKE agenda that is not in their own best interests, much less the best interests of future generations.
Just look at the collaspe of Germany over the past 3 decades as the entire country was de-nuclearized and de-fossil fuelalized as far as electricity production was concerned and its current inability to meet even a small percentage of its total electricity requirements. Where once it had been able to meet all of its requirements, civilian, military, and industrial.
California had a nuke generator that used sea water for cooling (no ugly cooling towers). It warmed the sea water near-by and the marine life blossomed although non locally native. Therefore it's been decommissioned. They didn't want blossoming sea life and they got rid of it. California buys electricity from Arizona and New Mexico.
I agree. I try to tell everyone I meet to please do their own research on everything the Government tries to sell us. I don’t care what side of the isle.
The German auto industry is in collapse mode. Labor costs and they can't compete with EV's. His whole argument is based on what now exists. Henry Ford proved that doesn't fly . Necessity is the mother of invention
Just wait until home insurance companies will refuse you a policy if you park your EV in your garage, or your condo or apartment complex won't allow you to park them in parking garages, and that might even go for shopping center and airport parking garages, etc. And then you won't be allowed to charge your EV if you park on the street because cables laying on the sidewalk is a tripping hazard, not to mention charging efficiency goes down with distance from the charger and you can't do fast charging unless you are parked right next to the charger. And then the time spent waiting in line for an expensive supercharger and then the time waiting for the charge to complete, even if only to 80% because charging to 100% will be illegal due to the battery failure fire hazard, will really turn people off of EVs. Unless you have a fireproof concrete bunker in which to park and charge your EV at home, the EV experience will become a nightmare for you.
That's the kind of control government LOVES.
Lol ALL insurance companies refuse you a policy !?!? Insurance is an illusion - you pay premiums and are NOT covered. This is just an increase in the carve out.
The government must get rid of private(pirate) insurance. Insurance is inherently bankrupt as it is the government that bears the risk in the end. < end rant >
Home insurance is denied if you park a private plane below your home even though they always have the battery isolated by a master switch when parked and 12 volt lead acid batteries do combust just sitting there. EV batteries may while charging.
You are correct. The EV fire emits toxic smoke and toxic chemical particles that negatively impact the environment for years. Then there is the problem of waste management. When a typical EV is several years old, and the battery needs replacement which cost over $20,000 to $30,000 and no one wants to buy it, it has to be sent to a recycling center. But most recycling is not cost effective so it’s hard to find such a recycling center. Bottom line, the used old EV is not sellable as no person is limited in Intelligence to purchase someone else’s financial failure products. And let’s not forget that many cities in North America have stated that they do not have the capacity to provide the amount of electricity to such enormous levels. Good luck.
Did you know that LFP won't catch fire? Did you know that gas and diesel catch fire FIFTY times as much as EVs? Gas and diesel burn fast enough to classify as an explosion. EVs take minimum five minutes, average one hour to actively burn. Tesla EVs are already saving many lives, including saving me from bodily injuring recently. Also much cheaper to own, best driving experience ever, fastest car I've ever owned. And, drives me where I want to go. For the same cost as the ten yr old Camry I traded in.
I've always liked Hillsdale, but these videos are very disappointing. None of us want government control. Would you trade your LED lights for incandescent? Would you trade your gas car for a horse? Would you trade your modern gas car for a hand crank gas car? Why do people use scare tactics to discourage new technology? I'm super conservative, but my DIY off grid solar is cheaper than grid power, will outlast me and zero monthly cost, and charges my $25k Tesla for free. I'm secure from the government shutting down the grid. I use Starlink which government can't shut down.
In the near future, energy will be extremely cheap. Short run flights will be electric. New batteries are non toxic, cheap, and much higher power. Teslas new motors coming out use zero rare earth materials and over half of their cars already use zero cobalt. All EV batteries are being recycled, so easily obtained lithium will eventually be 100% recycled. Lithium now comes from brine, not rock. New processes rinse the lithium from the underground brine without chemicals. The US has massive underground liquid brine that is already being developed. Sodium will soon replace the use of lithium, cheap. No matter what this guy says, EVs are already cheaper to build with fewer parts and labor is less. We are in the Model T stage of EVs. We are only seeing the initial improvements. Batteries are already used in avionics with double the energy per pound. When they go to mass production, we will see 100 passenger planes taking over short hop flights, much safer and cheaper.
This guy is terribly uninformed and is a scare monger. I could go on, but if anyone wants more education, it's all over the internet. So far though, Tesla is the only company with real technology. Legacy auto thought like this guy, so they will likely go broke in the next ten years.
The most energy efficient car you can drive is the one you’re driving now. Meaning, the resources consumed to provide the new car more than offsets any energy savings of the new car.
The key is don’t buy a new car until the wheels fall off the one you have now.
Heck, I put new and used engines, transmissions, and wheels in to perfectly good vehicles all the time that would otherwise be scrapped. I guess I'm doing my part for the environment 😂
excellent presentation. Those who are attempting to mandate need to listen.
They already know. Remember when he said that the point of all of this was to reduce the number of people with cars as well as the number of miles that people are allowed to drive? I heard this years ago while watching a presentation from the World Economic Forum. If you think that these politicians have your best interests at heart, you missed the point of the entire presentation.
The goal is: Soylent Green.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Henry Ford already proved his argument based on what is not what will be is wrong.
