Yeah, replacing a usable card with a new EV isn't saving much. But eventually it will and once you are getting a new car anyways an EV is a fine choice unless you have some special need.
This argument never makes sense. Cars don't just get dumped into the land fill the second they get sold. If there's any economic value left, it stays in the market.
Energy savings?! Finally had to get rid of my 2009 VW which I had paid off in 2012 (I bought is used in 2010). That was 10 years of no car payment. Talk about savings.
I love your videos. Might want to check your facts on this one. This might be one of those “ nobody’s gonna spend $400 on a smart phone when they can have a Motorola Razor flip phone for $50”. Carbon costs are usually proportional to actual cost (yes I know, labor, but in general). As techniques and technology improve the cost of EVs are coming down. Expect parity in the next few years. So there are a lot of use cases where EVs being cheaper to purchase, maintain and fuel make sense.
The only reason Tesla isn’t making a 25k EV right now is because they can make more money selling more expensive cars. And that’s 25k without a tax credit…
Erm, no, as the problem is that Lithium is in VERY short supply and so are the batteries. Until more lithium production, refining is built, let alone lithium reserves are found, EV's are a short term dream. This is not going to happen until nations start putting giant tariffs on battery components forcing companies to build out the entire supply chain multiple times over and the old car companies have ZERO desire to do so. Then we have the gargantuan problem of well... not enough lithium even if it is built out if one actually goes solar/wind requiring vasttly more battery capacity than all the cars combined by multiple times. We need a better battery material. Lithium is not it. Short term for a few cars, yes. Going LiFePo helps, but not long term.
@@lumpenstumper6151 Tesla makes a huge profit margin on each one of their Model Y and Model 3 vehicles sold. Last I heard, and I'm sure the numbers have gotten even sweeter, Tesla was making $8,500 profit on each Model 3. The Camry makes about $1,800 for Toyota, which is not all that far off in vehicle class from the Model 3. So Tesla could price the Model 3 much lower and still make a lot of money. But Tesla doesn't have to, and right now there is a shortage of batteries and a shortage of chips. So if you're limited in how many vehicles you can sell because of battery shortages and chip shortages, why would you sell a car for $25,000 when you can sell it for $45,000? That's what's really going on with Tesla.
Some good point and facts in this video, but you skirted round the inefficiencies of ICE cars. The amount of energy to extract oil from the ground, the energy used for refining crude, the inefficiency and waste by-products, and the energy used to distribute the refined fuel. Not to mention the inefficiency of combustion process and cost of lubricants and their carbon impact.
What’s your point? There’s inefficiencies in every process. The inefficiencies of mining the rare earth minerals, supply chain, and manufacturing of EVs FAR outweigh the inefficiencies of drilling and refining oil, and manufacturing ICEs though. It’s not even close.
@Scrambles7742 These long standing assumptions have been debunked in recent years. The point is Peter's "facts" are mostly wrong. I respect him as a geopolitist, but his understanding of batteries and manufacturing is basic at best.
I don’t think he was debating that ice cars are better. He’s just highlighting the fact that EV’s are not necessarily the road to green utopia everyone thinks it is.
Your points are all fair enough… but I think his main point is that EV’s are *WAY* off the mark in terms of “green & clean”. I think there’s a lot of cool tech to be explored - such a hydrogen power for e.g. that might give us cleaner and better power.
Zeihan fan here. Got into this as part of an ESG discussion at work today. After parroting the EVs aren’t necessarily green narrative, it was pointed out to me that a recent MIT study estimated lifetime EV carbon output at half (not more than) that of ICEs. A colleague also showed me charts of worldwide materials production, which included lithium production that appeared to have doubled in the last five years. Zeihan seems extremely confident in saying that base materials production has never doubled in a ten year period, yet there’s contradicting data. How do I reconcile, Peter?
@@economistfromhell4877 No you are. Real ones know Rare Earth mining is illegal in China so all the dirty mining for terbium and dysprosium needed for the motors comes from across the border in Myanmar.
Peter, I love your videos. Plea keep them coming daily, as you've been doing lately. Fascinating! With that said, I do think you you undervalue or maybe under-appreciate the onrush of technology. It moves at a much faster pace than demographics. With respect to electric cars, and speaking as a Tesla owner since 2012, the threat of the older car companies is virtually non-existent. We're watching the equivalent of Kodak's death, in slow motion. Tesla' vehicles are so far ahead of Ford and GM, and they show no signs of catching up.. FWIW, I've owned many ICE cars from GM, Toyota (including Lexus), Nissan, Honda and currently BMW. All of those old-school companies move at a glacial pace and only recently seem to have learned that a Tesla is more than just a car with an infotainment system! Tesla's costs are lower, speed is faster, current car quality better, with a better charging network. And they continue to out-innovate the others. The Model Y, as just one example, is a different car today than out was when it launched via continuous improvement, even though they look the same on the exterior. Check out Sandy Munro's excellent videos. As for the energy to produce the electricity, there's a bit of a cart and a horse thing, That will evolve over time too. Totally with you on the input costs for creating batteries though. That too will need some important technological innovation. Outside of the wold of automotive, you don't seem to value the great speed of automation and robotics to solve the issue of demography. Technology improvements are exponential whereas the demographic decline from aging is linear. I'd love to hear your perspective on how automation may (or may not) save the day.
Peter said, “Almost all mid-assembly is done in China.” But I thought at Tesla’s 2 factories in the U.S rolls of aluminum enter one end and and stamped for body components. Many parts, except seats, are sourced from the same companies as traditional manufacturers. Regarding mineral shortages- I don’t think realistically mining will need to be ramped up 10 fold because vehicle demand won’t be that much. Mining permits take 3-5 years at best. My $50,000 Tesla Model 3 is my first car and daily driver. For me, it’s best feature is not environmental, but LOW maintenance.
The batteries are 95% recyclable and the supplied materials are cheaper than mining. Zeihan has made numerous false claims here. I think he gets his EV data from the oil industry reports.
Peter is correct, already now, a relatively small increase in EV production has driven prices of all metals significantly. There is no way to mine significantly more of the many metals needed for batteries, motors, etc. Even discarding all other factors simple increase of EV production will put pressure on prices of those metals and will price the cars out of the market. EVs will never be anything but a small niche.
@@ElementaryWatson-123 they are significantly cheaper to produce, significantly safer and use materials that are much more readily available. Idk what you're on.
I have to agree that the environmental arguments in favour of EVs don't entirely stack up. However, the advantage I see is the opportunity to opt out of the highly volatile oil market.
They don't stack up. I have never seen a study that talks about beyond 10 year carbon payback. Even on high fossil fuel grids. And electrifying Street transport would have a fantastic benificial impact on street pollution which causes so many excess deaths and drag on economy. Also, lithium won't be king forever
Peter makes a huge mistake here he’s not understanding that as time progresses the batteries get better the cars get more efficient and the energy creation does not have to be oil and coal he’s not taking progress into account honestly I don’t rate this guy
@@stereoreviewx Are those improvements going to all happen and be rolled out worldwide in the next few months? Or does his decade+ timeline seem pretty reasonable?
Minor corrections. Why is the frame cost, either in carbon or dollars, different for an EV vs an ICE vehicle? Manufacturers like VW and Ford aren't using exotic alloys for the EVs versus their ICE vehicles. Point 2, the baseline price for a Ford F-150 Lightning is $59,000 and not $90,000. That's the price of their top-end model, pretty fully tricked out. But for the average consumer, a top end Chevy Bolt EUV is in the neighborhood of $35,000 before incentives. Also, EV cars have something like 90% fewer parts -- no transmission, engine, fuel or exhaust systems, etc. That means all of this discussion REALLY revolves around the batteries and discussing chromium, aluminium, silicone, nickel and other raw materials common to both technologies is a red herring. Supply chain chaos with those will impact ICE and EV equally.
I would venture to guess (correct me if I am wrong). That materials that won't rust will have a much longer useful life than materials that do rust when exposed to the elements like cars regularly are. Also many of these newer materials don't get paint and all that entails.
@@marcsyrene3781 Sorry, my question/statement on different frame cost was really a bit of snark. At least one mfg -- VW, I think -- is using the same frame/body for their EV as their non-EV, right down to the transmission hump in the body. They're doing that to minimize retooling and keep a "known" interior feel to the car instead of going all space-age design. Some are moving to more of a skateboard layout, where the battery packs are structural, but that means the EV body is cheaper than the ICE as it has fewer components. Again, the supply chain issues should be focused on the batteries. Talks on all those other metals and materials is a distraction as they apply equally to both.
I've long considered it a kind of cosmic joke that electricity can only be stored in the heaviest and rarest minerals. I agree that the current crop of electric vehicles are not the answer, but I think they are a necessary step towards the answer. It's clear that nothing is going to allow us to drive around as much as we do the way gasoline does. Hopefully young people can learn to live their lives without driving 12-15 thousand miles a year per person. On the positive side, I'm a member of that growing demographic that is retired and doesn't consume much. My wife and I both have older cars that just sit in the driveway six out of seven days of the week.
I feel nearly identical. Additionally alternative vehicles and the necessary R&D have been suppressed for decades. We need to give innovation a chance.
@@TOleablemonk he did say this in one of his videos. Something like they are not rare elements merely we lack the facilities to harvest them in sufficient quantities.
@@lukerichter9656 if it has the promise every one of the fanboys scream about, why did the Warren Buffett crowd bail out on wind/solar prospects when they saw that its not a profitable sector? Well the feds removed the tax advantages to investing in them, and Buffett said w/o the writeoffs they arent worth it.
You are correct in many of the details, but you're missing a couple of very critical issues: a) Tesla's manufacturing technology (nothing to do with electric) has developed to be miles ahead of all other car companies. At the moment only Tesla can make an electric vehicle and make profit - all other companies make electric vehicles at a loss. b) Tesla's current profits are just insane. They are literally printing money c) To deliver an electric vehicle Tesla makes a lot of profit (without subsidies) whilst all other car companies currently make electric vehicles at a loss. c) Elon has planned to have the critical resources (like Lithium) available for exponential growth as opposed to other car companies that would not be able to scale. d) Then it's simply a case of whether people will buy Teslas or not. It's impossible to know that. If they do then Tesla is in for a hella of a ride. If they don't then Tesla has plenty capability to lower prices to stimulate demand and still make decent (as opposed to insane) profits. I agree with you that currently it does not make sense from a "green" point of view to go electric. But, that's not what counts - what counts is what the people think, and they think electric cars are good. If the public keep on buying electric vehicles (whether it's good for the environment or not) then Tesla is going to kick ass.
Dad taught me to always pick the right tool for the job. Our Tesla Model Y is the right tool for the job if the job is daily commuting and grocery getting. If the job is hauling my gear to a gig 2 1/2 hours way, I'll fire up the Tahoe, thanks (The last thing I want to do after playing and packing up from a gig at 2AM is find a charging station in the woods). That being said, we would not even have considered a Tesla had we not just moved into a house that came with 80(!) solar panels. Most times of the year I'm able to recharge fully between the time I return home from work and sundown. In the winter months when I'm forced to pull from the grid to recharge, the cost is still way lower than gasoline. On weekends I'm able to throttle down the charging rate to make damn sure, without having to do any math, that I'm not pulling power from the grid, a task that will be all the more convenient when I retire. BTW, I live not in the sunbelt, but in NJ. Everyone's situation is different, do "your results may vary", but for me it's the right tool for 98% of our driving.
Yep. This video is filled with bad info. He didn’t do the research…. Well I don’t see any sources. Also initial price is one thing. Overall savings is another. No more oil changes or 5000 miles checkups. And no more filling up with gas once a week! And the recalls are fixed with OTA updates. Just like my iPhone! (Hardware purchased from a tech company!)
@@GET2222 Tesla is a mediocre vehicle, that has had its day in the sun. I don’t hate it. I pretty much do despise musk with his right wing, nut job, conspiracy theory craziness. Thank you for recognizing.
One aspect not discussed in the video is fuel. If you have home solar panels and an EV you avoid these costs. If the price of the car is reasonable, probably an argument to get one on this point alone.
Solar panels? Yeah - the $35k my neighbor spent on his solar panels is working out so well for him right now... covered in about 8" of global warming :P
@@nothingtoseaheardammit It's always edifying when you see someone make a well-informed post about climate change, which necessarily involves extreme weather events. Not the case with yours is it?
Mr. Zeihan. I love your videos and respect your information. However, this video represents the first time I'm seriously diverging from your expressed ideas. For the following reasons: 1. EVs pollute: yes, the supply and production chain is still dirty for the production of an EV, and the electricity you charge with may still be dirty. But the absence of exhuast from an EV from its direct operations will offset those polluting elements. And, each step of the supply chain can become greener. That is not an option for an ICE vehicle. 2. Lithium and so called rare metal availability: the rare earthbmetals aren't rare. They're actually quite abundant in the mantle, apart from cobalt. What we need are the scaled mining to extract. That's going to happen, and modern battery chemistries use less to no cobalt. 3. 99.99% of an EVs battery can be recycled. At some point, with a rational recycling program, we'll reuse every aspect of the battery. 4. EVs don't work for heavy industries: inaccurate. Semis are being deployed now, the first boats and ships are being developed now, and even short to medium range air transport is being worked on now with our current energy densities. 5. EVs are too expensive: this is misleading. Right now, the cost is high as we are still scaling up. But the average prices have dropped 50% in the last 7 years. With continued scaling this will continue to fall 'Wright's Law'. But even more striking, due to a lack of comexity and moving parts, assuming you've scaled your supply chain adequately, a comparable EV should be less than its ICE counterpart. This is already beginning to happen in China. 6. Renewable energy supply: has already proven to be cheaper than fossil and is still falling. And grids worldwide are converting to renewables at break neck speeds because it is more cost effective. But very importantly, the cost of the production and storage for the private individual is falling as well. If you're generating your own power for very little and storing it, using it for your own transport purposes is the next logical step. 7. Tesla is the unmistakeble leader in this field. You have glossed over the realitybof that company. It has margins that leas the industry, software the exceeds every other entry, and a capacity to evolve and compete that their own competitors are in awe of and are following. You are underestimating this. 8. Musk and the right. Americans are more preoccupied with this than the rest of the world. Trust me. 9. People who buy teslas: they're not doing this to feel superior saving the environment. They're doing it because they've come to believe it's a superior product. And they're right. Mr. Zeihan, on this item, I suggest more research on your part. You are missing the mark. This won't age well. For all order geopolitical commentary, imo, excellent.
This weekend I drove 300 miles to the coast and back on electricity mostly collected via home solar (had to add 20kWh in Los Banos when the grid was running ~50% renewables) , and recharged back to 80% over two days after coming back similarly. Apples vs apples comparison of BEV and ICE should exclude the carbon costs of the non-powertrain components since ICE vehicles incur the same cost and a passenger car is the most economic way to do a 300 mile day trip (I incurred ~$75 of depreciation to the car for this trip, plus the $5 recharge cost in Los Banos). I save $100-$200/mo not having to buy a tank of gas every week or two and I am quite happy about that. LFP batteries will replace NMC for BEVs like mine this decade.
Peter is clueless, go see the electric Viking channel. Peter is really destroying his credibility with his opinion on EV's that is not backed by credible data.
As an Austin guy, you should visit the Tesla factory there (or anywhere else) and talk to them about their plans. I think you'll learn a lot. Also, you'll find after selling over a million cars annually and growing ~50% YoY the customer archetype is not as you describe anymore.
@@PatOSheaPGH Often disappointed by Zeihans analysis and here he really blew it. Tesla isn't normal - and not just a typical car maker. The technology, infrastructure and low maintenance on these vehicles are all huge advantages that isn't addressed here. ... Afraid he doesn't understand anything about an electric cars and Tesla's competitive advantage... P
@@michaelsehl4632 But that’s not the point he’s making here is it? I mean, it does make sense what he’s arguing about scarcity of raw materials needed. Especially now when other OEMs are ramping up their BEV transition and catching up, in a sense, to Tesla and other pure BEV OEMs. Not saying who’s best etc but where is the stuff gonna come from when everyone is aiming to be fully electric or at least in large parts electric in their sales volumes by the end of the decade?
He's far too buys speaking these days to actually continue the in-depth research that he used to do. He's actually falling farther and farther behind in many of his critical analyses.
@@erra4331 Zeihans totally misses the point here. In a decade all the cars in the World will not be EVs!!!! All the new cars will be EVs, there is a big difference, secondly one of the things he failed to mention is that EVs are more recyclable then ICE. EV batteries can not only be repurposed after EV usage, but then recycled and up to 90%+ of their materials. No one is catching up to Tesla, none of the other companies are even close to profitable and most have heavy heavy debt loads to carry. BYD is the only company that will challenge Tesla in my opinion and that's because they will make the low end of the market in mass numbers.
The last part of this is the weirdest. The big legacy automakers are finally coming after Tesla with all their expertise and resources and that's bad news for Tesla, but that's also somehow bad news for EVs in general? The entire industry getting behind this tech in a big way, means it won't be viable at scale for a decade or two? I have... I don't get it.
As much as I like his work he’s just wrong on some of this. It reminds me of when Peter said , “If were a betting man, i would bet on Trump to win his second term of office.”
Materials and capital. The big auto companies are (in many cases) moving hard into EVs because government has decided they should and incentivises them to do so. But have you ever really looked into where the raw materials for an EV comes from? There are major limitations on the availability of materials like cobalt and the point he makes is that it takes time to dramatically expand the production of these materials. Then add in reduced capital for a whole host of reason...and you have a problem.
I think the point he's alluding to is that this current electric vehicle "model" is a trend that will not last in its current form. It's simply not the answer, maybe the main commenter I'm replying to here is right, and that it leads to other actually viable breakthroughs, but whatever that is (if it exists) isn't going to be recognizable as what we currently see as electric car technology imo
Maybe the new high-end brands, like Fisker and Lucid, but those brands are significantly more expensive than most Teslas. Also, no manufacturer has the Supercharger network infrastructure that Tesla has built up. 🤷🏽♂️
The F-150 Lightning starts at around $55k rather than $90k like you say. Still expensive given that it would be a replacement for the ~$30k work truck in an ideal world, but $35k is worth mentioning. :)
Great video! Is it a re-upload from like 2012? All the "facts" and "numbers" seem to come straight from a time capsule containing more or less accurate studies reflecting the state of the art from 2005 through 2011.
Yes, pretty much everything he says is demonstratably false qualitatively and quantitatively. But that doesn’t damper the ardor of the Tesla haters whose motivation I don’t understand.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 you are creating a false premise, or a strawman argument. When a discussion is about one topic and you immediately change the topic and expect me to chase that one down a rabbit hole. I’m not falling for that trick. If you have nothing to say, in support of this man’s false statements, I understand that.
Another point: In an internal combustion engine only about 16 to 20% of the energy in gasoline is used to move vehicle forward whereas in an electric vehicles 87 to 91% of the energy is used to move a vehicle forward. Even if the electric vehicle is charged from the grid where coal power is used the carbon dioxide emissions from battery-powered vehicles were around 40 per cent lower than for internal combustion engines last year.This benefit will grow as generators transition away from coal and draw more energy from wind and solar farms.
You can find research papers comparing well-to-wheels efficiency of EVs, gasoline, and diesel cars. That would depend on geography and other factors. In most cases EVs are not the winners.