He could have made the same argument about the personal computer or the internet. How did that go.
Here’s a scenario. I live in the mountains near a national park. We often get large tourist buses going to the park.
Let’s say it starts snowing and one of those buses has a major accident with multiple injuries. Emergency services can’t reach the bus due to the snow. People are stuck in their EVs for many hours and many drain their batteries staying warm in the storm.
Once emergency workers care for the injured, now they have to clear the road, but it’s clogged with dead EVs. You can’t get tow trucks to the scene. You can’t bring each vehicle a gallon of gas to get it going again. You can’t bring in portable generators large enough to actually charge the vehicles. You can’t get plows in because the road is blocked. You’re screwed.
It is always possible to imagine a scenario which might happen.
You now need to think of an unlikely scenario with ICE vehicles. In fact, there already will have been one, but it will have been normalized.
Do Realized a fully charged tesla can be in a snow storm for more than forty two hours and still have enough power to move itself?
Will happen, has happened@@tonycatman
Are the busses electric?
@ the problem is that this isn’t an imaginary scenario. It’s happened.
Is this really about electric cars, or is it about control??
I learned so much from this speech. Thank you so much.
Tell me again about EMP's
Mr Mills is part of the Manhattan Institute which is an organization that believes strongly in the free market and rejects any government involvement in the markets. It rejects global warming and supports nuclear and fossil fuel energy. In fact Mills worked for the fossil fuel industry.
During preparation for the last hurricane Governor DeSantis spoke of specific dangers of fires that had occurred in EVs when not removed from evacuation zones. I was unaware.
The government is not elected to bend us to their will but to bend government to our(the voter)will.
Where on earth did you come up with that idea. Have you been reading that silly old outdated US Constitution again?
@@pplusbthrust😂 Good one ☝️
By now, it should be obvious to all that the primary objective of the religion of Climate Catastrophe that drives the EV mandate is not about replacing all gasoline and diesel vehicles with electric vehicles. The objective is elimination of personal transportation. The WEF has made this clear in their policy documents. That is why the timeframe for achieving the climate targets is so divorced from reality as to seem like a form of psychosis or, perhaps, evidence of panic associated with fear that one of these days, people will wake up and realize they have been duped. Germans are presently getting a dose of that which is not going away. We'll see if it wakes them up.
On the exit from urban living, city governments have done everything they can to encourage the trend. Crap urban schools, high crime accompanied by "defund police" lunacy, unjustifiably high city taxation for little benefit, filthy cities, dangerous subways and prosecution of people with the temerity to defend themselves or others...why wouldn't people relocate to the burbs?
I got a 2015 Kia Soul EV with 110,000 miles. I live in Kahlifornya and I’m the second owner- bought it for only $10K in 2019 off a Volkswagen lot with 50K miles on it, where it had been sitting for 366 days. Primary battery has now been replaced twice so it’s on its THIRD battery under warranty. It’s a fun car to drive and feels close to normal Kia Soul. This is not a good deal for automakers and I don’t see EV’s replacing gas cars. You MUST have a gas car or rent one for trips or any distance. The infrastructure is horrible for charging.
So battery life is under 50K miles, ie you might have to kick in for #3 any day now? It’ll be more than $10k.
The most clear and coherent speaker, plus huge knowledge and applied intelligence. Why do they not listen to him?
EVs have a major issue in accessibility and therefore are not scalable. Not just in cost, which is a huge obstacle, but also many people do not live in residence that have garages. Many people live in apartments, townhomes, duplexes that have no way to charge EVs. Even people with garages need to pay thousands to install a supercharger at home, adding more costs. You don’t see any significant wave of supercharging stations being built. Charging times are still too long. The electric grid is no where near capable of providing electricity for EVs at the scale of gasoline cars. Without that ability to charge at home, it is just not accessible to many people. The reality is, the goal is to restrict automobile access to most people.
EVs aren't for everyone, or every scenario.
The fact that you can think of those impossible scenarios doesn't mean that EVs aren't appropriate for the reasonable scenarios. For example I have a two-car garage and we both hate getting fuel.
The thing that stops us getting EVs is because they cost too much, and because I loathe touch screens. Those things will change.
@@tonycatmanif they are not for everyone then they are not scalable and should not be mandated to replace what works and is for everyone.
@@saar2411 You are wrong - they are not mandated for anyone.
There are about 2bn vehicles in the world. Max capacity is 100m per year.
So even if every single new vehicle was an EV, it would still take 20 years to replace all ICE. We still only make around 20% EVs, so it would take 100 years to make as many ICE vehicles as we currently have.
At some point in the future, many countries have made plans to stop selling new ICE vehicles.
We don't know if that will definitely happen, but even if it does - you will still be able to buy an ICE as long as it has already been made.
And there are 2bn of them available.
So no need to panic - you'll be able to drive an ICE until the day you die if you want to pay the market price.
@tony. Bam. Most people have no idea what they’re talking about. Obviously you do. 👍
@@tonycatman The question is : Why should I be forced not being able to buy a new ICE car ? It's insane to allow government to do that.
When the common sense of the truth comes out the EV project will become DOA.
It's amazing how stupid our leaders are.
That's because half of our public and more, is uneducated uninterested in being educated, and consequently elect sneaky, lazy, and uneducated leaders, who truly are not leaders in the first place, lol.
Mostly "stupid" woke neo-marxist progressive Democrats. Not all... maybe 10 to 1. Just to be fair.
They're not stupid. They have total control and this is all by design.
OMG hello Mark ? the goal is no cars for the trash people. Which is us.
What do we do with our EV when it is worn out?
You had me at mandates.. no need to go into politics or engineering, i've seen it during Covid and it's bad
Just the facts. In the US gasoline sales peaked in 2003 and has continued to decline. This is due to increased efficiency, the use of hybrids and now electric vehicles. The growth in oil and gasoline is in developing countries but it is proven that improving the performance of cars reduces gasoline usage significantly. Live in the past it was cheaper.
@edward, the prime reason that we have reduced fuel consumption is because people are broke, most of the common folks are unable to travel as much
Excellent speaker. Thanks, Hillsdale. I help support you.
Awesome presentation loaded with facts and supporting data. Bad news for the greenies.
I would like to buy an EV but an EV costs $15,000 more than an ICE vehicle. Unlike the government, I can't just print more money when I need it.
Absolutely. This isn't Princeton (classic quote from John Kennedy on the same topic during a congressional hearing on EVs).
The batteries for my impact driver are already expensive enough!!
All kidding aside, thank you for this video, great topic and informative.
Great presentation.
Mark said, "You don't want what is happening in England". He is correct. I live here and in the recent elections we exchanged a poor government for an even worse one.
...And all in order to prevent carbon emissions - completely unnecessarily.
When considering matters surrounding the current political narratives of the day, we should bear in mind the wise words of past figures of some merit; the American man of letters Henry Brooks Adams observed that 'Practical politics consists in ignoring facts'; Churchill famously noted that 'United wishes and goodwill cannot overcome brute facts; panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is'. Burns was a little more frank: 'Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed'.
I’d like to see the scientific proof or evidence that man-made carbon dioxide emissions (globally accounting for 18 of the 420 odd parts per million found in the atmosphere) somehow are more injurious to the prospects of the planet wellbeing than the remaining 402ppm of natural origin - carbon dioxide (comprised of one atom carbon and two atoms oxygen) is an ESSENTIAL TO LIFE gas, the steady and slight increase (appx 6ppm per annum) of which has been reckoned to increase crop yields globally, and also helped to ‘green’ the periphery of desert regions globally, as observed by satellite imaging these past six decades.
It should also be borne in mind that global manufacturing giant China alone is calculated to have pumped more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere within the last five years than has been produced GLOBALLY since the Industrial Revolution began, (even in 2003 they emitted three times as much as in 2002). This has yet to show up in increased overall carbon dioxide levels however, as this carbon dioxide is simply absorbed by oceanic algae, phytoplankton and land based vegetation.
Carbon dioxide only acts as a warming agent to the planet in concentrations between 50-100 parts per million, and this level was achieved without Man's influence some six hundred million years ago; this level thereafter needed to increase by a further 100% to permit all vegetation to barely begin to grow, ie far earlier than the evolution of dinosaurs, etc, by which time levels were orders of magnitude greater than today, ranging between 2000-7000ppm, resulting in a superabundance of vegetation for the herbivores of their day.
This warming effort (constituting around 10% of the total, the other 90% is provided by water vapour and clouds, which we are of course neither able to reduce nor even control, much less set a pretend tax or levy upon) keeps the planet some thirty two degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, thus rendering the planet more agreeably habitable than otherwise; were we to double, triple or indeed increase by tenfold - to typical tolerable ‘submarine-level’ concentrations - it would hardly raise the global temperature by a single degree Celsius.
Levels of carbon dioxide beyond 100ppm do not have any significant propensity to increase global temperatures, and in any event increased levels are as a consequence of temperature increases, NOT the cause of same. The temperature rise of the early medieval period some 800 years ago is the cause of present day carbon dioxide level increases - steady away at around 6ppm per annum - despite the industrious efforts of China.
To spunk billions on such a clown initiative (- trees absorb practically all of our generated CO2 for free) is indicative of the lunacy of the calibre of idiots running the show. Perhaps Red Ed Milliband can advise us of his intended explanation of quite how the monies allocated are going to make the slightest difference to the incoming cyclical energy levels of the Sun, which are the true cause of the temperature fluctuations of the planet; a perfect correlation between the monthly mean sunspot number and the mean seasonal temperature variation clearly demonstrates that solar activity is the principal driver of global warming/cooling, depending on solar activity levels - in short, it's the Sun, not us.
Well over one thousand scientific, peer-reviewed papers have been produced demonstrating the link between Earth’s climate (which produces no heat to speak of sufficient to drive its own climate) and the Sun - our SOLE meaningful means of warming the planet. It has furthermore been comprehensively proven by the two Professors, Dr. William Happer- chief Scientific advisor to three US presidents - and Willem Van Wijngaarden, both at Princeton, USA that carbon dioxide does not and indeed cannot warm the planet in the way that the scammers and charlatans would have us "believe", and yet despite ALL this, rather than ‘looking up’ and finding out basic facts for ourselves, a global industry has been created around this foolish notion; they persist with the myth, trusting in the supposition that no one else was paying much attention to physics and chemistry in school…
Shakespeare wrote, ‘What a terrible era, in which idiots govern the blind’..