@@ElementaryWatson-123 post a link to one of these research papers comparing well-to-wheels efficiency of EVs, gasoline, and diesel cars. where EVs are not the winners in efficiency.
Peter, I’d like to see some studies you’re drawing from about the carbon emissions associated with BEVs. Almost every study I have seen says the exact opposite of what you are claiming, even on highly fossil fuel dependent grids.
While I agree with the carbon footprint and resource scarcity you mentioned, have you looked at the sales growth of Tesla over the last 4 years? Ending September 30th Tesla reported 69% Earnings Growth, 56% Sales Growth and 17% AFTER-TAX Margin, according to Investor's Business Daily MarketSmith. Have you looked at the balance sheets of legacy auto companies? Legacy auto is not in the same financial league with their huge debt loads and low margins. Government and world do-gooders have decided EV is the way to go and Tesla has executed extremely well to date. Tesla is developing advanced self-driving software and recently produced their own DOJO supercomputer chip. So yeah, there's a bit of tech involved in valuing the company.
But still has a PE ratio of 60 even after its share price has fallen 70%. With a serious recession looming and deglobalization, Tesla is probably finished
EV sales, particularly luxury EV, are not growing rapidly, the economic collapse ahead will worsen that trend. The market is pricing in the reality to come, and if you think Tesla is going to boom from this 70% drop, then buy Tesla, but after whatever little bounce there might be, Tesla is on course to a 20PE and it might even go bust.
Tesla's ADAS software, which is all it is, is wildly inefficient and plateaued a while ago. Now they face a huge problem because between cost cutting and hubris they pumped out a bunch of cars with camera only ADAS. This will soon be insufficient from a regulatory perspective. Tesla will need to retrofit existing vehicles with significantly better sensing hardware and associated software and suitable controllers (and so let's hope they haven't been completely sitting on their hands and actually have some software ready to go here), OR figure out how to tell every current Tesla owner that their FSD and autopilot functions are no more than cruise control. They probably cannot just take the L, walk back their FSD nonsense, and get to work recalling and retrofitting prior to legislation, simply because that will invite class action suits and increase the glut of used inventory as people move on. So in the meantime they'll fall further and further behind the real direction that AD is taking through ADAS.
GM has recently back tracked on their commitment to replace all ICEs. Like many product development cycles, they have found it easy to convert at the beginning, but much fewer converts as they go along.
GM is just lying about their EV's and they will bankrupt in the next 4 years!!! They have huge debt and they are currently losing money on every car they make!!! They are in trouble.
They don't have to "convert" anybody. They have to produce cars at a loss, while losing ICE marketshare and profits, without going bankrupt, for many years. Backtracking now is just them resolving themselves to a quick death.
@@nothingtoseaheardammit Really it's on GM if all they could manage to produce was soulless, boring, sterile golf carts. Plenty of EV manufacturers are making cars that are more than that.
Some good points here but you neglected to mention Tesla's global charging network which gives them a big advantage. I didn't buy a Tesla because I'm an environmentalist or because it's a status symbol (I don't think that's true anymore). I bought one because it's a fantastically fun car to drive...and with Tesla's charging network I can drive it coast to coast. Everyone I know that owns a Tesla loves it so I think they will be around awhile...but time will tell. Note that the Model Y is the best selling car in Europe at the moment, not just the best selling EV but the best selling car of any type.
I think you represent a very typical owner of a Tesla. I don't think a majority of new Tesla owners are tree hugging idealists, they just want the right vehicle for their needs.
@@ronbakker1300 yes, I bought the Tesla because of the performance and economy. It's just fun to drive! I'm glad the wife said no to a hellcat as the Tesla is faster.
Time will tell for the rest of Car companies, Tesla is the only company that is solid and will be here. Many legacy are domed and will not make it in this decade.
@@ronbakker1300 yeah you're right, this OP is like me, I wouldn't buy one for green really but for all the other metrics and amazing engineering it kills at. Seems like the video is from about 5 years ago when those were the main buyers, rich people buying them as eye candy status symbols.
To be honest, I’m a little disappointed in Peter’s research, as some of the reasons he cites are simply not the case. I’m an atypical EV owner who does not advertise that I own a Tesla, for the same reason I wouldn’t brag about owning a BMW or Landrover (whose owners really do think they are better than anyone else). I’m a bleeding-heart liberal high school teacher who saved their money and bought the EV (our one and only car) for its very attractive design, low-maintenance (three years so far and all I’ve needed to do is add windshield wiper fluid) and its very impressive high performance. The issues Peter and many other EV detractors highlight (energy source for electricity, use of fossil fuels to manufacture the car) are teething problems that do not warrant the cessation of EV production or consideration. Like sexism and racism, the old, 'that's just the way it goes' societal bad habits are very hard to change, but will and must if we are ever going to extricate ourselves out of a mess that we should have been devoting resources to decades ago. If it is too late to change, then we are doomed. There are EVs with better range range and performance, but they are all well-in excess of $100k. There are some that are close-ish in the $50k range, but their 3rd party IT sucks so bad that owners can barely use their on-board navigation (I'm looking at you, Hyundai and Volkswagen) without hours and hours of headaches with dealerships that drop the ball for their lack of EV support training. No other EV manufacturer has the proven track record of software updates that improve the performance and efficiency of the car. In time they will, just to compete with Tesla's new industrial standard. Newer models focus on improving the car's performance rather than adding some meaningless aesthetic alteration for the sake of having a "new model" each year. Elon Musk has been showing his ass for years with regard to his (just plain weird) politics. Honestly, I never really liked the guy, but the cars he makes are a good value, and that has not changed. Henry Ford was a Nazi-supporting freak show himself, yet no one seems to remember that due to the legacy of excellent cars made by his company. Bottom line? EVs are cleaner, easier to maintain and costs are dropping as battery tech advances. I doubt that I will have any issues with the actual motor of my car for the 20+ years I plan on owning it. Cars out of necessity will need to become autonomous (something Tesla has planned for) and plentiful to service the needs of a generation that will not need to own a car but rather have an autonomous service available to them. I give it a decade before this becomes a reality. Car ownership will require a rethink, likely being on the chopping block in coming post-global economies as we look to use our resources more-efficiently. When Peter talks about this unequalled era of plenty drawing to an end, we need a serious rethink as to how we use our transportation resources. We could get a lot better bang for our buck if we pooled our resources and have a public/private hybrid of autonomous, electric vehicles that would serve the needs of all, and get away from wasteful luxury vehicle pissing contests. Check out industry expert Sandy Munro's analysis of all EVs here: munrolive.com/- in 2018 he did a teardown of the Model 3, and he was very unhappy with its seeming improvised production. He was then delighted to see that once he completed a tear-down of the Model Y, Tesla had addressed many of the issues he cited. Munro's unbiased analysis was the single greatest influence on my decision to buy the car. Three years in, driving through Quebec and Ontario winters, I am sold on this car's viability.
Clearly Peter can’t be bothered doing actual research for these kind of videos. He just makes shit up. Probably all the hundreds of other videos of his I’ve watched are nonsense as well.
Sean Earl, well guess what? There still is a First Amendment, Elon still has the right to voice his opinion and he is free to run Tesla and Twitter how he sees fit. Now twitter is not being used as a Bolshevik tool. Peter evidently drinks from the same septic system that you do. By the way I joined the service to support a Democrat president when the US was trying to protect South Vietnam. How much of a citizen are you? Have you served this country?
@@Sneezes_LoL Yeah, we don't get free shares when we buy the car. So do you own Dorito and Coke shares? As I said, I'm not a Kool Aid drinker (I had zero exposure to that unfortunate- but now opportune- turn of events). 😝
The older an ICE car gets, the more it's emissions are. A catalytic converter last 70k miles. When a converter is stolen it is often replaced with a straight pipe. I know several diesel owners and every one has had their trucks deleted, they are very proud of this. Few states test for emissions.
I've owned several ICE cars well beyond 70K miles. The converters were still functioning properly and the cars passed repeated emissions tests. Your facts do not align with reality.
He's more like a machine-gun talker. A bit more reflection might be handy between the rapid-fire magazines. He doesn't thrive on criticism that's for sure and there are so many uncritical fanboys in here. Not good for critical thinking.
It's easy to sit in the fence and hurl abuse at both sides. It's actually the most cowardly way out for a man. This man may know some facts about Ev's, but he is certainly not strong. He's as weak as they come. The sibilance in the way speaks should tell you all you need to know.
In 2021, it was estimated in the paper "A global comparison of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of combustion engine and electric passenger cars" that the average electric vehicle sold would have roughly 40% the total lifetime carbon emissions of the average internal combustion engine car, so I don't know how it makes sense to call them "carbon bombs" when they will lead to far fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Yeah, the battery makes the production of the actual car more carbon-intensive but most of the emissions come from gasoline. This figure will continue to get better over the years as the electricity sources become cleaner, but if people are interested in reducing their emissions and can't just drive less, electric cars make sense, especially smaller ones for people who live in cities (most people). So Tesla isn't the most environmentally friendly producer and it's correct to see them as more of a luxury brand. Though Tesla has stopped using cobalt in their batteries and is building a lithium refinery and before long many electric cars will use solid state batteries and possibly sodium ion batteries for small cars, but even now, using as many lithium ion battery cars as possible is the way to go. Have we also forgotten the negative environmental impacts of the entire gasoline production supply chain and the fact that the pollution from gasoline literally poisons people and has a devastating effect on overall health. When you add up everything and look at it, electric cars are much better, period. Many of them are even less expensive over the course of the lifetime of the car. Tesla is indeed overvalued and public transit is better and should receive a larger focus.
Most of those studies only take into account driving the car and not manufacturing. That's where the energy sink comes from. It's not so clear-cut. For city driving ev's are the answer, it's pretty cut and dry there. Rural living can't take the risk of power disruption, and on average they do much more driving. Cost of owner ship is questionable as ev's haven't been on the road as long as ice vehicles. I haven't seen any 20-30 year old ev's driving around yet. So that data is skewed.
@@cyruswoolard3737 the one I cited took car manufacturing into account and showed how much each factor contributes to emissions. Yeah, I don't know the answer for rural, only cities. It does depend on electricity infrastructure. Long-term maintenance is a question but if it's comparable than electric cars win due to the difference in fuel price
@Ishmael Mcgoo The problem is there are too many assumptions in most of those studies. Change one variable, and the numbers fluctuate massively. Take fuel tax for example, Gov isn't going to loose tax revenue on fuel with EV adoption. So it will be shifted to power consumption. Tack on 30-40 cents per KW/h and the numbers don't look nearly as good. Better than ice but a significant amount of luster is gone.
@@cyruswoolard3737 "Most of those studies only take into account driving the car and not manufacturing." This is incorrect. You might want to actually read some of them. :) Also as was pointed out, the vast bulk of emissions in ICE vehicles come from burning fuel, not manufacturing, and the battery comes nowhere near what burning fuel for decades produces.
Peter, I always enjoy your point of view and videos (even if I'm not 100% in agreement), but data stated as facts without sources provided only perpetuates the misinformation era we live in. Consider adding some sources to back up your points in the descriptions, it take minutes to type it. For example: If you make the point "Lithium Demand is projected to Outpace Supply Through 2025" you can put the supporting data and source in the description as follows: "annual lithium demand is projected to reach roughly 1.5 million metric tons of lithium carbonate equivalent by 2025 and over 3 million tons by 2030. A 2025 forecast calls for triple the demand seen in 2021. EVs could account for about 84% of total lithium demand in 2030, up from about 55% in 2021.(Source: Norris, E. (2022, June 27). Building a domestic EV ecosystem: Fastmarkets lithium supply and battery raw materials 2022. Albemarle.) Seems obvious, but it takes no time to do.
The thing is, sadly, Peter knows almost very little about EV’s & EVs’s future supply chain development… 🙃 There is no single video I could recommend on this info, but The Limiting Factor, Tesla Daily, Munro Live & Hyperchange YT channels had some great breakdowns of how the dynamics of these supply chains work & will work in the future, numbers very much included 🏆
Tesla as a scale-able tech company: If they finish "full self driving" that can be licensed all over the world, in any product, with the right hardware added.
When pigs fly, cars will drive themselves, and be recharged with fusion power and manbats will again be sighted on the moon. So get those pig wings going.
U.S. built Teslas use mostly North American sourced materials, not China sourced. Tesla's latest batteries use little to no Cobalt. Lots of other errors. EVs overall have a lower carbon footprint that combustion vehicles. That's reflected in their total cost of ownership being lower, since energy costs are a very major component of TCO.
A few points need to be made about this video and I hope that PZ will read and respond: - The important thing is to begin moving to electrifying everything. Once you've electrified your transportation sector, then even if today's electricity is generated mostly by natural gas and coal, when you do move your energy generation to other sources (e.g., nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar), your transportation will be ready for the change. You can't do that if your vehicles are still powered by internal combustion engines burning diesel and gasoline. - Although most EV battery cathodes today use a Lithium-ion Nickel Manganese Cobalt chemistry, Lithium Ferrous Phosphate (LFP) batteries are also being used on some EVs. Iron and phosphates are far more common and less expensive. Several companies are promising to introduce Sodium-based batteries this year or next year. These use a compound known as Prussian White which is related to the Prussian Blue artist's pigment. Prussian White's constituent elements, Sodium, Iron, Carbon and Nitrogen, are among the most abundant on Earth. It is still early in EV history. You have to start somewhere and we cannot put off starting any longer. Work is being done on all sorts of new battery technologies, so don't get too hung up on problems we are having with today's battery chemistry. - Videos like this one or a similar one by John Stossel seem to be saying that because there are hurdles to fulfilling the vision of electric cars, let's not even try to do it. But if we don't do it, then do you want to give up on personal vehicles entirely and rely entirely on bicycles and electric mass transportation as some are suggesting? We have to do something because we are producing far too much CO2. We can't continue with internal combustion engines. Or are you a climate change denier? That's fine if you are, but you ought to be up front about it and perhaps justify that position first before you start attacking EVs. If you don't want to move to electric cars, then tell us how you would meet our CO2 goals and still preserve the possibility of personal transportation. Don't just hide behind a tree and throw rocks at the people working hard to fix things. If you want to make a difference, tell us how you would better address the problem.
Why would we switch out main energy's generation to something that couldn't power our needs? We will still NEED to use fossils fuels for about another century before fusion is ready. We should have built more fission plants but shoulda woulda coulda. Why bother switching transportation when we will still burn carbon fuels to power them and they don't work for more than half of the country. I'm not opposed to people in cities using them as that would at least help clean the air in cities.
@@maxwellblackwell5045 30% of the U.S. grid power comes from renewables in 2022. 10% from nuclear. Then 25% from natural gas. The transition is happening faster than you think. No, we will not need fossil fuels for another century.
I don't agree with your assessment of the legacy manufacturers as they've proven they can't make EVs at scale like Tesla. How many EVs did Ford/GM/Chrysler make the past year compared with Tesla? Ford 36K, GM 22.7K, Chrysler 0K vs Tesla 1.3 MILLION. Back in 2018, they said they'll catchup and surpass Tesla by 2021. LOL, who are they kidding.
Funny, my assessment is the opposite. Once the legacy automakers get serious into electric they will make better cars for less money than the start-up EV companies.
Cobalt and nickel are already being phased out of electric vehicles and it's looking good for sodium batteries to be a game changer sooner rather than later.
Sodium metal is not any easier to mine. Looking good as in more points of availability. Put the the point is still being lost that the US power grid and its generation still needs to be doubled to support an EV or two in most drive ways. So batteries are not the answer.
I've already seen rechargable sodium batteries in the hardware store. They're getting their start doing niche things first. Things that require backup battery yet maybe not the highest voltage.
@@paperandmedals8316 ever hear of a salt mine? And LFP batteries are currently ramping up which use primarily iron which is abundant in the supply chain.
There are a number of very good videos on RUclips that cover the status and future of EV batteries. I like Peter but he is not an expert on the status and future of batteries.
@@JonathanRootD Salt mines extract halite, or table salt, which is Sodium-Chloride, not Sodium. I'm not sure how expensive the electrolysis process is nowadays, but I think there's a lot more complexity that just pulling table salt out of the ground.
As with most problems there is no magic bullet. Peter makes a good case for the excess costs of mass market EVs, but there are definitely helpful use cases for the EV. The development spurred on by the frenzy of investment in this space may lead to important and unforeseen breakthroughs that would never likely happen under the ICE regime of the past. I'm not a fan of going whole hog on EV for the reasons Peter mentions. Not mentioned is the cost of the transition after passing a tipping point where we lose the production capacity and knowhow of internal combustion engines and the associated flexibility it gives us. That's why I'm a fan of hybrid vehicles, though that too has its limitations. Bottom line is that we need to invest in and maintain the diversity of transportation and energy technology.
There is a magic bullet, changing zoning laws to encourage mixed use developments for walkable towns and cities, the rise of stay at home work and the empty offices this has created only makes this more viable. From there you can overhaul the rail networks, build bike lanes, reintroduce trams and trolleybuses and in general stop worshipping urban sprawl.
I was thinking the same thing watching this video. It’s easy to point out the downsides of any major technological shift, but you also have to weigh the upsides. Most of the concerns over battery production and mineral scarcity can be addressed with engineering, which is a high value added industry. Look at the battery technology coming out of Australia, all because they have decided to invest heavily into this industry. As a result, they will end up being world leaders when it comes to batteries, which creates jobs and growth. I too am a fan of hybrids. They’re a very good middle ground that offer many of the benefits of full electric, with much more flexibility in range. Either way, I think the days of gas powered cars is over. Plug-in hybrids are just so much more convenient and they aren’t as pie-in-the-sky as full EVs. If you have an effective, affordable option which allows people to drive around town without worrying about the gas price, then it’s going to push full gas cars out of the market.
He's quite right about a couple of things but also a questionable on others. I am an engineer who works in industrial control systems and automation. I have worked in both manufacturing and mining and know both industries quite well. In the short. He's quite right we simply do not have enough supply of certain raw materials to go to a full EV system. In particular Lithium and a couple of the other ingredients just aren't there in the quantity needed even if the Ruskies were being good boys. On manufacturing he's NOT as right. Other than the drive train (fuel system, engine, gearbox, drive shaft,... there's actually NO DIFFERENCE in making and EV or any other car. The body shell, doors, glass, seats, seat belts, sound system, steering wheel, suspension, chassis, wheels and tires are still the same stuff. Depending on the manufacturer something like 80-95% of an EV is the same as a normal car. In the longer story. On the mining of some of these metals like Lithium and Molybdenum those projects can take many years to go anywhere. There's a Molybdenum mine in Western Australia and a company I worked for did the electrical design for the processing plant. That was around 2007-08. The GFC smashed that project. But they did get it done and mined the site from 2010 to 2014. Its now in care and maintenance. So there's at least 1 Molybdenum mine that can be brought back into production fairly quickly. The company that owns it has a good coper & molybdenum ore body nearby but they have not yet developed it. At that's one thing about mining, they wont spend money digging stuff up unless there's a market to sell it to. So they don't look at what the markets are today they are looking 3-5-10 years into the future. Plus to actually mine some of these minerals can be damn hard. Sometimes the percentage of what you want is tiny. They measure gold in grams per ton of ore. Copper isn't much better. And getting it out can be seriously hard. They dissolve gold with cyanide and copper with sulphuric acid. So a lot fo the processing gear is fairly serious stuff. Right now there are people scrambling for finance for projects but these thing take time to plan, procure build and get operating. Typically from the first time an ore body is found its at least 5 years until first dirt. Some projects go for about decades until first dirt because the markets aren't right or there's other mines producing what's needed. Even when everything looks good there's still that fact you are hoping to dig dirt and turn it into money. Its quite a difficult thing to get a full appraisal on an ore body and it can be horribly expensive if you get it wrong. I watched BHP, 1 of the biggest mining companies on the planet blow over $3 Billion on a Nickel project because the geologists did not check properly and guessed wrong. So I'd say Peters quite right on the supply of raw materials, but depending on what the Chinese and Russians do next that can change rapidly.