I envisioned a world full of dinosaurs most of which were bovine with a few carnivores. But my vision was of a thriving planet although those co2 emitting bovines must have been emitting a lot of co2 that as we know is ruinous to the planet. However somehow they were able to survive for about an estimated 170 million years. Go figure.
Electric Vehicles, or EVs, Are Not Cars
Our cars and the eco-system built them around are one of the most integral parts of our society and lifestyle.
The government and auto industry wants us to believe that EVs are interchangeable with gas-powered vehicles.
EVs are not a “car” as we know them. EVs are experimental transportation devices that the government wants us to accept as a car replacement.
I believe the rollout of them was extremely premature. They look like cars, and seem to function like cars, but they are not cars.
Words and their traditional definitions matter.
Using the word Car for an EV is misleading. Please avoid it.
EVs are a completely different machine and when purchasing one that should be our mindset. EVs have their own ecosystem.
We need to demand the following:
Replacements For Vital Machines (Evs For Cars) Must Outperform Their Predecessors To Be Universally Adopted
For a new product or invention, which an EV is, to replace a tried and true significant part of our daily lives, like our cars, it has to be a better choice.
Do EVs outperform cars in all important areas?
No.
How should a car replacement be better? At a minimum they should be a seamless and transparent replacement for our current experience with cars.
1) Cheaper purchase price, lifetime maintenance and disposal.
2) Better performance, road handling and driving range.
3) As many or more locations to “refuel” and lower recharging times than refueling. Overall more convenient and time saving than gas powered vehicles.
4) Safer in all ways
4(a) Including charging away from home, compared to traditional gas stations.
4(b) Fires in the vehicle should less frequent, burn cooler, be easier and safer to extinguish, and not release more volatile and dangerous chemicals.
5) EVs should be less expensive to insure.
6) Manufacturing, including procurement of parts, should be more environmentally friendly.
7) End of Life Disposal must be cheaper and more environmentally friendly.
8) Depreciation of value must be slower than cars.
How do EVs stack up in those categories?
1) When you include government subsidies, ($50,000 average per EV) EVs are much more expensive than cars. Overall costs over time are much higher for EVs. Even if they were cheaper, the current negative impacts of the loss of convenience and functionality make EVs not worth replacing our cars with experimental replacements. An EV is less functional, yet more expensive?
2) EVs have much higher acceleration, but other than that the driving experience is not much different and is sometimes deficient. Range anxiety is real and total miles available on a full charge falls terribly behind a full tank of gas.
3) Gas stations are much safer and more convenient than EV charging stations. On the road charging can average ten times longer than refueling with gasoline. EVs fail miserably here.
4) EVs are Less safe in all ways
4(a) The level of danger using an unmanned EV charging station at night in a deserted parking lot is not tenable, compared to gas stations which have personnel, lights and security cameras.
4(b) EV fires burn much hotter and longer, are much more difficult to extinguish, and release many more dangerous chemicals than a combustion engine vehicle related fire. EV battery explosions are commonplace. Once exstinguised, EV fires can restart at any time.
5) EVs are much more expensive to insure. A true car replacement would be cheaper to insure. Middle class families already can’t afford car insurance.
6) Manufacturing of Evs is much less environmentally friendly.
7) EV End of Life Disposal? Is there even a plan? What is the tested process for dismantling and disposing of the dead batteries? I am sure this will be very costly for the unfortunate consumer who is the last owner.
8) Depreciation of EV values is exponentially higher than cars.
EVs fail on almost every measure.
This certainly does not make a great case for EVs.
Using EVs dramatically changes your entire ownership and driving experiences, one of the most important parts of our daily lives.
There are so many unanswered questions about the impact on us if the government were to ban gas-powered vehicles in favor of EVs.
Mandating EVs will change our way of life.
As with other government experiments in the recent past, they want us to be the test subjects.
I propose we opt out of this government experiment and all others in the future.
An undynamic speaker, but his content is important.
@20m I think Mills is wrong on how fast new mines can open outside the US. In Western Australia the rules are thin. They just opened Finniss Lithium Project 2023, Mt Holland 2022 (0.4Mt/yr), and Kathleen Valley is about to open (0.5Mt).
I hear from US gold miners that the Aussies and S Africans are the largest share of miners in the world, don’t care about hurting people or the environment, but there we are, plenty of Lithium and that’s just Australia so far.
E, Musk is the no.1 advisor to Trump and Musk is the no.1 producer of EVs. Hmm, we'll see how that plays out.Meantime Cubans are getting around in 50s gas cars. Classics.
Tesla is No 1 in US. China is global #1, and pulling away.
No, not number 1 advisor. He’s just biggest voice online, media. Trumps family, chief of staff, Vance, all have far more history w Trump, thus more trust. No doubt when Musk/Vivek recommend a DOGE cut somewhere, Trumps going to do it, because Trump gave him that job, but it ends there.
Musk has previously stated he thinks it should be a slow movement to all EV’s and a forced and quick “conversion”. I don’t think Musk is going to try to get Trump to change it.
@@Nill757 - Interestingly enough…Chinese EV cars have problems and have an enormous huge stocks of unsold cars. Teslas appear to have a better reputation quality/safety, also they don’t have have stocks of unsold ones.
@@jray1429 If that were to happen we would get Kamala as our next president. You can bet if I know it Trump and Musk know it.