Yes, my arctic e-bike is powered indirectly by diesel power because that's all that is used here currently. Even so, when I go back south it will be powered by hydroelectric/wind/solar power, and it's lower emission than a quad or car. Plus it gives exercise.
I have to say up to this point I have enjoyed and consumed all your videos, but I do believe you need to refresh some of your thoughts on where the auto industry is vs Tesla. I agree they have headwinds for the foreseeable future but I think some of their advantages in the industry were left out. The videos by the limiting factor have been a good jumping off point for me and the differences in their strategy
I heard in my Geology class, in California over 30 years ago, that it was so energy intensive to build a new car you used much less oil if you continued driving your gas guzzler as opposed to buying new.
That is true for every manufactured item. In the case of a more efficient, gas car, it might take a decade to catch up. A national research lab in the US. gave breakeven mileage is for electric vehicles which ran around two years, depending on how much fossil fuel there was in the energy mix. Usually the breakeven for electric vehicle was around two years with carbon savings after that. More important is that gas cars introduce toxins into our air that effect our health every day they’re driven, so electric vehicles do have an advantage there, which is seldom enumerated, but in itself is justification for pushing electric vehicles within cities to improve air quality. 110,000 a premature deaths in the US due to the burning of fossil fuels.
@@llibressal Assuming you’re asking a good faith question, I will respond in as meaningful way as I can because I suspect that behind your q is some mistaken assumptions. Let’s create a comparison using nat gas if burned to create power with a resultant efficiency putting the power into an EV of 67% compared to burning the Nat gas in a car which yields 16%. Not only is this one quarter of the fuel used in the EV but the products of combustion in the nat gas cars case are breathe d by city dwellers for increased health costs. See “NREL.gov” Assuming we never transitioned off Fossil Fuel to create energy, we’d still be better off with EVs. Now consider renewable energy costs being one fifth of Fossil Fuel energy by the end of this decade and you’ll quickly see that those countries that don’t get off Fossil Fuel now, will not be able to compete globally in anything by end of this decade. Currently US is 79% Fossil Fuels but it peaked in 2007 and has steadily declined since then. While Fossil Fuels are needed to transition to renewables, battery storage and EVs can better utilize existing energy sources because they can be charged at supply peaks such as mid day in CA or demand valleys such as where I live with 0 demand at night so they’re happy to give me free power because they need to dump it. See eia.gov
Zeihan-I believe you are largely correct. However simply because something is stupid doesn’t mean it won’t be pursued, we have a portion of the population and an administration who are behaving like a cult in the pursuit of the “Green Mirage.”
That is just politics and media and in a few short years their attention could be on something else such as the famines that are around the corner and their occasion with global warming may just get forgotten. Remember when the ozone was about to fall and everybody was going to be completely sunburned, remember acid rain or the destruction of mining on the environment. Those were all crazes of the left that are not long gone.
@@curiositycloset2359 all vehicles are subsidized you are driving a gas vehicle that would cost $40 dollars a gallon to fill up if our great military didn’t patrol and protect the global delivery of oil
@@curiositycloset2359 $59k is the baseline price for the low-end model from Ford, without subsidies. Keep it under $80K to get the latest tax incentives (up to $7,500 assuming you owe that in taxes).
Hi! So, a study at UM found that the carbon footprint of an EV is worse than an ICV until about 30,000 miles being the break even point. It takes until about 140,000 miles for the total carbon footprint to be cut in half. Also, the tech will improve, as will the greenness of the grid. One thing we do agree on is solar and wind have a bigger impact and should take priority over EVs.
EVs are actually less expensive long term. Low maintenance, no oils changes, no tuneups, no belts and tubes and breaks to fix. etc. Tesla batteries last 10-15 years and are recyclable.
And there are the IMDS Material Data Sheets that should list each assembly and component with their sub components and ingredients. When market penetration forces recycling, it will happen.
Something you did not consider regarding Tesla. Yes, he is pissing off his current customer base, but that base has already bought the Teslas they want. He needs to expand his market reach to keep selling vehicles. With this new outreach, he opens up the door to new customers that would have otherwise never considered buying an EV.
Like me? Doubtful. Tesla is a strategic means to an end for Elon. Fleece wealthy libs by selling them expensive status symbols while playing on that success to raise funds for his real loves--Human colonization of Space and a shot at destroying fiat currencies and their political champions.
Peter is wrong about Tesla's not having a unique selling point compare to the competitors for now. Tesla is essentially a computer on a car just like iphone is a computer on your palm. Tesla is still the company closest to figure out autonomous driving. When it does, the app store for Tesla will be ready. EG. pick up your grocery App, delivery amazon pacakge app, pick up passenger app. People pay big bucks for these services right now instead of $1-$5 when angrybird for iphone first come out.
@@CHixon It's not easy to dump your Tesla just like it's hard to dump the iphone. I would find it hard to believe anyone would just dump their iphone if Elon Musk/Steve Jobs is the CEO and supports Trumpian views. Once you've tried Tesla's autopilot, it's pretty hard to go back to ICE and most other manufacturer's self driving service as they are far behind Tesla. That's like asking someone to go back to using Windows Mobile when they've used iphone for 2 years in 2011(Yes, Most other electric car makers are so behind on autonomous vehicle, they are not even Blackberry in this analogy).
Tesla is delivering Semis now. Even though EVs are not a game changer right away as you said. We should still pursue them cos we have will solve the chicken and egg problem. Only when the EVs are there, the infrastructure needed will be built on the grid side. There are a lot of factors to this equation, it gets complex very quickly. We can get efficiency games when burning gas in a powerplant rather than a car. On the other hand, there will be transmission losses. And EV’s have a lot longer lifetime than an ICE car Etc. etc…
I'm largely in agreement with many of your points here, but the section on Tesla has a few holes in it. While you're correct that there are many EVs available now with longer range than Tesla, NONE OF TESLA'S COMPETITORS have the EV charging infrastructure to make them viable for someone who routinely makes long trips. (Ask me, I'm in the midst of a road trip from the Bay Area to Seattle and back in a Chevy Bolt EUV.)
You might want to take a long and careful look at the largest and most successful auto makers in the world… think Toyota, Volkswagen, Daimler/Mercedes - Benz… etc. Research the change that Toyota has recently announced. The near future is hybrid autos. If the largest auto makers wanted to install charging stations everywhere they could and they would use Tesla as rag to wax the floor. Tesla is a fringe company and it will remain so. Tesla is lacking in pragmatic functionality. This applies to all of the contemporary all electric vehicles. Especially when you get out of the large urban areas and go into the more rural areas. Rural areas are where a huge amount of people live. We rural people do not need a finicky motor vehicle. You can’t plug an electric auto into a tree or boulder, but you can carry extra fuel with you for a hybrid auto. I suppose one could carry a small generator in the trunk of an all electric vehicle to recharge the batteries when traveling out in the middle of no where. That sounds like fun! In addition where is all of the electricity needed for charging electric vehicles going to come from? Hydrogen fuel may end up being the the best fuel/energy source in the not too distant future for hybrids. Find out what companies like Toyota and Daimler/Mercedes - Benz are up to. Don’t ask the politicians because they are not the smartest people in the room… unless they are in the room alone. Politicians don’t find or innovate totally new working concepts. Politicians just chase after popular opinions and votes and then step out into the lights and cameras. Useless!
@@NW_Ranger "The near future is hybrid autos." So says you and Mr. Toyoda. Maybe he's wrong and just dragging his feet.... So, to compare a Corolla to a Prius you have what ? 20% better fuel economy? WHO CARES? You're still burning gas and doing oil changes. And where does some of your week gas payment go, after that trip to the QT? You can't make gas on your roof top.
@@nortoncomando1975 hybrid has less maintenance required than pure gasoline. Prius has no transmission, axle fluid, and other fluids and parts that typically seen in a pure gas vehicle
@@alexanderchenf1 Prius ha ha china golf carts they call cars and electric truck leave cars alone and make electric trains no battery connection to grid and less semi even tho those can be all electric totally unmanned automated all it's needed is its own lane kind of like h o v lane but just for electric trucks automated and maybe even like electric trains without a battery but for cars come on
@@nortoncomando1975 actually you can make your own gas either from corn or potato or candy into ethanol or even cow crap into methanol or geothermal and yes basically at gas station it's already mixed so like 87 % is 13% ethanol and premium is like 3% but yes you can actually make your own fuel
Very informative. Your daily video, with a cup of coffee, is my first morning activity. I really miss you on weekends but I know you need the personal time. Again, Thank you
Let's make bicycles great again! Awesome perspective Peter. Also, for those in the comments, I must say this is one of the most respectful and informed comment sections on RUclips that I actually enjoy reading through for even more perspective, gives me hope for humanity. Cheers everyone!
Er, all our infrastructure is geared to cars. We can change that over time without much increase in carbon but not in under two decades. I think there are good reasons to make cities more pedestrian friendly over time but it's not the solution if suffocating plants is really the best objective.
The commies that want to ban cars will come after bikes next. And if they get their way completely they will ban walking as well. The Green Movement is really just a watermelon in that it is green on the outside but very red in the middle.
@@bighands69 Marxist’s 😆 yup They will put u in boxes like chickens then extinguish u when your naughty 👿 Look up the new ITHICA NY GREEN HOME plan and the 15 min cities being developed now .
@@phylismaddox4880 It's not that we "can", but that we must and "over time" is acceptable, if you mean a brisk and unyielding pace. The age of the suburban fatass will end, whether they like it or not.
Thank you for that insight I would add a couple of things I don’t think they’re peoples second or third car. I think they’re most peoples primary vehicle. They have been for me for seven years and I love mine having invested a great deal of money for me at least in the stock I’m very disappointed in the last year because it seems like people are still buying them. Demand is still up. People are chomping at the bit for the roadster and the cyber truck, and the 18 wheeler no matter what you said it’ll be interesting to see how the next year pans out. It is scary. I think all the points that you pointed out are certainly legitimate ones. I can’t say that I’m thrilled with Tesla service at the service center but the car itself has been awesome for me .
18 wheeler was started on December 1st 2022, with Pepsi receiving the first Semis, 50k in 2024. CyberTruck Castings are in Austin with now being assembled for production to begin and deliveries in the next 6 months. If your an owner and a stock holder, how can you think anything he said was legitimate, this is not right. I know many people with Tesla's and they love Tesla service, when needed.
@Greg Schenk Tesla is a semi cult built around Elon Musk. The stock was overvalued by around 80%, as the company was valued above the top 10 car manufacturers in the world which is absurd. Your insight is blinded by your financial buyin of the stock.
I consider my self well educated on BEVs and Tesla in particular. I pretty much disagree with almost everything you have stated, with the exception that Musk has put off his primary customers. I don't have the energy to counter every point, but I'll take a stab at a couple. Your concerns about the new materials that are required for BEVs do not include the fact that Li-on batteries are 95% recyclable. You don't throw away a car at end of life. You recycle the materials including steel, aluminum, nickel, carbon, li-on, etc. Several companies are already doing the recycling and can provide battery materials at a lower cost than mining. Also, your statements about BEVs being "carbon bombs" comes from the oil industry statements that have been completely debunked multiple times. Where are you getting your information? You need to get updated. ICE vehicles will go away because the ICE companies won't be able to afford to keep them around as they are fulling investing in BEVs. You can buy a $26K Chevy Bolt today and get a $7500 federal tax credit and possibly another large state tax credit, which make it lower cost than a Toyota Corola or Honda Civic. There will be many more models from other manufacturers in this price bracket by 2026. The bottom line, Mr. Zeihan, you exaggerate (or are false on) almost every point in order to make your over all point that EVs won't be here any time soon. It makes me skeptical of all the other information that I have absorbed from you that I am not well educated on. This video won't age well.
here's nit number 2 to pick. I disagree with your comment that we've never doubled the production of anything over 10 years, I looked at the graph for uranium. It looks a lot faster than 2x per decade at several spots. There is apparently plenty of lithium out there, but they say it takes 9 to 10 years to get a mine started. Of course they said it took years to put in a regasification plant for LNG too. Certainly the price rises in lithium give some incentive for the mines to start opening. Interestingly, apparently the cost and availability of nickel may actually be worse than the lithium. Eventually, perhaps sodium batteries will be developed enough to replace lithium. Right now, the forecast is for pretty slow growth, maybe on your 3 decades plan. But a lot of this has to do with how much climate change bites.
I was thinking of Uranium too. I'm sure there are numerous other commodities that have doubled in that timeframe throughout history too. He just pulled that statement out of his ass, imo.
The vast changes in batteries right now needs some serious consideration, for instance if you go Lithium Sulfur (which is in process) you cut out cobalt and nickel and increase efficiency, if Sodium Sulfur which I admit makes me a bit giddy, is ... well look into it. seriously, this kind of change in power storage hasn't been seen in a long while.
All good and well. But moving away from the idea everybody has their own private car would be a way better solution. Build out public transit that doesn't require batteries and make more sustainable cities. You can get to places way faster and more efficient if you have a well build out transit network that has frequent stops. Counrties that are car based don't see the value in public transit cause it is infrequent and worse than taking the car.
@@brampelberg9335 Yeah that would have worked great with Coovid. Pubilc transit in many cities is way to expensive and is not going to happen. Robotaxis will fix this in a year or 2.
@@brampelberg9335 That is the same as saying fusion is the answer.. except at least fusion has a chance. That now catastrophically irreversible decision between mass transit and personal automobiles was made decades ago. Get back to me when someone includes calculated costs and environmental impact of reversing the entire US infrastructure.
@@brampelberg9335 It's OK, a lot of people can't see into the future. It's astounding to me they still feel compelled to make predictions about it, but hey, free speech and all. It is crystal clear no one in these comments understands even just Teslas mission statement let alone It's ingenious and somewhat sadly necessary methods to achieve it. To create an environmentally friendly car, did it have to be the coolest, fastest car, No. But, the answer is yes, if you wanted to get mass adoption, survive coming up from the ashes and battling against every other. Or... we'd all be share riding our Leafs and Prius. I'm older myself, and have a hard time conceiving of the autonomy project, but in theory, less people owning cars, and just robotaxi summoning them when needed would indeed solve much of the ever growing traffic, and most importantly, with AI be the safest our roads could be. Yes AI will be everywhere, it is just silly to think it won't be driving us. Is it 10 years or 20 years doesn't matter it just is.
regarding Tesla being priced like an IT company, I think they might actually become that as the EV market becomes more saturated. Tesla has, without a doubt, the absolute best car autopilot on the market, by a factor of at least 10, probably more. In fact, it could be argued that the entire car side of TSLA has just been a data collection operation for construction of its AI. I think we might see Tesla begin to lease out its AI autopilot to other car companies, which would put it in a huge position of dominance in the market. It wouldn't even need to sell cars anymore. Make no mistake, the way GPS is now integrated into all cars and we can't imagine a car without it, autopilot will be integrated sooner or later.
The problem with this theory is it assumes three things - that Tesla really does have a massive AI advantage (probably? hard to tell), that autopilot will catch on soon (too early to say) and that Tesla lacks deep-pocketed competition (they don't). But let's say the first two assumptions are true - will companies willingly pay Tesla (whom I presume will still make cars in this scenario?) for the right to compete with them? I think they'd view the competitive advantage Tesla would gain (correctly) as an existential threat to their businesses and go all-out to create an alternative. I don't see the "tech company" angle personally, but I could be wrong.
Competitors will find it easier and cheaper to license technology or rent a service from Tesla, and innovate off that platform. This is standard operating procedure in mature industries. Customers just don't know it, and don't much care. Anyone who thinks that Apple or Tesla - masters of vertical integration - actually invent and make everything in their products just doesn't understand how the business world really works. Boeing, easily the best commercial aircraft manufacturer, is the master of owning the design and outsourcing most of the manufacturing. Two decades ago I walked into the biggest building on earth and saw a dozen or more 747s in various stages of assembly. I don't care how jaded you are, how educated, your mouth drops in awe when you see these massive machines lined up on two sides of the room with countless workers crawling in and out and all over. There's at least a million parts in each one, and they all have to work. So a lot of folks love these videos with Zeihan, I do, but he has to communicate in shorthand, otherwise each video would be two hours long. If he sparks your interest, then dig in and do some research, go deep if you want. It's amazing what you'll learn.
@@tunahxushi4669 Bringing a microphone in closer is always a massive contribution to adequate audio quality. Video wireless mics such as that Røde Go have excellent placement. Speaking into a camera shotgun is pretty futile in comparison.
I'd love to see a conversation between Peter and Tony Seba. There's a lot of newer research and considerations about green tech in general, and how fast things are trying changing, that Tony Seba brings to the table; and his predictions have been pretty accurate. And Peter obviously brings his own line of knowledge and accurate predictions extracted from that information too. They both need to talk because there's a huge discrepancy and they're both intelligent, respectful, and straight forward.
Very true, would like to see that conversation, with actual graphs and charts as there's no question, car buyers want EV's as every EV announced has been immediately sold out, for the next year or two, with tens of thousands of ICE vehicles sitting on lots with no buyers. Same goes for solar panels and coal plants, it's obvious where people want to invest their money and see our planet.
@@glike2He is getting it from CNBC, he is not an engineer, and can’t understand manufacturing and Law of Entropy, much like the rest of the rest of the world, he should stick to geopolitics.
@@paulcachero1878 he is just making stuff up, he claimed that lithium could not go up 10x in 10 years because it has never gone up 2 x in 10 years, a simple google search would find that lithium production increased 3x in the last 5 years. but CNBC does that as well so you are probably right
Musk may be offending some people but he’s gaining a lot of other followers who will be extending themselves to support him. Elon has skimmed the cream off but reached a point that there’s not a lot more cream. Now he realizes he’s got to start producing for all those people in fly-over land. Peter, you’ve got to get your head out of the Colorado clouds and start walking more down Main Street.
The vehicles Tesla sells in North America are manufactured in North America, including most parts. Exception: many of their battery packs were made in China for several years, but nearly all current ones are made here.
"Made" here is such a non-descript term when you talk about the manufacturing process. Go watch Milton Friedman's "Pencil" lecture to understand just how mind-numbingly complex economic systems have to be to make something like a simple #2 pencil - much less a fancy golf cart battery.
@@JacobGrim Tesla's 4680 cells use no cobalt, and neither do the lithium-iron-phosphate packs they have been buying from CATL and BYD in China. Also, Tesla worked with Panasonic to reduce the cobalt content by 66%, by changing the chemistry to use manganese. Now Tesla has announced they're going to license CATL's lithium-iron-phosphate technology to set up a new battery factory in the US - again, with no cobalt used. So I think they're doing pretty well on their efforts to eliminate cobalt.
One point re: Tesla vs other manufacturers: it's not just the car, it's the charging network. If Tesla has a better charging network for its customers than other manufacturers, then that will win buyers over. With ICE vehicles you don't even have to think about this, but when you hear stories about charging stations not working, being vandalized, etc. that will put drivers off EV brands that don't have reliable charging options.