Now use the same analysis towards the oil industries and how much government subsidies are used to create and maintain the oil industry. How much conflict cobalt is used to remove sulfur from oil to create gasoline and diesel.
Which subsidies? If they are getting any actual subsidies, those subsidies are certianly getting washed out by taxes. And that's just on the producer side. On the consumer side, gas is definitely not subsidized. In fact, it is taxed heavily. Up and down the line, from supplier to producer to consumer there is no comparison. EVs are propped up while IC is burdened.
@@ronfox5519quite true
@@ronfox5519Just Google fossil fuel subsidies. Over $7 trillion globally according to the IMF.
What is even more comical is CA restriction on small gasoline engines. Landscapers will need to revert to hand tools horse drawn mowers and goats to maintain Silicon Valley homes for the Tesla driving uber rich.
EV Mandates vs. Freedom / Mark Mills / Hillsdale College
Excellent Analysis, Deployed Worldwide Through My Deep Learning AI Research Library…
Thank You 🙏. ❤
Has anyone ever watched what happens to an EV in a high impact crash? It vaporizes.
Can’t wait for the battery replacement catastrophe within 10 years. It will crush the EV market. The new battery will cost more than the car will be worth. This will be more true as EVs become cheaper.
Batteries last longer than ICE engines.
And it will make my batteries for my DeWalt impact driver will go up even more 😮
@@tonycatmanno- they do not
@@ronfox5519 Yes. They do.
Unfortunately, YT won't allow me to post links, but you could easy look this up.
@@tonycatman even if that was true
Ice engines can be fixed
Parts can be replaced by any independent shop
Good luck fixing a battery at home or at a shop
I’ve been searching and listening to Marks stuff for about 4 years now
Always new nuggets to comprehend
I will say tho even Marks been sparing and a lot of others too about the link between a lot of these projects and low interest rates
I’m in the UK but it’s worldwide we’re at the 5ish -% interest rates for many many years now
That seems to me the biggest thing that’ll stop this movement in large part
Amongst other things it makes the possible hopefully affordable subsidies at lower rates a real impossibility at compounded 5% etc
How many elected officials get by without a car? I've never seen one on the subway or in a bus.
Recently spent $2300 putting a new engine in my 1995 Chevy Tahoe. Now it will outlast me!
Autonomous vehicles are the EV pipedream v2.0
EV are OBSOLETE. Why?
It will cost 10 to 30 times MORE to charge an EV ON a 100% RE grid than to make fuel from 100% RE or nuclear. EV = 60 cents/kwh house, 90 cents/kwh super charger. Combustion = 3 cents/kwh house (fuel making or Natural gas), 6 cents/kwh (oil, nuclear or RE gasoline). Do the math: 60/6=10 ... 90/3=30. So, 10 to 30 times MORE for energy.
New combustion tech will have CO2 capture in a combined cycle that gets 75% efficiency at the wheel in cruise and low power and 60% at peak power.
EVs are 75% from the plug to wheel. Just do the math. 0.91 inverter loss at charger, 0.93 motor loss, inverter in car 0.97 = 0.75. this does NOT include line losses of 7% from plant to charger, so the actual figure is 69.4% at best. EVs are 25% heavier than old ICE and 66% heavier than new ICE. This give a superior MPGe than EV by 1.3 to 1.5x.
So, reality is an EV will cost 15 to 45 times more per mile than a new combustion car with combined cycle.
As for CO2, the CO2 for a 100% RE grid is 300 gCO2/kwh. The EV battery is 300 too. Total is 600 gCO2/kwh. At the wheel, the total is 800. 600/0.75=800.
New RE fuel will be 3 gCO2/kwh and at wheel 4 gCO2/kwh. This give a ratio of 200:1. 800/4=200. EVs fail to provide low CO2.
New combustion tech is nearly CO2 neutral. Add in a greenhouse for home crops and you have enough to sequestor the remaining CO2 for a net zero tech with no battery, wind/solar PV. NONE.
The entire agenda of wind/solar PV/battery/EV junk can be taken down if people will wake up and listen.
genius, impressive presentation.. delivered in such a fact-of-the-matter nice balanced way.. the absurdity of the climate-fraud financials will bring it down.
T. Sowel: “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” Next, please gather research on the Conflict Minerals regulatory scam.
I'm NOT a fan of electric cars
Basically they want us to get poor quickly.
With regard to his comments about how EV’s are useless when the batteries stop working after years of use, can’t the raw materials that make EV batteries and most of the other materials used to construct the vehicles, be recycled?
Yes they can and are.
The concept of 15 min cities is nonsense when crime can be so bad that there arent any businesses left. Seems they want the herds in the fence
Not in my lifetime, 😂 I’ll keep my gas powered 702 hp v8 TRX until gas prices are 10 dollars a gallon 😂
There is a new firestation in Berlin Germany full of new EV fires trucks. One of them started to go nasty and the whole station burned down. No sprinklers in the new building. Same happened in garage in Singapore burned down to the ground. If a combustion car stars to burn fighting the fire is more or less quite easy. My main problem is the destruction of the environment for example in Mongolia the size of Franse or Texas. Read The great Metals war of G. Pitron very shocking.
Oh the irony of the EV fire trucks catching fire.
Talk about repairing an electric vehicle, or an hybrid...the auto garages have a steep learning curve...plus, replacing that battery pack, frequently in 5 years, costs between $5-$10k!! So many issues; this as a way is someone's pipe dream, and as reality hits, they're not willing to change/adapt.... I guess that's why they want us in 15 minute cities, back to walking and biking...
The battery packs last much longer than 5 years. Most governments actually mandate that the minimum life is 8-10 years, which is longer than the warranty for an ICE.
The likely life for a battery made today is longer than for an ICE.
@tonycatman 2019, I bought a Fird hybrid, by 2021, I had spent $2000 in repairs, and then, the battery bank started failing. They said that I didn't drive it enough. Quoted $3500 to $5000 to replace, and I must drive it everyday. Took a huge loss, and sold it to a young man who drives every day, and understood a near expense of the battery bank. Have a Toyota now.
@@betty8173 Your personal experience can't be taken as the norm, and the past is no guide to the future.
Don't forget that this is a relatively new industry.
At one point, the Tesla S was the least reliable car on the road. It has gone up in rankings every year, and will certainly end up above average.
The early Nissan Leaf models didn't have battery cooling tech, and this meant that their batteries were crap with low life expectancy and high degradation.
That is now fixed, and all electric car batteries have temperature management.
At the same time, EV batteries are now 20% of the cost that they were 10 years ago.
This speaker is also speaking about historical rather than future figures, and there are some things that he states which are 100% wrong.
Most EV manufacturers warranty the battery for 100,000 miles.
@@jtjones4081 The model X and S are 240,000 miles.
Almost all EV manufacturers offer battery warranty of 8 years or more.
ICE engine warranty : VW/Audi, Ford, Nissan : 5 years. Most GM : 3 years.
In fact I'm struggling to find the longest ICE warranty which is as high as the lowest EV battery warranty.
The battery replacement myth seems to be one of the most widely repeated, and easiest debunked.
9:31 you'd also need to say the horses wouldn't crap. In that case, I think people would be interested. Horse poop in those days WAS a concern.
My wife's grandparents also used to say that, along with horses would come swarms of flies. They were the biggest problem.
Concerning '15 minute cities' and similar redesigns, I think part of the failure of the West has been to promote suburb designs after the factories were shuttered in the 1970s and '80s. Isn't it true suburbs were created to get workforces out of the cities and to factory towns. The factories were built and designed by engineer workforce of our time and the industrialists who respected engineering disciplines. So the industrialists would, in building factories, assure thru rigorous engineering disciplines to make sure water, workers, power, and security from fires and floods were kept to a minimum, as well as ensure logistics for supplies and finished goods. Our landscape was built by engineers.
But post industrial America starting in the 1970s, the engineer pool and political incentives to listen to them dried up on the vines. There was less money and respect for them. Yet we kept the suburban dream alive and made it a pillar of personal wealth measurement. The result has been larger houses than families need at every income level. Poor respect of fires and floods of area. Destruction of water ways that would have otherwise been respected for their industrical applications. And roads for huge but relatively empty and unburdened autos.
I see only waste and abuse in what we've done across the U.S. and much of Americas and the world. The McMansions or barbie dreamhouse concept is flawed and harms the ability for the U.S. to compete with the vertical living nations that have taken on the industrial burdern. Didn't Pres. Theodore Roosevelt warn us that the industrial blueprint for housing could get out of hand?
EVs are GREAT ... BUT you need TWO ... drive the one, with other one on charge ...
So the government push to EVs is primarily about getting richer offa Tesla stock.
The youth have little interest in any details of the car, just the media available.
This fellow says 10 to 16 years to set up a new mine . Siom Michaux in his presentations says 20 years and he worked with mines . I don't really know .
On a planet where the main business philosophy is growth. Capitalism calls for growth.
It is irrelevant what cars we drive.
Bty there is no better system…
Willie Nelson sums up what it is to be human, "Moving is Freedom". Technology exists and will be made to extend this quotes meaning to greater levels. The monopoly board and it's autonomous conveyor belts can not compete against the human spirit to be free.
Reality check. About time 👍
Battery chemistry won't evolve any more than gasoline will evolve. The gasoline vehicles and the electric vehicles of 2025 are just refinements of what existed in 1925.
The reason electric vehicles are being pushed is the failure of mass transit.
Mass transit failed because of high costs and limited service, too many delays such as waiting for a bus or subway transfer. The electric vehicles share all of these problems. This is not to say that either mass transit or an EV won't work for you - but EVs are not a universal solution.
My daughter's neighbour is an Industrial Chemist. Battery Chemistry will not follow Moore's law. The best that we can expect is a 30% increase in energy density.
Auto Expert John Cadogan has a really good video on the amount of CO2 produced when an EV is produced. This video destroys the argument that they produce less CO2.
Ahhh, the "15 minute city," also known as a small town... that has been the bedrock of Western Civilization for centuries. But now you can never leave.
Chattering Class trying to re-invent the wheel.
My car is older than i am. Let's see the offset time for all those new materials for the EVs. And ill bet my classic, they wont last 1/4 as long.
What ICE car has an 80lb fuel tank? Maybe a small one that is full of fuel. The tank is much lighter. I could easily lift a mostly empty 20gallon tank with one arm.