I wish what you wrote was accurate, but unfortunately you missed Peter's main point about Tesla; they are a luxury model. They'd need a $25k (or less) economy model for your ideas to be correct. The people buying Teslas now aren't doing so because it's a better mouse trap, they're doing so because they think its "cool." And suddenly, not only are legacy automakers going electric in force, but also because of Elon, Tesla is no longer "cool."
@@helifanodobezanozi7689 Prices are coming down and they are making less expensive in 2024. The Model 3 standard range is the price of the average car sold in the US, 47k. They have already announced the less expensive cars coming. 25K is coming soon!!!
@@MyUniversalUniversity Yeah, the price drop is a direct result of the brand damage caused by Elon's online emotional outbursts. As for the $25k Tesla that's been promised for years now, only time will tell. If the rumors being spread by some Elon fanboys about the the budget model being completely self-driving are true, then this is another misstep.
Agree with all points on supply chain and “carbon bombs” but think it’s important to remember Tesla are a hybrid of an IT company and a manufacturing company, and have the fastest improvement curves at both in automotive. As an IT company they have a computer on wheels to sell subscription services into (think insurance for example, self driving upgrades), and they have said computers streaming in massive amounts of camera/sensor data (more than every other car company put together) for self driving training. The model on a manufactured unit looks more like an iPhone to Tesla (different cost/margin structure obvs). Doesn’t mean they are not over priced in the market but they do have quite a few tricks up their sleeve. I’d also think in longer cycles when analyzing what Elon gets up to, clearly there is a larger strategy with many layers afoot.
But whats the market share of those computers on wheel and if Elon is bent over on "loosing" even current base then thats likely to spook investors that even existing base could leave or NOT use those services since he is actively pissing them. Its not like Ford or GM or Toyotas and other large players are gonna be prevented from signing deals with Google or companies capable to provide such services with large content size....So what Peter says is valid: about being a niche market and loosing even existing customers
I continue to DCA in to Tesla not for EV, but for Lv5 autonomous driving and then Elon can port that system to robot's (industrial not household, because house hold robots are stupid concept). No one else is even close to Lv5 aka teaching robots to see.
@@jasper-cg He's growing his company 50% YoY. It's been that way for the past 5 years (which they said couldn't be done) and he plans to do it at least another 5 years. His company built 1.3M cars and plans to build 20M by 2030. These cars are 8x (I believe) more profitable than legacy manufacturers. That's just the car business. Some say the energy storage business can be the same size. That's without the "crazy" robot and full self-driving entering the equation. As for "Ford or GM", they are struggling to scale their EVs. GM made 40K EVs, and Ford is like 100K (guessing since quick googling didn't turn it up). They have been promising big numbers for years. I'll believe it when I see it.
@@PatOSheaPGH He plans to....thats the key point....so similar to your take on GM and other companies, lets see what happens with Tesla over the course of time. nobody can predict exact future with such erratic people
Agreed, they really can’t be compared on the same metrics to a legacy car company with huge obligations, debt, skinny profit margins and not at all comparable tech nor manufacturing processes. Not to mention they are contracting while Tesla is growing at 50%.
One reason it's priced like a data company is that they be gathering data. That car detects and records and reports every gd thing it can about everybody and everything in it or near it.
A data company tied to an affordable space services company tied to an EV company tied to a tunneling services company tied to a 1000+ low earth orbit satellite company tied to a huge social media company...
@@garymunson2493 not the same dataset. Completely different data and a completely different software suite on top of the data that’s learning from the info it’s collecting
I usually pay attention to Peter because he makes one hell of a sound argument, but he displays a consistent blind spot where innovation impacts a pillar of that argument. In plain terms, he's a student of history that doesn't observe one of the key lessons of history: we learn how to overcome the limitations.
@@lecoureurdesbois86 then 100 years of AC motor and battery Innovation finished fossil fuels vehicles for ever. The whole issue about cobalt and lithium cost and supply is a non issue since the higher the prices the more supply will become available and the more other materials like sodium and aluminum will enter the fray and remove the scarcity.
In a Life Cycle assessment including battery mining and production most studies show a 50%+ reduction in emitted carbon of EV vs ICE using current energy mix. not sure what data you are using.
Well, a deeper dive might be needed here as far as the EV carbon footprint. I have read some in depth articles that explain that even if an ev gets it's electricity from 100 percent coal it is a 5-7 year carbon break even point vs an equivalent ice vehicle because of Ev's superior efficiency. As battery recycling gets better and battery tech gets better and cleaner we see a an overall improvement in sustainability. We just can't keep spewing emissions from individual tailpipes so this transition to Ev's is necessary and the tech needs to mature to get cleaner and the only way to do this is to build and sell Ev's. Unless you got a better Idea?
A lot of the talking points Zeihan shared are kind of old. The data he speaks about was true in 2018, maybe 2019. But recent data shows we've passed the cost benefit rubicon from ICE to EV about 2 years ago....Both in terms of monetary cost and carbon cost. At the same time I feel like his opinion on this particular topic is a bit childish and short-sighted. Most of what he mentioned is true, but he's ignoring what will happen in the future as a result of the efforts made now. As soon as robo taxis become a thing the cost benefit will skyrocket in favor of EVs. Even more so if/when battery technology improves which it is at a rapid pace. Research for such improvements would never have been financially feasible if someone hadn't first created a market for high-performance EV vehicles. It's all a far sighted baby step that will lead to more efficient energy creation and storage compared to our current model. And yes, hopefully we also figure out how to make fusion reactors. But, even now....RIGHT now, EVs are still a better choice than ICE. Thats why the demand is greater than the supply! Tesla currently has 2 YEARS worth of commercial megapack orders on their books. Nobody is buying megapacks as their 3rd vehicle status symbol. Cities and corporations are buying them because the value proposition is the same or better than fossil fuel alternatives.
Thank you for this video. I have been very critical of how electric cars are made. NO car currently made(I.C.E) is Carbon neutral, but the idea of using kids to mine Cobalt in the Congo, then having said material sent to China for processing and then having to deal with the less than stellar charging infrastructure and THEN to deal with a -35% battery loss at temps of 20F really pushes me to think that the Green Marketing of "we must do this to save the planet" got the best of most of us. I can fill up my car in less than 3 minutes. Yes, it does pollute, but when I see the current manufacturing process happening now, I do not stand with the flawed principle of getting a car for a status or a "hip" thing. Cost aside, it is not worth it for me, personally and especially in colder climates. Worst is that I am a hypocrite and ordered an EV. I am going to cancel said order because I do not want to be part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution. If there was a sustainable, ethical and ultimately lower cost to do all of this, I would be on board. But there is a rush to pump out electric cars as they generate more profits for the manufacturer (even if they create a lot more cost and headaches), yet if they sell the right amount, profits WILL be high due to high global demand. I am not against electric bikes or other smaller scale items that have always been around. What boggles my mind is the indoctrination of the Greens who are calling on the death of the internal combustion engine.
Great video. I bought the first high-accelerating version of Tesla Model S (P85D) in 2015, not for green reasons but because it drove better than any other sedan. If I were replacing it today with an EV I would choose the new BMW 7 (i7) which is less in absolute dollars that the P85D was 8 years ago and is a much better car. I won’t buy another Model S -- not because of Elon’s politics, which doesn’t offend me, but because for some reason known only to him he replaced the round steering wheel with a dangerous steering yoke and took away stalks in favor of buttons on the yoke. I hope Elon succeeds with his rockets but I completely agree with your view on Tesla as a company.
Serious inquiry. Love your stuff. I would be mesmerized to see this take juxtaposed to the evolution of horses to cars ~100 years ago. Where might we find interesting parallels? Contrasts? Hopefully with fun charts too showing adoption curves etc :-)
Should look at it vs the oil boom. Initially there was an explosion and crucially, privately funded infrastructure development. Investors liked their returns. Even as Exxon warned of global warming but investors who controlled media tamped that down. Investment returns were enjoyed for years as oil boomed and oil companies built out extensive infrastructure. Well that era is coming to an end and those investors have moved on to EVs. Even now a similar trend emerges where media is trained to ignore negative impacts of battery supply chain. Except now we do not see anyone on the supply chain building significant infrastructure, and certainly not without government incentives.
@@PikeBishop14 He's done a bunch of these talks over the years. Here's a recent one that gets right to the point you're interested in, the "technology disruption" of horses by the automobile: watch?v=6Ud-fPKnj3Q
Oh dear Peter!...You got so much wrong there I don’t know where to start! Keep going though, you’re the most entertaining and mostly thought provoking commentator on geopolitics out there...and that’s saying something!....I mean hell, your subject tries to encompass EVERYTHING....and therein lies the problem....love the latest book btw.
EV's will never be ubiquitous. They will continue to be an overpriced novelty. The deal breaker will come when the owners of EV's are faced with the ugly reality if having to replace the battery.
Interesting to hear that in the US EVs are still considered status symbols, and bought as a third or fourth car. By contrast, in Norway, 79.3% of cars sold in 2022 were fully electric, and the rest of Western Europe follows a similar curve. Over here they aren't status symbols - they are simply becoming the preferred option from an economic standpoint, also partly because rooftop solar is gaining such wide adoption. EVs still cost more to acquire than ICE cars, but prices are falling rapidly and, due to their far better energy-efficiency, EVs are cheaper to use. Indeed, Lithium shortage is a potential problem, which is why so much money and effort is being poured into alternative battery tech - with some promising results. But even Lithium-based batteries are seeing an unabated increase in energy density, meaning the amount of Lithium needed per battery is steadily declining - which largely explains their 97% fall in price per kWh over the last three decades.
Peter is clueless, go see the electric Viking channel. Peter is really destroying his credibility with his opinion on EV's that is not backed by credible data.
Im confused. Where are you seeing these prices “falling” so quickly? I must be living in an alternate universe here because all I see are Teslas shooting up in price, Kia wanting $50k for what is essentially a battery powered Sorrento, GM wanting 6 figures for an electron pushing Avalanche, and $55k for a Blazer priced as much as my Cadillac XT5. So where are all these fan boys seeing these EV prices plummeting?
@@juanzingarello4005 Early December, Tesla cut prices on the Model 3 and Y. In China, EVs from BYD and others are now on par with ICE cars. In Europe and Australia, Chinese automakers introduce EV models that cost significantly less than those of traditional automakers. Perhaps the US is just lagging, dunno.
@Onwrikbaar They did that because they aren't selling well in China. Thats why. Only a few rich people can afford them and thats it. They had to close several showrooms in busy areas like Beijing as a result. And that's the problem. This has become a dysfunctional car market that they are literally begging the Chinese to undercut them and put them out of business should they ever make it to the US market (well underway already in Europe. Just give it time before the Euro brands go out of business there). Simply because the mass market can't afford them. They just never learn. A complete mess these out of touch politicians are creating in our market which I can only see decimating our car industry.
Here is where this review fell flat. Name one US or foreign car company model(s) that are superior in range to Telsa at the same or lower price at scale? Serious questions, anyone.
You have badly ignored the hidden carbon footprint of the oil industry, which needs to be included in the calculation for a petrol car if you're including everything in the calculation for an electric car...
For heavy transport I would point out that there is available the Tesla semi with 500 miles of range along with a number of other, shorter-range heavy transport vehicles. These should have really good economics as trucks are high-fuel-usage, high-mileage (how do metric people say that?) vehicles, and while diesel is more expensive than gas, industrial electric is cheaper than consumer electric. Also on software vs. hardware, keep in mind how software is a huge part of these vehicles - think of all those ID.3s that were so much dead metal sitting on lots waiting for VW to get some software for them. Or BMW's notorious heated-seats-as-a-service model. Or the fabled robotaxis.
Electric semi's (not only Teslas) have a massive problem. The most important metric for transport companies is the cargo capacity of the truck, e.g how much weight you can put on it. The upper limit for how heavy a vehicle can be is set by the government and the transport authority and is done to prevent damage to the road. For long range semis the battery is estimated to take up a significant part of that weight. So while the cost efficiency of the fuel consumption goes up they can't transport less with each truck. All in all, the tradeoff is not worth it for the trucking companies. The batteries have to get lighter (kg/kwh) for them to be viable.
@@Superman-xr1oh That’s a good omen for me as many conventional people have thought ground breaking design are ugly. I have cars from 70s people thought were ugly that are now classics. Aptera May very well be VW bug of our era.
Hello Peter, The Swedish company Northvolt is actively building a battery plant in Canada, and this facility will be powered exclusively by hydroelectricity. This strategic approach aims to significantly reduce overall fuel energy consumption within the project.
if Tesla's autopilot efforts fail, then yes, it should be valued more in line with other manufacturers. but if they succeed, the multiple is more than justified.
My Tesla drives me pretty much everywhere now. I press one button, say "Drive me to Home Depot" (or whatever) then downclick on the right steering wheel stalk - and the car drives me the whole way. So - I think they've pretty much succeeded.
About a couple decades ago my science teacher once said he was surprised gas cars were not replaced yet. It stuck with me for a weird reason because despite constantly being told gas is on the out, 2023 vehicles frequently have V8 options. But even the reduction in V8 popularity is more of an indication of economic issues than gas issues, cars in the 70's were slower than cars in the 60's because of gas crisis. Today most cars have only 4 cylinders and turbo charged, with modern tech we can make same power in way smaller and cheaper package. Better gas, cheaper to operate. I made a lot of money on Tesla stock but honestly think my estimate for EV transition was off by 1-2 decades. Gas will be around awhile longer but the availability / price is an absurdly huge issue Peter seemed to carefully avoid, power your life with solar panels in your backyard vs buying toxic sludge from often hostile adversaries like Russia? Gas is still very problematic so gap with EVs isn't as huge as Peter suggests
there is nothing to avoid, oil and gas can be gotten from otherplaces than russia, america has native oil fields and gas fields, in huge quantities too
He also notes separately that while he does believe in green energy, you can’t have a universal green energy solution. For example, in places where there is sun, lake, Arizona, and Colorado, solar panels, work. In other places where they have wind, you can use wind energy. A place like the north east, solar is not efficient. He has spoken on this at length.
When you do your takedown of EVs and Tesla in the snow and start off referring to them as Electronic Vehicles it's a giant tell that all the rest is likely going to be off base as well, and you didn't disappoint. One of your first rebuttal videos: ruclips.net/video/UvagAlGjAPQ/видео.html
@@steviesevieria1868 "Tesla fan boys and stockholders will be heard from in the comments!" You are completely right They seem to be allergic to half truths, ignorance and straight lies. How dare they.
@@steviesevieria1868 "they are also immune to complete truths, and very fond of spreading half-truths and complete lies themselves." So tell us what you're referring to. As the above video is one big lie where each and every "fact" can be proven wrong (except for Elon Musk as everybody seems to hate the guy ;-) Than again, only very few will not buy a great car because the CEO of a company is an asshole.
Does your analysis include the 3,35-6,7 lb/gallon it costs to produce and transport gasoline? Say that you drive 25000 km per year (15534miles) with a super efficient car that consumes 0,5L/10km (0,2 gallon/mile). You would still end up releasing 503-1005 metric tons just from the fuel you bought. Your car will just release 1,3 metric tons per year. And then we haven’t even mentioned all other green house gases like methane or carbon monoxide that are released in the refinery process. For combustion engines there aren’t much more improvements to do if everyone should own one. We can either choose food or fuel if you want to produce them sustainably and CSS has been whispered about since the 90s without any progress or full scale use (not economically viable). So right now only EV or hydrogen have the potential to be fully sustainable
Do you believe that electric semi trucks exist that can haul 40 tons 500 miles without recharging? I am not a Zeihan fan but he is right about electric vehicles.
@@Withnail1969 you can't haul 40tons legally in the US except for special use permits which are less than 1% of shipping. Tesla semi proved it could haul 45k lbs 500miles and go over a mtn pass in the process. It only took 93% of the charge. Max load is around 48-50k for diesels in the US so this is barely less and 60% of shipping doesn't max weight anyway. So yes, he was extremely misleading about the EV semis.
I've just bought two EVs and I'm seeing them everywhere around here. Subsidies are almost nothing in Australia and yet they're booming here in Queensland. I'm guessing it's the same in other states too.
@@Timnea1 Teslas aren't really luxury at all tho that's why. Most luxury cars are way more expensive and harder to maintain, its much easier to buy a Tesla which again isn't a luxury vehicle by any standards so its gonna sell more and top a category that it doesn't belong to.
@@reboabed After owning my first Tesla I'll never be buying a BMW or Audi ever again. All the old "luxury" brands are screwed IMO. But our opinions don't matter, the market is voting with it's dollars.
No one ever mentions the extreme energy cost of mining and extracting platinum for combustion vehicles catalytic converters. It's literally one of the most expensive and energy intense materials to get hold of. Then of course it gets chucked out the exhaust system onto the road.
It’s ADL’d on ceramics so it’s the future today maybe for you. E.g we need a very very tiny amount of it, it’s still expensive but mostly because of the process.
"If you're talking about hard-rock lithium mining, the environmental impact is pretty much the same as any other comparable mining operation," Gavin Mudd says. "Brine is radically different" Mudd is an associate professor with Melbourne's RMIT University and the chair of the Mineral Policy Institute, an independent organisation that monitors Australia's mining industry. He says misinformation and confusion about lithium mining is common. ."When it comes to the environmental impact of lithium mining in Australia, he says people often confuse the situation with what occurs in South America.The difference starts with the underlying geology. In younger landscapes like South America, lithium is found at the bottom of crusted salt lakes at high altitudes. Australia, meanwhile, is a more ancient geology. Lithium-bearing pegmatite deposits are found across the county, in chunks of landmass that collided over hundreds of millennia to form the continent of Australia. These regions include the Pilbara and Yilgarn cratons (continental rocks that have been stable for over a billion years) in Western Australia, Pine Creek Province in the Northern Territory, the Georgetown region in Queensland and central Victoria. The refining process carries environmental risks as its energy and chemically intensive, however Allison Britt, director of minerals advice with the government agency Geoscience Australia, says the process of extracting lithium in Australia is not much different to other forms of metals mining. When an economically viable resource is identified, the surface is cleared, the earth is scraped away, the rock blasted and the rubble hauled off for processing into concentrate. "Each hard rock deposit is its own unique beast," Britt says. "At a higher-grade deposit, you dig up less rock compared to lithium produced." www.bbc.com/future/article/20221110-how-australia-became-the-worlds-greatest-lithium-supplier So after telling us it can't be done economically re EVs, and they're dreadful, and there's terrible environmental cost....more recently you're telling us there is a big find of lithium in Iran? (I must watch when there's some ironing to be done...). They said we couldn't go to the moon either. Let's also recognise that it's more than possible to ramp up mining and production, it takes motivation and money but it can be done. Pilbara Mining which supplies 9% of the world's lithium got theirs done in 4 years. FOUR. Also which technology worked out ticketey-boo immediately? NONE. There are always iterations and improvements and then there's things that pop up like the Henry Ford production line. I used to be a bit of a Zeihan fan but the extremist positions, whining and hysteria is getting tiresome.
I'm a comfortable upper middle class guy with a wife who also works and we both get paid quite well. We have a house, disposable income, etc. I'm not buying an EV solely because of cost alone. They are damn expensive and what no one is talking about is that when the batter goes .... and it will eventually go, the cost to replace that is essentially a new car.
You are sadly misinformed. For a new Model 3 or Model Y battery installed by Tesla the cost is $16,000, currently, the price is dropping. You can also buy a used battery for $5000. I have one of the early Model 3s and put 100,000 miles on it and my loss of battery life is 3%. Tesla builds their batteries to have a life span of 300,000 to 500,000 miles. I might add that I have had zero maintenance in the last five years except for tires, I charge at home off my solar roof for $5 on a 325 mile range so basically, I have stopped thinking of my transportation as an expense. In 55 years I’ve never owned a car as good as this.
That appears to be a very solid assessment now - boy did Hertz and SixT get burnt. Also the troubles with EV buses and trucks are such their future is questionable. Oh and then there's Ford's F150 lightning... oh my! 🙉
Lithium and copper mining and refining are ramping up in Australia. Increasingly it is powered by 100% renewables and is competitive against Chinese coal based industries
@@ralphemerson497 Did you just try to contradict news that new mines not aimed at China are being built by arguing that currently existing mines are aimed at china, as if that means anything to what he said?
@@ralphemerson497 Australia has everything it needs to build its own industries with. Australia also has a growing population and a new consumer market that will be arriving in the late 2020s.
Calling diesel fuel that powers the majority of mining equipment renewable is a fact. Mother Earth continues to make oil everyday in a process we don't yet fully understand. And the other benefit of oil in general is it is 100% natural and organic.
Greenspan in the Age of Turbulence discussed the Fed's inability to account for the gains from technology in forcasting GDP. I often see a similar dilema in your research. While I do not disagree with your points in this video and appreciate them, I do see that there have been similar inflections in the past. This would be a fun respectful discussion over coffee as a RUclips comment does not allow for the development of an argument.
Luckily enough, there are some significantly better battery and capacitor technologies on the horizon that use different and more readily available materials. They should improve the range, price, and charge time of EVs.
@@justinjustinjustin10 Sulfuric and saline batteries are the closest, but the graphene battery will be a massive game changer if they can scale production. Great energy density and quickly recharge.
The LFP battery used in more than 50% of Teslas are iron phosphate and do not contain cobalt or nickel, they also don’t catch fire. It should be noted that Tesla uses very, very little cobalt in their batteries and the cost to mine what ores they use is way less detrimental than mining coal or oil. Once you burn coal or oil, it is gone , released into the atmosphere as hydrocarbons. An EV battery is 95% recyclable.
I see the key as being efficient use of resources. Regenerative braking in an efficient manor is a key element to reducing the waste. I think Elon is a visionary and undoubtedly not perfect. I believe he is very sincere if not perfectly correct. Betting against him isn’t a great move. Adoption and refining of new ideas is the only way forward. Time will tell.
@@shepherdsknoll EV batteries and individual Li-Ion batteries are recyclable but more are still trashed than recycled because few countries have mandated it and the materials you get back from recycling them costs more than virgin material so it will not help the cost component and then there is the energy used to recycle them, where does it come from. Because BEV's have to be constructed in a unique way due to their weight problems their repair costs are outlandish and thus two major car rental companies are winding back their BEV fleet due to maintenance costs being excessive. The next big battery breakthrough has been about to pop for how many years now? its always five years away. BEV's consume many other critical materials needed in other critical areas that can reduce greenhouse gas production by greater amounts than a car. Like Peter said you can not ramp up production for these things in short periods of time, manufacturing supply does not work like that. While LFP batteries are safer from a thermal runaway point they are still dangerous when exposed to fire from another source and will burn hotter than an ICE vehicle. Last but not least is that the private car fleet in global terms is not a huge emitter of Greenhouse gases it is actually quite small and if we are to make a big dent in their reduction it is the big emitters that need to be looked at and addressed. all the fuss over BEV's is fluff on the edge and it is taking up to much of the narrative.
I blogged about this in September. Everyone forgets hybrids. With 1/200th as much battery, they always pollute less than conventional, and pollute less than BEV for twice as long as conventional - so up to 20 years, based on Peter's data. Even hybrids that don't plug in - mine gets 50 mpg, charging off braking and excess engine rotations alone. And this is the innovation in the newest Abrams tank, giving it twice the range and allowing it to stay in fights twice as long. But they're boring so nobody cares, being a compromise with a lame-sounding engine that's unsexy to both enginephiles and batteryphiles.
I care. I bought a Prius in 2010, gave it to my GF recently, it has 204k miles on it and has had only one non regular maintenance repair. I just threw a new suspension on it for $575 (I did the labor, took 5 hours) and it drives like a new car. I could go on, but suffice to say that car is one of the most reliable and reasonably comfortable and utilitarian cars ever made. As I understand it Toyota started working on the project from Clinton's threats of environmental legislation that never came to be. My buddies Volt is a comparable vehicle too, feels like it has more power and handles better but maybe not as reliable.
for how long lifespan car has from store to finally getting scrapped and as price of new ones go up, it can be as high as 20 years.... to me that sounds good interim solution while also electric grid needs to catch up until everyone uses EV... and that demands huge capital we dont want to drop all today but slower pace over 10-20 years. Also NA has challenging climates when EV battery, if it is any compromise in quality, can be problem. not every EV is 90k$ tesla level every weather from north pole to +50C scorching sun temps functional. + obvious already happening is smaller vehicles ebikes, emotorcycles becoming popular, so every trip on those also reduces potential car trip... this is aint sexy topic coz it needs some city planning support which can be even more emotiondriven than general politics.
@@michellelewis3063 Do you mean plugin hybrids? My non-plugin hybrid as about 10 pounds of lithium, enough to go about 1 mile on battery. It goes through a full charge-discharge cycle every 20 miles or so. My last car had a 250 pound NIMH battery, a different technology that couldn't be used in BEVs. We're trying to solve the transportation carbon problem in the wrong way. We've come up with 100% solutions for 1% of the market, and 80% solutions for 20% of the market. What we need is a 20% solution for 80% of the market - get every semi truck to carry 1 mile of battery and have a hybrid transmission. That would cut semi truck pollution in half. Likewise, if every car had to have the same 10 lb battery as my car, it would cut automotive pollution by 50%. We don't have to mandate that all cars are hybrid, or ban the internal combustion engine, just mandate that all cars get 50+ MPG. That's what we did with fuel injection - set the CAFE standards so fuel injected cars would always pass, and let the market sort out the details. It led to much innovation in carburetion that we wouldn't have had otherwise. Here, too, we could see more innovation in the turbocharger and combustion spaces.
I've read that Toyota, the pioneer of mass produced hybrid vehicles, is not jumping on the EV bandwagon. They are looking at hydrogen as a future alternative to petroleum, and do have a model that is sold in markets where hydrogen is available.
EVs can be great for air quality in a place like Utah where in the Winter months we get a strong inversion effect due to being in a giant bowl of mountains in the Salt Lake Valley, a great deal of the poor air quality is caused by vehicle emissions because those emissions are low to the ground and stay trapped in the inversion, unlike with a smoke stack which ejects things higher into the atmosphere and more of it disperses and escapes into the upper atmosphere (which aside from some filtering is the whole point of the smoke stack).
@@fuzztsimmers3415 coal stacks are regulated to be at such a height that they largely push up into the upper atmosphere, the point is to mitigate the red air caused by inversion which is mostly car exhaust, I wasn't saying this would impact overall carbon emissions.
He's making the same argument here. Internal combustion cars were the toys of the rich when Daimler introduced them. It took Ford about 30 years later to make them affordable and pratical for every man. So he's saying we are still at least 10 years away for EVs.
Sure, and how many decades did it take to get from then to now? Most of your governments are pushing EV initiatives in the 10-year range which is ludicrous. You're never going to mine enough lithium for that, particularly not when your lithium mines spend decades going through court before they get to mine because they endanger the life of some rare lifeform.
Tesla has that nice convenient screen, that people spend a lot of time in front of. Its just as much a computer on wheels, as it is a car with a computer.
IMO, the industry and governments didn't spend enough time investigating PHEV technology. My PHEV has 10kWh of range (good for 30-40 miles), for comparison, a Tesla Model 3 Long Range has 80kWh!!! (Like 8 of my PHEVs)... 85% of the time, my daily commute is on electricity - when I need it, I switch to gas to get 40mpg with zero range anxiety - I never use public chargers - because I don't need to. A small battery for weight reduction and efficiency combined with a simple generator _was_ the most practical solution. A small rotary generator that runs at a constant speed - or if they invested in making microturbines more efficient might have been a better solution for the next 30 years. What would "fix" most of what you highlight Peter, is a sharp turn towards nuclear power. On the PHEV technology side of Class 8 trucking - Hyllion has the right idea (the Karno generator possibilities are interesting as well) - but people are still mesmerized by the Tesla Truck (which takes like two Empire State buildings' worth of power while it charges).
I drive a 20 year old car. Just the energy savings of not having a new car at all takes years to recoup even with greater efficiency.
Yeah, replacing a usable card with a new EV isn't saving much. But eventually it will and once you are getting a new car anyways an EV is a fine choice unless you have some special need.
@@Achmedsander … or are struggling to make ends meet?
This argument never makes sense. Cars don't just get dumped into the land fill the second they get sold. If there's any economic value left, it stays in the market.
Energy savings?! Finally had to get rid of my 2009 VW which I had paid off in 2012 (I bought is used in 2010). That was 10 years of no car payment. Talk about savings.
@@Chris-ji4iu Why did you "have to" get rid of your 2009 VW? Why couldn't you have driven it for another 10 years?
I love your videos. Might want to check your facts on this one. This might be one of those “ nobody’s gonna spend $400 on a smart phone when they can have a Motorola Razor flip phone for $50”.
Carbon costs are usually proportional to actual cost (yes I know, labor, but in general). As techniques and technology improve the cost of EVs are coming down. Expect parity in the next few years. So there are a lot of use cases where EVs being cheaper to purchase, maintain and fuel make sense.
The only reason Tesla isn’t making a 25k EV right now is because they can make more money selling more expensive cars. And that’s 25k without a tax credit…
Erm, no, as the problem is that Lithium is in VERY short supply and so are the batteries. Until more lithium production, refining is built, let alone lithium reserves are found, EV's are a short term dream. This is not going to happen until nations start putting giant tariffs on battery components forcing companies to build out the entire supply chain multiple times over and the old car companies have ZERO desire to do so. Then we have the gargantuan problem of well... not enough lithium even if it is built out if one actually goes solar/wind requiring vasttly more battery capacity than all the cars combined by multiple times. We need a better battery material. Lithium is not it. Short term for a few cars, yes. Going LiFePo helps, but not long term.
@@w8stral Lithium is one of the most abundant elements on we earth.?
@@hometown1474
It is very abundant, yes.
@@lumpenstumper6151
Tesla makes a huge profit margin on each one of their Model Y and Model 3 vehicles sold.
Last I heard, and I'm sure the numbers have gotten even sweeter, Tesla was making $8,500 profit on each Model 3. The Camry makes about $1,800 for Toyota, which is not all that far off in vehicle class from the Model 3.
So Tesla could price the Model 3 much lower and still make a lot of money. But Tesla doesn't have to, and right now there is a shortage of batteries and a shortage of chips. So if you're limited in how many vehicles you can sell because of battery shortages and chip shortages, why would you sell a car for $25,000 when you can sell it for $45,000? That's what's really going on with Tesla.
Some good point and facts in this video, but you skirted round the inefficiencies of ICE cars. The amount of energy to extract oil from the ground, the energy used for refining crude, the inefficiency and waste by-products, and the energy used to distribute the refined fuel. Not to mention the inefficiency of combustion process and cost of lubricants and their carbon impact.
What’s your point? There’s inefficiencies in every process. The inefficiencies of mining the rare earth minerals, supply chain, and manufacturing of EVs FAR outweigh the inefficiencies of drilling and refining oil, and manufacturing ICEs though. It’s not even close.
@Scrambles7742 These long standing assumptions have been debunked in recent years. The point is Peter's "facts" are mostly wrong. I respect him as a geopolitist, but his understanding of batteries and manufacturing is basic at best.
Well said!
I don’t think he was debating that ice cars are better. He’s just highlighting the fact that EV’s are not necessarily the road to green utopia everyone thinks it is.
Your points are all fair enough… but I think his main point is that EV’s are *WAY* off the mark in terms of “green & clean”.
I think there’s a lot of cool tech to be explored - such a hydrogen power for e.g. that might give us cleaner and better power.
Zeihan fan here. Got into this as part of an ESG discussion at work today. After parroting the EVs aren’t necessarily green narrative, it was pointed out to me that a recent MIT study estimated lifetime EV carbon output at half (not more than) that of ICEs. A colleague also showed me charts of worldwide materials production, which included lithium production that appeared to have doubled in the last five years. Zeihan seems extremely confident in saying that base materials production has never doubled in a ten year period, yet there’s contradicting data. How do I reconcile, Peter?
The rare Earth used for EV motors is mined in Mynamar shoveling acid into the ground
@@s13shakagotta love the fantastic, horrific footage that came out of that Joe Rogan interview
@@1Maccabee Never watched, this is based off a global witness article.
@@s13shakawrong
@@economistfromhell4877 No you are. Real ones know Rare Earth mining is illegal in China so all the dirty mining for terbium and dysprosium needed for the motors comes from across the border in Myanmar.
My understanding is American made Tesla's use more American made parts than any other vehicles on the road. Am I wrong?
About 15% more American made parts in the Tesla than a Ford or GM who incidentally both make some of the electric vehicles in Mexico
You are correct, but he is referring to a large subset of the raw materials which are not from America.
@@SabeloMemela Which ones, specifically? Steel? Lithium?
@@dieselphiend cobalt, for one. Lithium for another.
@@allanmonroe692 Thanks.
Peter, I love your videos. Plea keep them coming daily, as you've been doing lately. Fascinating! With that said, I do think you you undervalue or maybe under-appreciate the onrush of technology. It moves at a much faster pace than demographics.
With respect to electric cars, and speaking as a Tesla owner since 2012, the threat of the older car companies is virtually non-existent. We're watching the equivalent of Kodak's death, in slow motion. Tesla' vehicles are so far ahead of Ford and GM, and they show no signs of catching up.. FWIW, I've owned many ICE cars from GM, Toyota (including Lexus), Nissan, Honda and currently BMW. All of those old-school companies move at a glacial pace and only recently seem to have learned that a Tesla is more than just a car with an infotainment system!
Tesla's costs are lower, speed is faster, current car quality better, with a better charging network. And they continue to out-innovate the others. The Model Y, as just one example, is a different car today than out was when it launched via continuous improvement, even though they look the same on the exterior. Check out Sandy Munro's excellent videos.
As for the energy to produce the electricity, there's a bit of a cart and a horse thing, That will evolve over time too.
Totally with you on the input costs for creating batteries though. That too will need some important technological innovation.
Outside of the wold of automotive, you don't seem to value the great speed of automation and robotics to solve the issue of demography. Technology improvements are exponential whereas the demographic decline from aging is linear.
I'd love to hear your perspective on how automation may (or may not) save the day.
Peter said, “Almost all mid-assembly is done in China.” But I thought at Tesla’s 2 factories in the U.S rolls of aluminum enter one end and and stamped for body components. Many parts, except seats, are sourced from the same companies as traditional manufacturers.
Regarding mineral shortages- I don’t think realistically mining will need to be ramped up 10 fold because vehicle demand won’t be that much. Mining permits take 3-5 years at best.
My $50,000 Tesla Model 3 is my first car and daily driver. For me, it’s best feature is not environmental, but LOW maintenance.
The batteries are 95% recyclable and the supplied materials are cheaper than mining. Zeihan has made numerous false claims here. I think he gets his EV data from the oil industry reports.
Peter is correct, already now, a relatively small increase in EV production has driven prices of all metals significantly. There is no way to mine significantly more of the many metals needed for batteries, motors, etc. Even discarding all other factors simple increase of EV production will put pressure on prices of those metals and will price the cars out of the market. EVs will never be anything but a small niche.
@@ElementaryWatson-123 simple solution already in production. LFP batteries which use primarily iron.
@@JonathanRootD Not only LFP batteries are worse, they only solve one problem out of thousand.
@@ElementaryWatson-123 they are significantly cheaper to produce, significantly safer and use materials that are much more readily available. Idk what you're on.
I have to agree that the environmental arguments in favour of EVs don't entirely stack up. However, the advantage I see is the opportunity to opt out of the highly volatile oil market.
They don't stack up. I have never seen a study that talks about beyond 10 year carbon payback. Even on high fossil fuel grids.
And electrifying Street transport would have a fantastic benificial impact on street pollution which causes so many excess deaths and drag on economy.
Also, lithium won't be king forever
Peter makes a huge mistake here he’s not understanding that as time progresses the batteries get better the cars get more efficient and the energy creation does not have to be oil and coal he’s not taking progress into account honestly I don’t rate this guy
@@stereoreviewx Are those improvements going to all happen and be rolled out worldwide in the next few months? Or does his decade+ timeline seem pretty reasonable?
And you think electricity won’t be volatile with ev adoption?
@@evanlabonte4571boom, the silver bullet question
Minor corrections. Why is the frame cost, either in carbon or dollars, different for an EV vs an ICE vehicle? Manufacturers like VW and Ford aren't using exotic alloys for the EVs versus their ICE vehicles. Point 2, the baseline price for a Ford F-150 Lightning is $59,000 and not $90,000. That's the price of their top-end model, pretty fully tricked out. But for the average consumer, a top end Chevy Bolt EUV is in the neighborhood of $35,000 before incentives. Also, EV cars have something like 90% fewer parts -- no transmission, engine, fuel or exhaust systems, etc. That means all of this discussion REALLY revolves around the batteries and discussing chromium, aluminium, silicone, nickel and other raw materials common to both technologies is a red herring. Supply chain chaos with those will impact ICE and EV equally.
Yeah, there's a lot wrong with this segment and I'm really disappointed.
BMW is using CFRP to counter the enormous weight of the battery. The small car still weighs 5,000 lb.
I would venture to guess (correct me if I am wrong). That materials that won't rust will have a much longer useful life than materials that do rust when exposed to the elements like cars regularly are. Also many of these newer materials don't get paint and all that entails.
@@marcsyrene3781 Sorry, my question/statement on different frame cost was really a bit of snark. At least one mfg -- VW, I think -- is using the same frame/body for their EV as their non-EV, right down to the transmission hump in the body. They're doing that to minimize retooling and keep a "known" interior feel to the car instead of going all space-age design. Some are moving to more of a skateboard layout, where the battery packs are structural, but that means the EV body is cheaper than the ICE as it has fewer components. Again, the supply chain issues should be focused on the batteries. Talks on all those other metals and materials is a distraction as they apply equally to both.
I've long considered it a kind of cosmic joke that electricity can only be stored in the heaviest and rarest minerals. I agree that the current crop of electric vehicles are not the answer, but I think they are a necessary step towards the answer. It's clear that nothing is going to allow us to drive around as much as we do the way gasoline does. Hopefully young people can learn to live their lives without driving 12-15 thousand miles a year per person. On the positive side, I'm a member of that growing demographic that is retired and doesn't consume much. My wife and I both have older cars that just sit in the driveway six out of seven days of the week.
I feel nearly identical. Additionally alternative vehicles and the necessary R&D have been suppressed for decades. We need to give innovation a chance.
Lithium is not rare and neither is cobalt.