He's leaving out the motivation of utilizing Full Self Driving, the millions of lives saved and the economics those saved lives contribute, and autonomous bots work input
If self driving becomes reality. Folks are leery of any machine that doesn't have a perfect safety record. And he did cover it.
The most environmentally friendly car is probably a LNG hybrid. True environmental advocates would push for those if they really want to have a positive impact on the environment. If the USA pushed a love towards LNG cars, there would be an economic boom and help the environment. But the market should drive the supply and demand.
Trump voter here. People should buy what they want. No mandates. I prefer my EV, since it is quieter, simpler, faster, and more fun than all the gas cars I had prior.
you have bucks !!! I am retired, I do not.
@dks13827 I’m also retired. After 35 years of working, saving, and investing. EV’s keep getting cheaper, and soon will be cheaper than gas cars. Lots of cheap used ones now..
Think total Blackout.
@ In a total blackout, refineries and gasoline pumps don’t work either. But my EV Ford F150 can power most of my house for a week.
@@paulrybarczyk5013 Reserves abound and Trump is in to win. One CME or hack and all EV ends. One Carrington Event and Poof! All the EV and Crypto are gone. China has big plans for the USA. EV is rich man toy. Working man and Companies cannot afford this nonsense. The war on freedom of movement weather from above or here on earth is visible. Road diets are designed to make it unpleasant to go anywhere. Also makes it unsafe. Cars are intentionally so expensive to own in every way poor people are suffering at a time when millions of poor need transportation to work.
You guys do understand when ev+auto drive means co-ownership. That will drop the cost of ownership to 1/100th of private ownership and if an accident should happen, it will be between a human operator against a machine. In other words you are on the hook paying for that insurance if you insist operating your own. The cost alone shall cause 99% of people to think twice not to mention the population is aging. And you will lose garage/parking lots and the streets/signaling shall change, etc. We don’t have much of Adrenaline in our body when you get older. For those still do and ready to pay up, pay up.
There's a lot not to like about governments interfering in this market. All to try and fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Maybe 10 months gross salary to buy a new car but not 10 weeks.
The speaker is very well prepared in his topic and is able to use every means to put his points across. But sometimes he overuse is words and tends to make things he did like into " garb...". Not a bad view of what is going on in this time of crossing the route.
The congestion caused by these bicycle lanes increases carbon emissions
You still need oil to produce the plastics and batteries !!! What a joke, look around yourself, everything you own is made with oil ?
We don't count the carbon emissions of the labor component used to manufacture devices
Some of the homeless would rather have a car than a home, they can live in the car
I disagree anatomist vehicles will not be safe or widespread.
Get the car company’s to make more fuel efficient cars. Like you said government can mandate fuel efficiency. That will never happen.
9:48 Correction to your statement. Infotainment in a vehicle is more important to Millennials (did you forget they exist?) and Gen Z. We Gen X'ers don't care one way or another about infotainment in a vehicle, most probably don't want more than a backup camera.
Send this to Trump.
Many thanks. Please support CO2-Coalition.
Why donot we have battery powered trains or ships? Or city fleets like busses, garbage trucks, or cop cars?
Seems like these would be far better use for ev than passenger cars. Especially trains. Seems like if battery power could shine anywhere it would be on the rails. The facr that this isnt happening organically makes me think that battery power will never work for general driving
There are battery trains, trucks, buses etc.
@charlo90952 not really. I know that there are some municipal fleets around, but as far as I know they are all converted passenger vehicles or mail trucks and are not doing well. And I have heard that there are plans to build electric ships, but none are running yet. As for the trains I would love to find out more on this. Do you know where this battery powered train you speak of is running? Or maybe who owns it?
In any case, ev technology would seem to not be good enough to be implemented in these other areas organically or even with the benifit of massive subsidies that are given to passenger cars.
@@ronfox5519 just search Google and UA-cam. Several videos on battery electric trains. They're not as good as overhead wires but for low frequency applications they can work. But battery technology is evolving rapidly so in a few years they'll be more viable.
@@ronfox5519 Siemens has a battery train. These charge at stops from the overhead. It's early days but the technology is rapidly improving.
@@charlo90952
Thanks for the info. I look forward to seeing this.
But a developmental train is not the same as an economically viable system that is in general use.
Those figures regarding the mining of battery making minerals are incorrect.
At that level internal combustion engines and EV probably even out..
How many tons of iron ore go into car engines?
Why would this "expert" present such an obviously biased argument?
IMO ----> EV = Exceptionally Vacuous
International markets are somewhat different. EVs that meet the immediate needs of non big city people in the 2nd and 3rd world are available in China for prices we can only dream about. eg USD 3 to 6k.
Many are buying them here in Thailand and across Asia. They are not subsidized and are cheap because they are limited range and small. China has developed this new market that is not met by ICE vehicles and they will make inroads into the ubiquitous motor-cycle in many Asian countries. While this may be of less interest in the USA it will impact car demographics over the next few years.
You just told us about cheap short range EVs that are indeed ideal for some big city folk but generally useless in a rural setting. Was that your intention?
@@evanpnz Yes. Most rural people in Asia do not drive long distances, that is an american practice. Rather they drive with their produce to the nearest village or town. 40 or 50 km range is adequate for most farmers etc. This allows even lead acid to suffice though Li-on is now so cheap here.