@@TOleablemonk he did say this in one of his videos. Something like they are not rare elements merely we lack the facilities to harvest them in sufficient quantities.
@@lukerichter9656 Which is nonsense as well.
@@lukerichter9656 if it has the promise every one of the fanboys scream about, why did the Warren Buffett crowd bail out on wind/solar prospects when they saw that its not a profitable sector?
Well the feds removed the tax advantages to investing in them, and Buffett said w/o the writeoffs they arent worth it.
You are correct in many of the details, but you're missing a couple of very critical issues:
a) Tesla's manufacturing technology (nothing to do with electric) has developed to be miles ahead of all other car companies. At the moment only Tesla can make an electric vehicle and make profit - all other companies make electric vehicles at a loss.
b) Tesla's current profits are just insane. They are literally printing money
c) To deliver an electric vehicle Tesla makes a lot of profit (without subsidies) whilst all other car companies currently make electric vehicles at a loss.
c) Elon has planned to have the critical resources (like Lithium) available for exponential growth as opposed to other car companies that would not be able to scale.
d) Then it's simply a case of whether people will buy Teslas or not. It's impossible to know that. If they do then Tesla is in for a hella of a ride. If they don't then Tesla has plenty capability to lower prices to stimulate demand and still make decent (as opposed to insane) profits.
I agree with you that currently it does not make sense from a "green" point of view to go electric. But, that's not what counts - what counts is what the people think, and they think electric cars are good. If the public keep on buying electric vehicles (whether it's good for the environment or not) then Tesla is going to kick ass.
Dad taught me to always pick the right tool for the job. Our Tesla Model Y is the right tool for the job if the job is daily commuting and grocery getting. If the job is hauling my gear to a gig 2 1/2 hours way, I'll fire up the Tahoe, thanks (The last thing I want to do after playing and packing up from a gig at 2AM is find a charging station in the woods). That being said, we would not even have considered a Tesla had we not just moved into a house that came with 80(!) solar panels. Most times of the year I'm able to recharge fully between the time I return home from work and sundown. In the winter months when I'm forced to pull from the grid to recharge, the cost is still way lower than gasoline. On weekends I'm able to throttle down the charging rate to make damn sure, without having to do any math, that I'm not pulling power from the grid, a task that will be all the more convenient when I retire. BTW, I live not in the sunbelt, but in NJ. Everyone's situation is different, do "your results may vary", but for me it's the right tool for 98% of our driving.
My dad kicks your dads ass .
I guess right tool for the job doesn’t include reasonable initial price. You’ve got a halo product and the halo is dimming.
Yep. This video is filled with bad info. He didn’t do the research…. Well I don’t see any sources.
Also initial price is one thing. Overall savings is another. No more oil changes or 5000 miles checkups. And no more filling up with gas once a week!
And the recalls are fixed with OTA updates. Just like my iPhone! (Hardware purchased from a tech company!)
@@steviesevieria1868 Another hater throwing stones. Good for you....
@@GET2222 Tesla is a mediocre vehicle, that has had its day in the sun. I don’t hate it. I pretty much do despise musk with his right wing, nut job, conspiracy theory craziness. Thank you for recognizing.
One aspect not discussed in the video is fuel. If you have home solar panels and an EV you avoid these costs. If the price of the car is reasonable, probably an argument to get one on this point alone.
Solar panels? Yeah - the $35k my neighbor spent on his solar panels is working out so well for him right now... covered in about 8" of global warming :P
@@nothingtoseaheardammit It's always edifying when you see someone make a well-informed post about climate change, which necessarily involves extreme weather events. Not the case with yours is it?
And if you live in a cloudy area?
@@JacobGrim That's dark Mr Grim
Mr. Zeihan. I love your videos and respect your information. However, this video represents the first time I'm seriously diverging from your expressed ideas. For the following reasons:
1. EVs pollute: yes, the supply and production chain is still dirty for the production of an EV, and the electricity you charge with may still be dirty. But the absence of exhuast from an EV from its direct operations will offset those polluting elements. And, each step of the supply chain can become greener. That is not an option for an ICE vehicle.
2. Lithium and so called rare metal availability: the rare earthbmetals aren't rare. They're actually quite abundant in the mantle, apart from cobalt. What we need are the scaled mining to extract. That's going to happen, and modern battery chemistries use less to no cobalt.
3. 99.99% of an EVs battery can be recycled. At some point, with a rational recycling program, we'll reuse every aspect of the battery.
4. EVs don't work for heavy industries: inaccurate. Semis are being deployed now, the first boats and ships are being developed now, and even short to medium range air transport is being worked on now with our current energy densities.
5. EVs are too expensive: this is misleading. Right now, the cost is high as we are still scaling up. But the average prices have dropped 50% in the last 7 years. With continued scaling this will continue to fall 'Wright's Law'. But even more striking, due to a lack of comexity and moving parts, assuming you've scaled your supply chain adequately, a comparable EV should be less than its ICE counterpart. This is already beginning to happen in China.
6. Renewable energy supply: has already proven to be cheaper than fossil and is still falling. And grids worldwide are converting to renewables at break neck speeds because it is more cost effective. But very importantly, the cost of the production and storage for the private individual is falling as well. If you're generating your own power for very little and storing it, using it for your own transport purposes is the next logical step.
7. Tesla is the unmistakeble leader in this field. You have glossed over the realitybof that company. It has margins that leas the industry, software the exceeds every other entry, and a capacity to evolve and compete that their own competitors are in awe of and are following. You are underestimating this.
8. Musk and the right. Americans are more preoccupied with this than the rest of the world. Trust me.
9. People who buy teslas: they're not doing this to feel superior saving the environment. They're doing it because they've come to believe it's a superior product. And they're right.
Mr. Zeihan, on this item, I suggest more research on your part. You are missing the mark. This won't age well. For all order geopolitical commentary, imo, excellent.
Sigh..... ruclips.net/video/UvagAlGjAPQ/видео.html
This weekend I drove 300 miles to the coast and back on electricity mostly collected via home solar (had to add 20kWh in Los Banos when the grid was running ~50% renewables) , and recharged back to 80% over two days after coming back similarly.
Apples vs apples comparison of BEV and ICE should exclude the carbon costs of the non-powertrain components since ICE vehicles incur the same cost and a passenger car is the most economic way to do a 300 mile day trip (I incurred ~$75 of depreciation to the car for this trip, plus the $5 recharge cost in Los Banos).
I save $100-$200/mo not having to buy a tank of gas every week or two and I am quite happy about that.
LFP batteries will replace NMC for BEVs like mine this decade.
Thanks for your input how do you stay sane with so much misinformation about electric vehicles and renewables
Peter is clueless, go see the electric Viking channel. Peter is really destroying his credibility with his opinion on EV's that is not backed by credible data.
As an Austin guy, you should visit the Tesla factory there (or anywhere else) and talk to them about their plans. I think you'll learn a lot. Also, you'll find after selling over a million cars annually and growing ~50% YoY the customer archetype is not as you describe anymore.
You could check the Munro Live YT channels for expert automotive analysis too.
@@PatOSheaPGH Often disappointed by Zeihans analysis and here he really blew it. Tesla isn't normal - and not just a typical car maker. The technology, infrastructure and low maintenance on these vehicles are all huge advantages that isn't addressed here. ... Afraid he doesn't understand anything about an electric cars and Tesla's competitive advantage... P
@@michaelsehl4632 But that’s not the point he’s making here is it? I mean, it does make sense what he’s arguing about scarcity of raw materials needed. Especially now when other OEMs are ramping up their BEV transition and catching up, in a sense, to Tesla and other pure BEV OEMs. Not saying who’s best etc but where is the stuff gonna come from when everyone is aiming to be fully electric or at least in large parts electric in their sales volumes by the end of the decade?
He's far too buys speaking these days to actually continue the in-depth research that he used to do. He's actually falling farther and farther behind in many of his critical analyses.
@@erra4331 Zeihans totally misses the point here. In a decade all the cars in the World will not be EVs!!!! All the new cars will be EVs, there is a big difference, secondly one of the things he failed to mention is that EVs are more recyclable then ICE. EV batteries can not only be repurposed after EV usage, but then recycled and up to 90%+ of their materials.
No one is catching up to Tesla, none of the other companies are even close to profitable and most have heavy heavy debt loads to carry. BYD is the only company that will challenge Tesla in my opinion and that's because they will make the low end of the market in mass numbers.
The last part of this is the weirdest. The big legacy automakers are finally coming after Tesla with all their expertise and resources and that's bad news for Tesla, but that's also somehow bad news for EVs in general?
The entire industry getting behind this tech in a big way, means it won't be viable at scale for a decade or two?
I have... I don't get it.
As much as I like his work he’s just wrong on some of this. It reminds me of when Peter said , “If were a betting man, i would bet on Trump to win his second term of office.”
Materials and capital. The big auto companies are (in many cases) moving hard into EVs because government has decided they should and incentivises them to do so. But have you ever really looked into where the raw materials for an EV comes from? There are major limitations on the availability of materials like cobalt and the point he makes is that it takes time to dramatically expand the production of these materials. Then add in reduced capital for a whole host of reason...and you have a problem.
@@LarryZamba Trump did win.
I think the point he's alluding to is that this current electric vehicle "model" is a trend that will not last in its current form. It's simply not the answer, maybe the main commenter I'm replying to here is right, and that it leads to other actually viable breakthroughs, but whatever that is (if it exists) isn't going to be recognizable as what we currently see as electric car technology imo
@@LarryZamba well, he didn't take into account a rigged election.
What company produces better EV's than Tesla, as Peter is aluding to?
NONE
Maybe the new high-end brands, like Fisker and Lucid, but those brands are significantly more expensive than most Teslas. Also, no manufacturer has the Supercharger network infrastructure that Tesla has built up. 🤷🏽♂️
Nobody does at this date nor even close to where Tesla is but that’s not the point Peter is talking about.
@sourav jaiswal I don’t think they have. I’m just going off the specs and pics I’ve seen.
Audi and Porsche both have better performance variants. Most brands have better fit and finish per cost tier vs expectations.
The F-150 Lightning starts at around $55k rather than $90k like you say. Still expensive given that it would be a replacement for the ~$30k work truck in an ideal world, but $35k is worth mentioning. :)
It launched at $41k and increased to $48k after the tax incentive passed.
The $55K Lightning is vaporware. All that's available to me is the $90K model.
The dealers mark the prices up. You can’t buy a lightning for 55k today.
Correct. Just one oh DOZENS of falsehoods, innuendos and out-of-date tidbits in this video. Very disappointed in Peter on this one. Clickbait.
The F-150 Lightning is so COOOOOOL! If I were buying a truck, this would be it!
Great video! Is it a re-upload from like 2012?
All the "facts" and "numbers" seem to come straight from a time capsule containing more or less accurate studies reflecting the state of the art from 2005 through 2011.
Yes, pretty much everything he says is demonstratably false qualitatively and quantitatively. But that doesn’t damper the ardor of the Tesla haters whose motivation I don’t understand.
@@colingenge9999 : Would you buy a car from a man who supports the Uyghur genocide ?
@@buildmotosykletist1987 would I buy a car fueled by whose energy source kills over 7 million people industry per year? No
@@colingenge9999 : So you'd support the Uyghur genocide too. Startling admission.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 you are creating a false premise, or a strawman argument. When a discussion is about one topic and you immediately change the topic and expect me to chase that one down a rabbit hole. I’m not falling for that trick.
If you have nothing to say, in support of this man’s false statements, I understand that.
Another point: In an internal combustion engine only about 16 to 20% of the energy in gasoline is used to move vehicle forward whereas in an electric vehicles 87 to 91% of the energy is used to move a vehicle forward.
Even if the electric vehicle is charged from the grid where coal power is used the carbon dioxide emissions from battery-powered vehicles were around 40 per cent lower than for internal combustion engines last year.This benefit will grow as generators transition away from coal and draw more energy from wind and solar farms.
A single electric vehicle will last much longer than a single ICE vehicle as well and cost much less to maintain in the process.
You can find research papers comparing well-to-wheels efficiency of EVs, gasoline, and diesel cars. That would depend on geography and other factors. In most cases EVs are not the winners.
@@ElementaryWatson-123 We’ll have to look at the merits of each study since there are so many factors to consider
@@ElementaryWatson-123 post a link to one of these research papers comparing well-to-wheels efficiency of EVs, gasoline, and diesel cars. where EVs are not the winners in efficiency.
Peter, I’d like to see some studies you’re drawing from about the carbon emissions associated with BEVs. Almost every study I have seen says the exact opposite of what you are claiming, even on highly fossil fuel dependent grids.
ruclips.net/video/uEap4qdXeoQ/видео.html
Agreed
You won't see those studies because they either do not exist or are completely bogus.
ruclips.net/video/S1E8SQde5rk/видео.html
As a professional electrical engineer I can say he's right on the money
While I agree with the carbon footprint and resource scarcity you mentioned, have you looked at the sales growth of Tesla over the last 4 years? Ending September 30th Tesla reported 69% Earnings Growth, 56% Sales Growth and 17% AFTER-TAX Margin, according to Investor's Business Daily MarketSmith. Have you looked at the balance sheets of legacy auto companies? Legacy auto is not in the same financial league with their huge debt loads and low margins. Government and world do-gooders have decided EV is the way to go and Tesla has executed extremely well to date. Tesla is developing advanced self-driving software and recently produced their own DOJO supercomputer chip. So yeah, there's a bit of tech involved in valuing the company.
But still has a PE ratio of 60 even after its share price has fallen 70%. With a serious recession looming and deglobalization, Tesla is probably finished
👍
EV sales, particularly luxury EV, are not growing rapidly, the economic collapse ahead will worsen that trend. The market is pricing in the reality to come, and if you think Tesla is going to boom from this 70% drop, then buy Tesla, but after whatever little bounce there might be, Tesla is on course to a 20PE and it might even go bust.
Tesla's ADAS software, which is all it is, is wildly inefficient and plateaued a while ago. Now they face a huge problem because between cost cutting and hubris they pumped out a bunch of cars with camera only ADAS. This will soon be insufficient from a regulatory perspective. Tesla will need to retrofit existing vehicles with significantly better sensing hardware and associated software and suitable controllers (and so let's hope they haven't been completely sitting on their hands and actually have some software ready to go here), OR figure out how to tell every current Tesla owner that their FSD and autopilot functions are no more than cruise control. They probably cannot just take the L, walk back their FSD nonsense, and get to work recalling and retrofitting prior to legislation, simply because that will invite class action suits and increase the glut of used inventory as people move on. So in the meantime they'll fall further and further behind the real direction that AD is taking through ADAS.
@@impossiblewords130 Couldn't agree more.
GM has recently back tracked on their commitment to replace all ICEs. Like many product development cycles, they have found it easy to convert at the beginning, but much fewer converts as they go along.
GM is just lying about their EV's and they will bankrupt in the next 4 years!!! They have huge debt and they are currently losing money on every car they make!!! They are in trouble.
Or...their EVs suck and they have a huge albatross of ICE car plants.
They don't have to "convert" anybody. They have to produce cars at a loss, while losing ICE marketshare and profits, without going bankrupt, for many years. Backtracking now is just them resolving themselves to a quick death.
@@josephrudolph4351 Or their customers don't want to drive souless, boring, sterile golf carts.
@@nothingtoseaheardammit Really it's on GM if all they could manage to produce was soulless, boring, sterile golf carts. Plenty of EV manufacturers are making cars that are more than that.
Some good points here but you neglected to mention Tesla's global charging network which gives them a big advantage. I didn't buy a Tesla because I'm an environmentalist or because it's a status symbol (I don't think that's true anymore). I bought one because it's a fantastically fun car to drive...and with Tesla's charging network I can drive it coast to coast. Everyone I know that owns a Tesla loves it so I think they will be around awhile...but time will tell. Note that the Model Y is the best selling car in Europe at the moment, not just the best selling EV but the best selling car of any type.
I think you represent a very typical owner of a Tesla. I don't think a majority of new Tesla owners are tree hugging idealists, they just want the right vehicle for their needs.
@@ronbakker1300 yes, I bought the Tesla because of the performance and economy. It's just fun to drive! I'm glad the wife said no to a hellcat as the Tesla is faster.
Time will tell for the rest of Car companies, Tesla is the only company that is solid and will be here. Many legacy are domed and will not make it in this decade.
@@ronbakker1300 yeah you're right, this OP is like me, I wouldn't buy one for green really but for all the other metrics and amazing engineering it kills at.
Seems like the video is from about 5 years ago when those were the main buyers, rich people buying them as eye candy status symbols.
I knew it, Jeremy Clarkson was right.
The future is gas powered
To be honest, I’m a little disappointed in Peter’s research, as some of the reasons he cites are simply not the case. I’m an atypical EV owner who does not advertise that I own a Tesla, for the same reason I wouldn’t brag about owning a BMW or Landrover (whose owners really do think they are better than anyone else). I’m a bleeding-heart liberal high school teacher who saved their money and bought the EV (our one and only car) for its very attractive design, low-maintenance (three years so far and all I’ve needed to do is add windshield wiper fluid) and its very impressive high performance. The issues Peter and many other EV detractors highlight (energy source for electricity, use of fossil fuels to manufacture the car) are teething problems that do not warrant the cessation of EV production or consideration. Like sexism and racism, the old, 'that's just the way it goes' societal bad habits are very hard to change, but will and must if we are ever going to extricate ourselves out of a mess that we should have been devoting resources to decades ago. If it is too late to change, then we are doomed.
There are EVs with better range range and performance, but they are all well-in excess of $100k. There are some that are close-ish in the $50k range, but their 3rd party IT sucks so bad that owners can barely use their on-board navigation (I'm looking at you, Hyundai and Volkswagen) without hours and hours of headaches with dealerships that drop the ball for their lack of EV support training.
No other EV manufacturer has the proven track record of software updates that improve the performance and efficiency of the car. In time they will, just to compete with Tesla's new industrial standard. Newer models focus on improving the car's performance rather than adding some meaningless aesthetic alteration for the sake of having a "new model" each year.
Elon Musk has been showing his ass for years with regard to his (just plain weird) politics. Honestly, I never really liked the guy, but the cars he makes are a good value, and that has not changed. Henry Ford was a Nazi-supporting freak show himself, yet no one seems to remember that due to the legacy of excellent cars made by his company.
Bottom line? EVs are cleaner, easier to maintain and costs are dropping as battery tech advances. I doubt that I will have any issues with the actual motor of my car for the 20+ years I plan on owning it. Cars out of necessity will need to become autonomous (something Tesla has planned for) and plentiful to service the needs of a generation that will not need to own a car but rather have an autonomous service available to them. I give it a decade before this becomes a reality. Car ownership will require a rethink, likely being on the chopping block in coming post-global economies as we look to use our resources more-efficiently. When Peter talks about this unequalled era of plenty drawing to an end, we need a serious rethink as to how we use our transportation resources. We could get a lot better bang for our buck if we pooled our resources and have a public/private hybrid of autonomous, electric vehicles that would serve the needs of all, and get away from wasteful luxury vehicle pissing contests.
Check out industry expert Sandy Munro's analysis of all EVs here: munrolive.com/- in 2018 he did a teardown of the Model 3, and he was very unhappy with its seeming improvised production. He was then delighted to see that once he completed a tear-down of the Model Y, Tesla had addressed many of the issues he cited. Munro's unbiased analysis was the single greatest influence on my decision to buy the car. Three years in, driving through Quebec and Ontario winters, I am sold on this car's viability.
"Teething problems". More likely an incurable sick concept that can be kept perpetually alive but at what cost?
Clearly Peter can’t be bothered doing actual research for these kind of videos. He just makes shit up. Probably all the hundreds of other videos of his I’ve watched are nonsense as well.
I didn't read this but sorry about your Tesla shares
Sean Earl, well guess what? There still is a First Amendment, Elon still has the right to voice his opinion and he is free to run Tesla and Twitter how he sees fit. Now twitter is not being used as a Bolshevik tool. Peter evidently drinks from the same septic system that you do. By the way I joined the service to support a Democrat president when the US was trying to protect South Vietnam. How much of a citizen are you? Have you served this country?
@@Sneezes_LoL Yeah, we don't get free shares when we
buy the car. So do you own Dorito and Coke shares? As I said, I'm not a Kool Aid drinker (I had zero exposure to that unfortunate- but now opportune- turn of events). 😝
The older an ICE car gets, the more it's emissions are. A catalytic converter last 70k miles. When a converter is stolen it is often replaced with a straight pipe. I know several diesel owners and every one has had their trucks deleted, they are very proud of this. Few states test for emissions.
I've owned several ICE cars well beyond 70K miles. The converters were still functioning properly and the cars passed repeated emissions tests. Your facts do not align with reality.
Vehicle emissions are a fraction of the total CO2 foot print. Can you guess what the #1 emitter is? Military.
@@richardj163 How is the military the #1 CO2 emitter? It is too small a fraction of everything to make much of a dent.
At least Peter insults all sides. 😂 That’s what I like to see
Equal Opportunity basher
He's more like a machine-gun talker. A bit more reflection might be handy between the rapid-fire magazines. He doesn't thrive on criticism that's for sure and there are so many uncritical fanboys in here. Not good for critical thinking.
It's easy to sit in the fence and hurl abuse at both sides. It's actually the most cowardly way out for a man. This man may know some facts about Ev's, but he is certainly not strong. He's as weak as they come. The sibilance in the way speaks should tell you all you need to know.
@@mojorisin8368 I think his biggest problem is his taste in ties, which is psychotic. lol
In 2021, it was estimated in the paper "A global comparison of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of combustion engine and electric passenger cars" that the average electric vehicle sold would have roughly 40% the total lifetime carbon emissions of the average internal combustion engine car, so I don't know how it makes sense to call them "carbon bombs" when they will lead to far fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Yeah, the battery makes the production of the actual car more carbon-intensive but most of the emissions come from gasoline. This figure will continue to get better over the years as the electricity sources become cleaner, but if people are interested in reducing their emissions and can't just drive less, electric cars make sense, especially smaller ones for people who live in cities (most people). So Tesla isn't the most environmentally friendly producer and it's correct to see them as more of a luxury brand. Though Tesla has stopped using cobalt in their batteries and is building a lithium refinery and before long many electric cars will use solid state batteries and possibly sodium ion batteries for small cars, but even now, using as many lithium ion battery cars as possible is the way to go. Have we also forgotten the negative environmental impacts of the entire gasoline production supply chain and the fact that the pollution from gasoline literally poisons people and has a devastating effect on overall health. When you add up everything and look at it, electric cars are much better, period. Many of them are even less expensive over the course of the lifetime of the car.
Tesla is indeed overvalued and public transit is better and should receive a larger focus.
Most of those studies only take into account driving the car and not manufacturing. That's where the energy sink comes from.
It's not so clear-cut. For city driving ev's are the answer, it's pretty cut and dry there. Rural living can't take the risk of power disruption, and on average they do much more driving.
Cost of owner ship is questionable as ev's haven't been on the road as long as ice vehicles. I haven't seen any 20-30 year old ev's driving around yet. So that data is skewed.
@@cyruswoolard3737 the one I cited took car manufacturing into account and showed how much each factor contributes to emissions. Yeah, I don't know the answer for rural, only cities. It does depend on electricity infrastructure. Long-term maintenance is a question but if it's comparable than electric cars win due to the difference in fuel price
@Ishmael Mcgoo The problem is there are too many assumptions in most of those studies. Change one variable, and the numbers fluctuate massively. Take fuel tax for example, Gov isn't going to loose tax revenue on fuel with EV adoption. So it will be shifted to power consumption. Tack on 30-40 cents per KW/h and the numbers don't look nearly as good. Better than ice but a significant amount of luster is gone.
@@cyruswoolard3737 "Most of those studies only take into account driving the car and not manufacturing."
This is incorrect. You might want to actually read some of them. :)
Also as was pointed out, the vast bulk of emissions in ICE vehicles come from burning fuel, not manufacturing, and the battery comes nowhere near what burning fuel for decades produces.
Peter, I always enjoy your point of view and videos (even if I'm not 100% in agreement), but data stated as facts without sources provided only perpetuates the misinformation era we live in. Consider adding some sources to back up your points in the descriptions, it take minutes to type it. For example: If you make the point "Lithium Demand is projected to Outpace Supply Through 2025" you can put the supporting data and source in the description as follows: "annual lithium demand is projected to reach roughly 1.5 million metric tons of lithium carbonate equivalent by 2025 and over 3 million tons by 2030. A 2025 forecast calls for triple the demand seen in 2021. EVs could account for about 84% of total lithium demand in 2030, up from about 55% in 2021.(Source: Norris, E. (2022, June 27). Building a domestic EV ecosystem: Fastmarkets lithium supply and battery raw materials 2022. Albemarle.) Seems obvious, but it takes no time to do.
The thing is, sadly, Peter knows almost very little about EV’s & EVs’s future supply chain development… 🙃
There is no single video I could recommend on this info, but The Limiting Factor, Tesla Daily, Munro Live & Hyperchange YT channels had some great breakdowns of how the dynamics of these supply chains work & will work in the future, numbers very much included 🏆
Tesla as a scale-able tech company:
If they finish "full self driving" that can be licensed all over the world, in any product, with the right hardware added.
This is one of the many facts ignored or distorted in this video. Kind of shattered my faith in Peter…
When pigs fly,
cars will drive themselves,
and be recharged with fusion power and manbats will again be sighted on the moon.
So get those pig wings going.
U.S. built Teslas use mostly North American sourced materials, not China sourced. Tesla's latest batteries use little to no Cobalt. Lots of other errors.
EVs overall have a lower carbon footprint that combustion vehicles. That's reflected in their total cost of ownership being lower, since energy costs are a very major component of TCO.
A few points need to be made about this video and I hope that PZ will read and respond:
- The important thing is to begin moving to electrifying everything. Once you've electrified your transportation sector, then even if today's electricity is generated mostly by natural gas and coal, when you do move your energy generation to other sources (e.g., nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar), your transportation will be ready for the change. You can't do that if your vehicles are still powered by internal combustion engines burning diesel and gasoline.
- Although most EV battery cathodes today use a Lithium-ion Nickel Manganese Cobalt chemistry, Lithium Ferrous Phosphate (LFP) batteries are also being used on some EVs. Iron and phosphates are far more common and less expensive. Several companies are promising to introduce Sodium-based batteries this year or next year. These use a compound known as Prussian White which is related to the Prussian Blue artist's pigment. Prussian White's constituent elements, Sodium, Iron, Carbon and Nitrogen, are among the most abundant on Earth. It is still early in EV history. You have to start somewhere and we cannot put off starting any longer. Work is being done on all sorts of new battery technologies, so don't get too hung up on problems we are having with today's battery chemistry.
- Videos like this one or a similar one by John Stossel seem to be saying that because there are hurdles to fulfilling the vision of electric cars, let's not even try to do it. But if we don't do it, then do you want to give up on personal vehicles entirely and rely entirely on bicycles and electric mass transportation as some are suggesting? We have to do something because we are producing far too much CO2. We can't continue with internal combustion engines. Or are you a climate change denier? That's fine if you are, but you ought to be up front about it and perhaps justify that position first before you start attacking EVs. If you don't want to move to electric cars, then tell us how you would meet our CO2 goals and still preserve the possibility of personal transportation.
Don't just hide behind a tree and throw rocks at the people working hard to fix things. If you want to make a difference, tell us how you would better address the problem.
Why would we switch out main energy's generation to something that couldn't power our needs? We will still NEED to use fossils fuels for about another century before fusion is ready. We should have built more fission plants but shoulda woulda coulda. Why bother switching transportation when we will still burn carbon fuels to power them and they don't work for more than half of the country. I'm not opposed to people in cities using them as that would at least help clean the air in cities.
@@maxwellblackwell5045 30% of the U.S. grid power comes from renewables in 2022. 10% from nuclear. Then 25% from natural gas. The transition is happening faster than you think. No, we will not need fossil fuels for another century.
I don't agree with your assessment of the legacy manufacturers as they've proven they can't make EVs at scale like Tesla. How many EVs did Ford/GM/Chrysler make the past year compared with Tesla? Ford 36K, GM 22.7K, Chrysler 0K vs Tesla 1.3 MILLION. Back in 2018, they said they'll catchup and surpass Tesla by 2021. LOL, who are they kidding.
Funny, my assessment is the opposite. Once the legacy automakers get serious into electric they will make better cars for less money than the start-up EV companies.
Cobalt and nickel are already being phased out of electric vehicles and it's looking good for sodium batteries to be a game changer sooner rather than later.
Sodium metal is not any easier to mine. Looking good as in more points of availability. Put the the point is still being lost that the US power grid and its generation still needs to be doubled to support an EV or two in most drive ways. So batteries are not the answer.
I've already seen rechargable sodium batteries in the hardware store. They're getting their start doing niche things first. Things that require backup battery yet maybe not the highest voltage.
@@paperandmedals8316 ever hear of a salt mine? And LFP batteries are currently ramping up which use primarily iron which is abundant in the supply chain.
There are a number of very good videos on RUclips that cover the status and future of EV batteries. I like Peter but he is not an expert on the status and future of batteries.
@@JonathanRootD Salt mines extract halite, or table salt, which is Sodium-Chloride, not Sodium. I'm not sure how expensive the electrolysis process is nowadays, but I think there's a lot more complexity that just pulling table salt out of the ground.
"Tell me you know nothing about a topic without telling me you know nothing about the topic"
He seems spot on to me. Electric vehicles are a joke.
Thomas it seems like you just did
As with most problems there is no magic bullet. Peter makes a good case for the excess costs of mass market EVs, but there are definitely helpful use cases for the EV. The development spurred on by the frenzy of investment in this space may lead to important and unforeseen breakthroughs that would never likely happen under the ICE regime of the past. I'm not a fan of going whole hog on EV for the reasons Peter mentions. Not mentioned is the cost of the transition after passing a tipping point where we lose the production capacity and knowhow of internal combustion engines and the associated flexibility it gives us. That's why I'm a fan of hybrid vehicles, though that too has its limitations. Bottom line is that we need to invest in and maintain the diversity of transportation and energy technology.
There is a magic bullet, changing zoning laws to encourage mixed use developments for walkable towns and cities, the rise of stay at home work and the empty offices this has created only makes this more viable. From there you can overhaul the rail networks, build bike lanes, reintroduce trams and trolleybuses and in general stop worshipping urban sprawl.
I was thinking the same thing watching this video. It’s easy to point out the downsides of any major technological shift, but you also have to weigh the upsides. Most of the concerns over battery production and mineral scarcity can be addressed with engineering, which is a high value added industry. Look at the battery technology coming out of Australia, all because they have decided to invest heavily into this industry. As a result, they will end up being world leaders when it comes to batteries, which creates jobs and growth.
I too am a fan of hybrids. They’re a very good middle ground that offer many of the benefits of full electric, with much more flexibility in range. Either way, I think the days of gas powered cars is over. Plug-in hybrids are just so much more convenient and they aren’t as pie-in-the-sky as full EVs. If you have an effective, affordable option which allows people to drive around town without worrying about the gas price, then it’s going to push full gas cars out of the market.
Yes this... + we have rush hour and traffic lights, MUCH worse every year... ICE cars idling for hours a day by the tens of millions is retarded.
Maintenance overhauls for EV and hybrid are a big consideration though. When people see the cost for battery replacement for either, it's a gut-check.
He's quite right about a couple of things but also a questionable on others.
I am an engineer who works in industrial control systems and automation. I have worked in both manufacturing and mining and know both industries quite well.
In the short.
He's quite right we simply do not have enough supply of certain raw materials to go to a full EV system. In particular Lithium and a couple of the other ingredients just aren't there in the quantity needed even if the Ruskies were being good boys.
On manufacturing he's NOT as right. Other than the drive train (fuel system, engine, gearbox, drive shaft,... there's actually NO DIFFERENCE in making and EV or any other car. The body shell, doors, glass, seats, seat belts, sound system, steering wheel, suspension, chassis, wheels and tires are still the same stuff. Depending on the manufacturer something like 80-95% of an EV is the same as a normal car.
In the longer story.
On the mining of some of these metals like Lithium and Molybdenum those projects can take many years to go anywhere. There's a Molybdenum mine in Western Australia and a company I worked for did the electrical design for the processing plant. That was around 2007-08. The GFC smashed that project. But they did get it done and mined the site from 2010 to 2014. Its now in care and maintenance. So there's at least 1 Molybdenum mine that can be brought back into production fairly quickly. The company that owns it has a good coper & molybdenum ore body nearby but they have not yet developed it.
At that's one thing about mining, they wont spend money digging stuff up unless there's a market to sell it to. So they don't look at what the markets are today they are looking 3-5-10 years into the future.
Plus to actually mine some of these minerals can be damn hard. Sometimes the percentage of what you want is tiny. They measure gold in grams per ton of ore. Copper isn't much better. And getting it out can be seriously hard. They dissolve gold with cyanide and copper with sulphuric acid. So a lot fo the processing gear is fairly serious stuff.
Right now there are people scrambling for finance for projects but these thing take time to plan, procure build and get operating. Typically from the first time an ore body is found its at least 5 years until first dirt. Some projects go for about decades until first dirt because the markets aren't right or there's other mines producing what's needed.
Even when everything looks good there's still that fact you are hoping to dig dirt and turn it into money. Its quite a difficult thing to get a full appraisal on an ore body and it can be horribly expensive if you get it wrong. I watched BHP, 1 of the biggest mining companies on the planet blow over $3 Billion on a Nickel project because the geologists did not check properly and guessed wrong.
So I'd say Peters quite right on the supply of raw materials, but depending on what the Chinese and Russians do next that can change rapidly.
Yes, my arctic e-bike is powered indirectly by diesel power because that's all that is used here currently. Even so, when I go back south it will be powered by hydroelectric/wind/solar power, and it's lower emission than a quad or car. Plus it gives exercise.
Ok without a seat belt big diesel in your as e bike it's a scooter so stop with word games it's a scooter
you make it go on sandwiches!
I have to say up to this point I have enjoyed and consumed all your videos, but I do believe you need to refresh some of your thoughts on where the auto industry is vs Tesla. I agree they have headwinds for the foreseeable future but I think some of their advantages in the industry were left out. The videos by the limiting factor have been a good jumping off point for me and the differences in their strategy
I heard in my Geology class, in California over 30 years ago, that it was so energy intensive to build a new car you used much less oil if you continued driving your gas guzzler as opposed to buying new.
That is true for every manufactured item. In the case of a more efficient, gas car, it might take a decade to catch up. A national research lab in the US. gave breakeven mileage is for electric vehicles which ran around two years, depending on how much fossil fuel there was in the energy mix. Usually the breakeven for electric vehicle was around two years with carbon savings after that.
More important is that gas cars introduce toxins into our air that effect our health every day they’re driven, so electric vehicles do have an advantage there, which is seldom enumerated, but in itself is justification for pushing electric vehicles within cities to improve air quality. 110,000 a premature deaths in the US due to the burning of fossil fuels.
@@colingenge9999 Where does 80% of electricity come from?
@@llibressal Assuming you’re asking a good faith question, I will respond in as meaningful way as I can because I suspect that behind your q is some mistaken assumptions.
Let’s create a comparison using nat gas if burned to create power with a resultant efficiency putting the power into an EV of 67% compared to burning the Nat gas in a car which yields 16%. Not only is this one quarter of the fuel used in the EV but the products of combustion in the nat gas cars case are breathe d by city dwellers for increased health costs. See “NREL.gov”
Assuming we never transitioned off Fossil Fuel to create energy, we’d still be better off with EVs. Now consider renewable energy costs being one fifth of Fossil Fuel energy by the end of this decade and you’ll quickly see that those countries that don’t get off Fossil Fuel now, will not be able to compete globally in anything by end of this decade.
Currently US is 79% Fossil Fuels but it peaked in 2007 and has steadily declined since then. While Fossil Fuels are needed to transition to renewables, battery storage and EVs can better utilize existing energy sources because they can be charged at supply peaks such as mid day in CA or demand valleys such as where I live with 0 demand at night so they’re happy to give me free power because they need to dump it.
See eia.gov
Take-home point? Always buy a used car
@@danunpronounceable8559 haha how many used cars would there be if no one was buying new cars
Ford Lightnings are selling for way less than 90 thousand. That is the top of the line price.
Zeihan-I believe you are largely correct. However simply because something is stupid doesn’t mean it won’t be pursued, we have a portion of the population and an administration who are behaving like a cult in the pursuit of the “Green Mirage.”
That is just politics and media and in a few short years their attention could be on something else such as the famines that are around the corner and their occasion with global warming may just get forgotten.
Remember when the ozone was about to fall and everybody was going to be completely sunburned, remember acid rain or the destruction of mining on the environment. Those were all crazes of the left that are not long gone.
Oregon just mandated no car sales 0f gas engines after 2035
Technology so great you have to be forced to buy it!
last time i checked.a base f150 lightning was under 60k
And subsidised?
@@curiositycloset2359 all vehicles are subsidized you are driving a gas vehicle that would cost $40 dollars a gallon to fill up if our great military didn’t patrol and protect the global delivery of oil
@@nickkacures2304 I'm sure the americans do that out of the goodness of their hearts. Just like they did with nord stream.
@@curiositycloset2359 $59k is the baseline price for the low-end model from Ford, without subsidies. Keep it under $80K to get the latest tax incentives (up to $7,500 assuming you owe that in taxes).
Wait list on the cheapest model is over 2 years. No one can order any F-150 Lightning unless they're on the pre-order list from 2021.
Hi! So, a study at UM found that the carbon footprint of an EV is worse than an ICV until about 30,000 miles being the break even point. It takes until about 140,000 miles for the total carbon footprint to be cut in half. Also, the tech will improve, as will the greenness of the grid. One thing we do agree on is solar and wind have a bigger impact and should take priority over EVs.
EVs are actually less expensive long term. Low maintenance, no oils changes, no tuneups, no belts and tubes and breaks to fix. etc. Tesla batteries last 10-15 years and are recyclable.
And there are the IMDS Material Data Sheets that should list each assembly and component with their sub components and ingredients. When market penetration forces recycling, it will happen.
teslas are some least reliable cars on the market, low maintenance, LOL.
Are they? I talked to several owners and they seem very happy.
Something you did not consider regarding Tesla. Yes, he is pissing off his current customer base, but that base has already bought the Teslas they want. He needs to expand his market reach to keep selling vehicles. With this new outreach, he opens up the door to new customers that would have otherwise never considered buying an EV.
His new customers will buy the ones his current customers are dumping.