A battery is not a fuel tank, this is a childish comparison
1st there are not 40 million BEVs - Tesla has sold 4 million BYD 4 million and others combined about 4 million. There are 1.4 Billion light vehicles and 200 million heavy vehicles. That is 0.1 Market penetration w 2025 next week. Total lithium production 168,000 tons. IE if nothing else but Model Y EVs were made you could make 15 million. No battery farms, no cellphones, no hybrids, no laptops, tablets, portable power tools, power walls, THus if 1/2 of all lithium goes to BEVs 7.5 million might be made. a decade to make 75 million, 100 years to reach 750 million roughly half existing vehicles - so using current tech - BEVs will not meet any significant impact..no matter what you think.
Surely wind and solar could be greatly expanded - No they can't. Remember those lithium production figures - you need massive battery farms to retain power for when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. If you only provided backup batteries for 2 days (no enough) it would take 20 years to make Tokyo fully solar/wind powered w the needed batteries; using every ounce of lithium produced in the world. So what about the other 9 BILLION people? The idea won't work w solar or wind / lithium. How about new battery tech? When you have it - when we know it's limitiations - then it can be evaluated. Given a valid reason to do it and a workable plan. Don't put the cart before the horse w no where to go.
The Premis that BEVs would ever make an impact on CO2 or that CO2 reduction would do anything - is in significant doubt. Start with the fact that all human produced CO2 is 1/10,000th of the atmopshere. ALL transport is 16% of that, if 2/3rds of transport were solar powered; you'd reduce 1/100,000th of the atmosphere. Totally insigificant. If you are a believer that CO2 even in tiny quantities effect temprature on earth - then you have a hard time explaining how Mars which receives 1/2 as much sun, but has 950,000 times as much CO2 yet is so cold CO2 freezes into ice -109f. CO2 warms nothing, but it is critcal for plants photosynthesis - essential to most life on earth - sure cut that - smart!
Instead of introducing EV's, possibly we could all just stay at home, and do our shopping using horse drawn buggies.
This guy is apparently well-funded by the fossil lobbies. He is spreading completely false information about EVs. Follow the scientific facts. Today's EVs have a range of 600 miles/1000 km, charge from 0-80% in just 10 minutes and are much more efficient. No maintenance, no emissions and no cancer.
WE LOVE EVs❤
I don’t believe most people care weather you drive an EV or not it’s the mandate that tells an individual that they can no longer drive a vehicle they choose.
Mostly incorrect. He was talking science. Very well researched, evidence based science too.
Need supply chain
And they are more dangerous
You are way off base on your presentation. The market will drive EV’s. The will be cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate, and will last longer. OEm’s were slow on the uptake. Tesla is way ahead of the game. Ford, GM, Stalantis, VW, and Japan are in big trouble. China will be the dominant auto manufacturer worldwide. Tesla is profitable and will be profitable for a long time. Battery chemistry and physics are changing by the minute.
There's an easy way around all this. A carbon surcharge on fossil fuels. No subsidies necessary. Those who use more fossil fuels pay more, and those who use less fossil fuels pay less. This is certainly justifiable by reason of the costs associated with fossil fuel use.
It is also a market based solution. By raising the price of fossil fuels, people will find ways to reduce their use of fossil fuels. Businesses will find ways to be more efficient in their use of fossil fuels.
One of the things they might do is start thinking about not driving their 2500 lb. vehicle to the corner store to buy a 12 oz pop and a 6 oz candy bar.
The only problem with EVs is they are cheaper to build, operate, maintain and last longer than ICE vehicles and this undermines the fossil fuel investor interests.
Profoundly incorrect.
2nd, 24 December 2024
I feel really sad after listening to this man. He is very anti-electric spouting patently untrue statements anyone listening to him will have their views skewed just as he intends. Please do some more research especially about upstream emissions for fossil vehicles AND the most important fact that oil is finite when it’s gone it’s gone. The rubbish he spouts about batteries is unbelievable it is true some increase will need to be made in mining what he does not say is that the batteries can and will be RECYCLED GOOD LUCK IN RECYCLING BURNT OIL.
Sorry you feel sad.
Go for a run. That'll perk you up.
But there are better alternatives. And please tell me how and whe. Lithium batteries will be recycled.
There is abundace of fossil fuel.
What will charge EV's.
Imagine all vehicles on earth are EV. How do you propose to charge all these plus run industry.
It's just too bad that he's right. But don't worry, none of us are getting out of this life alive anyway.
Lithium is the Salt of the Earth, We are the Salt of the Earth.
Ignorance and lack of Common sense is Sin in the Last Judgment
Merry Christmas
Hillsdale's reputation for truth is certainly going to be tarnished by this guy's presentation. I heard him state 4 different misrepresentations in just the first 11 minutes. He needs to get up to speed on the facts because they're changing quickly.
thank you Kathy. This guy has not seen the changes in China, which are proving him wrong nor does he see that the cost of batteries is dropping so fast with Chinese technology that e-cars will be cheaper than fossil in about 2 or 3 years. This is like the economist complaining when govt forced people to buy LED bulbs before they got to be cheaper than incandescent.
@@mmotsenbocker Old guys seem to have a problem with the pace of change. They're living in the 1960's world.
Don't be too confident in your ignorance. Bear in mind that most of what is presented to you on the media now is not journalism, it's propaganda. You are being deceived and you fell for it.