Like me? Doubtful. Tesla is a strategic means to an end for Elon. Fleece wealthy libs by selling them expensive status symbols while playing on that success to raise funds for his real loves--Human colonization of Space and a shot at destroying fiat currencies and their political champions.
The Qanon guys ?
Peter is wrong about Tesla's not having a unique selling point compare to the competitors for now. Tesla is essentially a computer on a car just like iphone is a computer on your palm. Tesla is still the company closest to figure out autonomous driving. When it does, the app store for Tesla will be ready. EG. pick up your grocery App, delivery amazon pacakge app, pick up passenger app. People pay big bucks for these services right now instead of $1-$5 when angrybird for iphone first come out.
@@CHixon It's not easy to dump your Tesla just like it's hard to dump the iphone. I would find it hard to believe anyone would just dump their iphone if Elon Musk/Steve Jobs is the CEO and supports Trumpian views. Once you've tried Tesla's autopilot, it's pretty hard to go back to ICE and most other manufacturer's self driving service as they are far behind Tesla. That's like asking someone to go back to using Windows Mobile when they've used iphone for 2 years in 2011(Yes, Most other electric car makers are so behind on autonomous vehicle, they are not even Blackberry in this analogy).
Sources/ calculations for these numbers?
Tesla is delivering Semis now.
Even though EVs are not a game changer right away as you said. We should still pursue them cos we have will solve the chicken and egg problem. Only when the EVs are there, the infrastructure needed will be built on the grid side.
There are a lot of factors to this equation, it gets complex very quickly.
We can get efficiency games when burning gas in a powerplant rather than a car. On the other hand, there will be transmission losses.
And EV’s have a lot longer lifetime than an ICE car
Etc. etc…
I'm largely in agreement with many of your points here, but the section on Tesla has a few holes in it. While you're correct that there are many EVs available now with longer range than Tesla, NONE OF TESLA'S COMPETITORS have the EV charging infrastructure to make them viable for someone who routinely makes long trips. (Ask me, I'm in the midst of a road trip from the Bay Area to Seattle and back in a Chevy Bolt EUV.)
You might want to take a long and careful look at the largest and most successful auto makers in the world… think Toyota, Volkswagen, Daimler/Mercedes - Benz… etc. Research the change that Toyota has recently announced. The near future is hybrid autos. If the largest auto makers wanted to install charging stations everywhere they could and they would use Tesla as rag to wax the floor. Tesla is a fringe company and it will remain so. Tesla is lacking in pragmatic functionality. This applies to all of the contemporary all electric vehicles. Especially when you get out of the large urban areas and go into the more rural areas. Rural areas are where a huge amount of people live. We rural people do not need a finicky motor vehicle. You can’t plug an electric auto into a tree or boulder, but you can carry extra fuel with you for a hybrid auto. I suppose one could carry a small generator in the trunk of an all electric vehicle to recharge the batteries when traveling out in the middle of no where. That sounds like fun! In addition where is all of the electricity needed for charging electric vehicles going to come from?
Hydrogen fuel may end up being the the best fuel/energy source in the not too distant future for hybrids. Find out what companies like Toyota and Daimler/Mercedes - Benz are up to.
Don’t ask the politicians because they are not the smartest people in the room… unless they are in the room alone. Politicians don’t find or innovate totally new working concepts. Politicians just chase after popular opinions and votes and then step out into the lights and cameras. Useless!
@@NW_Ranger "The near future is hybrid autos." So says you and Mr. Toyoda. Maybe he's wrong and just dragging his feet....
So, to compare a Corolla to a Prius you have what ? 20% better fuel economy? WHO CARES?
You're still burning gas and doing oil changes. And where does some of your week gas payment go, after that trip to the QT?
You can't make gas on your roof top.
@@nortoncomando1975 hybrid has less maintenance required than pure gasoline. Prius has no transmission, axle fluid, and other fluids and parts that typically seen in a pure gas vehicle
@@alexanderchenf1 Prius ha ha china golf carts they call cars and electric truck leave cars alone and make electric trains no battery connection to grid and less semi even tho those can be all electric totally unmanned automated all it's needed is its own lane kind of like h o v lane but just for electric trucks automated and maybe even like electric trains without a battery but for cars come on
@@nortoncomando1975 actually you can make your own gas either from corn or potato or candy into ethanol or even cow crap into methanol or geothermal and yes basically at gas station it's already mixed so like 87 % is 13% ethanol and premium is like 3% but yes you can actually make your own fuel
Very informative. Your daily video, with a cup of coffee, is my first morning activity. I really miss you on weekends but I know you need the personal time. Again, Thank you
Let's make bicycles great again! Awesome perspective Peter. Also, for those in the comments, I must say this is one of the most respectful and informed comment sections on RUclips that I actually enjoy reading through for even more perspective, gives me hope for humanity. Cheers everyone!
Er, all our infrastructure is geared to cars. We can change that over time without much increase in carbon but not in under two decades. I think there are good reasons to make cities more pedestrian friendly over time but it's not the solution if suffocating plants is really the best objective.
That is the behind scenes agenda . Look up 15 min cities being developed in EU. U walk or ride bikes only in your very large PRISON
The commies that want to ban cars will come after bikes next. And if they get their way completely they will ban walking as well. The Green Movement is really just a watermelon in that it is green on the outside but very red in the middle.
@@bighands69 Marxist’s 😆 yup
They will put u in boxes like chickens then extinguish u when your naughty 👿
Look up the new ITHICA NY GREEN HOME plan and the 15 min cities being developed now .
@@phylismaddox4880 It's not that we "can", but that we must and "over time" is acceptable, if you mean a brisk and unyielding pace.
The age of the suburban fatass will end, whether they like it or not.
Thank you for that insight I would add a couple of things I don’t think they’re peoples second or third car. I think they’re most peoples primary vehicle. They have been for me for seven years and I love mine having invested a great deal of money for me at least in the stock I’m very disappointed in the last year because it seems like people are still buying them. Demand is still up. People are chomping at the bit for the roadster and the cyber truck, and the 18 wheeler no matter what you said it’ll be interesting to see how the next year pans out. It is scary. I think all the points that you pointed out are certainly legitimate ones. I can’t say that I’m thrilled with Tesla service at the service center but the car itself has been awesome for me .
Why has your Tesla been awesome for u? Just curious
@@michaelboano7183 Iove quiet , auto pilot no noise gas acceleration
@@gregschenk2023 that says a lot 👍
18 wheeler was started on December 1st 2022, with Pepsi receiving the first Semis, 50k in 2024. CyberTruck Castings are in Austin with now being assembled for production to begin and deliveries in the next 6 months.
If your an owner and a stock holder, how can you think anything he said was legitimate, this is not right. I know many people with Tesla's and they love Tesla service, when needed.
@Greg Schenk Tesla is a semi cult built around Elon Musk. The stock was overvalued by around 80%, as the company was valued above the top 10 car manufacturers in the world which is absurd. Your insight is blinded by your financial buyin of the stock.
I consider my self well educated on BEVs and Tesla in particular. I pretty much disagree with almost everything you have stated, with the exception that Musk has put off his primary customers. I don't have the energy to counter every point, but I'll take a stab at a couple. Your concerns about the new materials that are required for BEVs do not include the fact that Li-on batteries are 95% recyclable. You don't throw away a car at end of life. You recycle the materials including steel, aluminum, nickel, carbon, li-on, etc. Several companies are already doing the recycling and can provide battery materials at a lower cost than mining. Also, your statements about BEVs being "carbon bombs" comes from the oil industry statements that have been completely debunked multiple times. Where are you getting your information? You need to get updated. ICE vehicles will go away because the ICE companies won't be able to afford to keep them around as they are fulling investing in BEVs. You can buy a $26K Chevy Bolt today and get a $7500 federal tax credit and possibly another large state tax credit, which make it lower cost than a Toyota Corola or Honda Civic. There will be many more models from other manufacturers in this price bracket by 2026.
The bottom line, Mr. Zeihan, you exaggerate (or are false on) almost every point in order to make your over all point that EVs won't be here any time soon. It makes me skeptical of all the other information that I have absorbed from you that I am not well educated on. This video won't age well.
here's nit number 2 to pick. I disagree with your comment that we've never doubled the production of anything over 10 years, I looked at the graph for uranium. It looks a lot faster than 2x per decade at several spots. There is apparently plenty of lithium out there, but they say it takes 9 to 10 years to get a mine started. Of course they said it took years to put in a regasification plant for LNG too. Certainly the price rises in lithium give some incentive for the mines to start opening. Interestingly, apparently the cost and availability of nickel may actually be worse than the lithium.
Eventually, perhaps sodium batteries will be developed enough to replace lithium. Right now, the forecast is for pretty slow growth, maybe on your 3 decades plan. But a lot of this has to do with how much climate change bites.
I was thinking of Uranium too. I'm sure there are numerous other commodities that have doubled in that timeframe throughout history too. He just pulled that statement out of his ass, imo.
Huge things are happening in the next 8 years, people deny it like they did smartphones and many other tech that has come along.
The vast changes in batteries right now needs some serious consideration, for instance if you go Lithium Sulfur (which is in process) you cut out cobalt and nickel and increase efficiency, if Sodium Sulfur which I admit makes me a bit giddy, is ... well look into it. seriously, this kind of change in power storage hasn't been seen in a long while.
All good and well. But moving away from the idea everybody has their own private car would be a way better solution. Build out public transit that doesn't require batteries and make more sustainable cities. You can get to places way faster and more efficient if you have a well build out transit network that has frequent stops. Counrties that are car based don't see the value in public transit cause it is infrequent and worse than taking the car.
@@brampelberg9335 Yeah that would have worked great with Coovid. Pubilc transit in many cities is way to expensive and is not going to happen. Robotaxis will fix this in a year or 2.
@@MyUniversalUniversity I mean, having self driving vehicles will only increase capacity. It won't solve traffic.
@@brampelberg9335 That is the same as saying fusion is the answer.. except at least fusion has a chance. That now catastrophically irreversible decision between mass transit and personal automobiles was made decades ago. Get back to me when someone includes calculated costs and environmental impact of reversing the entire US infrastructure.
@@brampelberg9335 It's OK, a lot of people can't see into the future. It's astounding to me they still feel compelled to make predictions about it, but hey, free speech and all. It is crystal clear no one in these comments understands even just Teslas mission statement let alone It's ingenious and somewhat sadly necessary methods to achieve it. To create an environmentally friendly car, did it have to be the coolest, fastest car, No. But, the answer is yes, if you wanted to get mass adoption, survive coming up from the ashes and battling against every other. Or... we'd all be share riding our Leafs and Prius. I'm older myself, and have a hard time conceiving of the autonomy project, but in theory, less people owning cars, and just robotaxi summoning them when needed would indeed solve much of the ever growing traffic, and most importantly, with AI be the safest our roads could be. Yes AI will be everywhere, it is just silly to think it won't be driving us. Is it 10 years or 20 years doesn't matter it just is.
regarding Tesla being priced like an IT company, I think they might actually become that as the EV market becomes more saturated. Tesla has, without a doubt, the absolute best car autopilot on the market, by a factor of at least 10, probably more. In fact, it could be argued that the entire car side of TSLA has just been a data collection operation for construction of its AI. I think we might see Tesla begin to lease out its AI autopilot to other car companies, which would put it in a huge position of dominance in the market. It wouldn't even need to sell cars anymore. Make no mistake, the way GPS is now integrated into all cars and we can't imagine a car without it, autopilot will be integrated sooner or later.
The problem with this theory is it assumes three things - that Tesla really does have a massive AI advantage (probably? hard to tell), that autopilot will catch on soon (too early to say) and that Tesla lacks deep-pocketed competition (they don't).
But let's say the first two assumptions are true - will companies willingly pay Tesla (whom I presume will still make cars in this scenario?) for the right to compete with them? I think they'd view the competitive advantage Tesla would gain (correctly) as an existential threat to their businesses and go all-out to create an alternative.
I don't see the "tech company" angle personally, but I could be wrong.
Competitors will find it easier and cheaper to license technology or rent a service from Tesla, and innovate off that platform. This is standard operating procedure in mature industries. Customers just don't know it, and don't much care. Anyone who thinks that Apple or Tesla - masters of vertical integration - actually invent and make everything in their products just doesn't understand how the business world really works. Boeing, easily the best commercial aircraft manufacturer, is the master of owning the design and outsourcing most of the manufacturing. Two decades ago I walked into the biggest building on earth and saw a dozen or more 747s in various stages of assembly. I don't care how jaded you are, how educated, your mouth drops in awe when you see these massive machines lined up on two sides of the room with countless workers crawling in and out and all over. There's at least a million parts in each one, and they all have to work. So a lot of folks love these videos with Zeihan, I do, but he has to communicate in shorthand, otherwise each video would be two hours long. If he sparks your interest, then dig in and do some research, go deep if you want. It's amazing what you'll learn.
Your videos are incredibly valuable. BTW, a Rode Wireless Go 2 mic would be an easy add to your kit and would significantly improve your audio.
YES this, and his 'home studio' sounds like a ten year old boy's failed echo chamber experiment...
@@tunahxushi4669 Bringing a microphone in closer is always a massive contribution to adequate audio quality. Video wireless mics such as that Røde Go have excellent placement. Speaking into a camera shotgun is pretty futile in comparison.
He’s using the mic on the AirPod in his ear.
He could use the Adobe Podcast voice enhancer (online tool), would convert it to studio quality for free (it really works!)
I'd love to see a conversation between Peter and Tony Seba. There's a lot of newer research and considerations about green tech in general, and how fast things are trying changing, that Tony Seba brings to the table; and his predictions have been pretty accurate. And Peter obviously brings his own line of knowledge and accurate predictions extracted from that information too. They both need to talk because there's a huge discrepancy and they're both intelligent, respectful, and straight forward.
Very true, would like to see that conversation, with actual graphs and charts as there's no question, car buyers want EV's as every EV announced has been immediately sold out, for the next year or two, with tens of thousands of ICE vehicles sitting on lots with no buyers. Same goes for solar panels and coal plants, it's obvious where people want to invest their money and see our planet.
Peter is really destroying his credibility with his opinion on EV's that is not backed by credible data.
@@RussellFineArt believe tesla unsold inventories are growing, 34k last Q...
@@glike2He is getting it from CNBC, he is not an engineer, and can’t understand manufacturing and Law of Entropy, much like the rest of the rest of the world, he should stick to geopolitics.
@@paulcachero1878 he is just making stuff up, he claimed that lithium could not go up 10x in 10 years because it has never gone up 2 x in 10 years, a simple google search would find that lithium production increased 3x in the last 5 years. but CNBC does that as well so you are probably right
Musk may be offending some people but he’s gaining a lot of other followers who will be extending themselves to support him. Elon has skimmed the cream off but reached a point that there’s not a lot more cream. Now he realizes he’s got to start producing for all those people in fly-over land.
Peter, you’ve got to get your head out of the Colorado clouds and start walking more down Main Street.
The vehicles Tesla sells in North America are manufactured in North America, including most parts. Exception: many of their battery packs were made in China for several years, but nearly all current ones are made here.
"Made" here is such a non-descript term when you talk about the manufacturing process. Go watch Milton Friedman's "Pencil" lecture to understand just how mind-numbingly complex economic systems have to be to make something like a simple #2 pencil - much less a fancy golf cart battery.
Minus the cobalt mined through unsafe forced labor, for one
@@JacobGrim Tesla's 4680 cells use no cobalt, and neither do the lithium-iron-phosphate packs they have been buying from CATL and BYD in China. Also, Tesla worked with Panasonic to reduce the cobalt content by 66%, by changing the chemistry to use manganese. Now Tesla has announced they're going to license CATL's lithium-iron-phosphate technology to set up a new battery factory in the US - again, with no cobalt used. So I think they're doing pretty well on their efforts to eliminate cobalt.
One point re: Tesla vs other manufacturers: it's not just the car, it's the charging network. If Tesla has a better charging network for its customers than other manufacturers, then that will win buyers over. With ICE vehicles you don't even have to think about this, but when you hear stories about charging stations not working, being vandalized, etc. that will put drivers off EV brands that don't have reliable charging options.
I wish what you wrote was accurate, but unfortunately you missed Peter's main point about Tesla; they are a luxury model. They'd need a $25k (or less) economy model for your ideas to be correct. The people buying Teslas now aren't doing so because it's a better mouse trap, they're doing so because they think its "cool." And suddenly, not only are legacy automakers going electric in force, but also because of Elon, Tesla is no longer "cool."
@@helifanodobezanozi7689 Prices are coming down and they are making less expensive in 2024. The Model 3 standard range is the price of the average car sold in the US, 47k. They have already announced the less expensive cars coming. 25K is coming soon!!!
@@MyUniversalUniversity Yeah, the price drop is a direct result of the brand damage caused by Elon's online emotional outbursts. As for the $25k Tesla that's been promised for years now, only time will tell. If the rumors being spread by some Elon fanboys about the the budget model being completely self-driving are true, then this is another misstep.
Agree with all points on supply chain and “carbon bombs” but think it’s important to remember Tesla are a hybrid of an IT company and a manufacturing company, and have the fastest improvement curves at both in automotive. As an IT company they have a computer on wheels to sell subscription services into (think insurance for example, self driving upgrades), and they have said computers streaming in massive amounts of camera/sensor data (more than every other car company put together) for self driving training. The model on a manufactured unit looks more like an iPhone to Tesla (different cost/margin structure obvs). Doesn’t mean they are not over priced in the market but they do have quite a few tricks up their sleeve. I’d also think in longer cycles when analyzing what Elon gets up to, clearly there is a larger strategy with many layers afoot.
But whats the market share of those computers on wheel and if Elon is bent over on "loosing" even current base then thats likely to spook investors that even existing base could leave or NOT use those services since he is actively pissing them. Its not like Ford or GM or Toyotas and other large players are gonna be prevented from signing deals with Google or companies capable to provide such services with large content size....So what Peter says is valid: about being a niche market and loosing even existing customers
I continue to DCA in to Tesla not for EV, but for Lv5 autonomous driving and then Elon can port that system to robot's (industrial not household, because house hold robots are stupid concept). No one else is even close to Lv5 aka teaching robots to see.
@@jasper-cg He's growing his company 50% YoY. It's been that way for the past 5 years (which they said couldn't be done) and he plans to do it at least another 5 years. His company built 1.3M cars and plans to build 20M by 2030. These cars are 8x (I believe) more profitable than legacy manufacturers. That's just the car business. Some say the energy storage business can be the same size. That's without the "crazy" robot and full self-driving entering the equation. As for "Ford or GM", they are struggling to scale their EVs. GM made 40K EVs, and Ford is like 100K (guessing since quick googling didn't turn it up). They have been promising big numbers for years. I'll believe it when I see it.
@@PatOSheaPGH He plans to....thats the key point....so similar to your take on GM and other companies, lets see what happens with Tesla over the course of time. nobody can predict exact future with such erratic people
Agreed, they really can’t be compared on the same metrics to a legacy car company with huge obligations, debt, skinny profit margins and not at all comparable tech nor manufacturing processes. Not to mention they are contracting while Tesla is growing at 50%.
One reason it's priced like a data company is that they be gathering data. That car detects and records and reports every gd thing it can about everybody and everything in it or near it.
That ship sailed way back when people started carrying smart phones.
Which is different from Mercedes, BMW, Audi and the others how? Everybody does that.
It’s about the amount of cameras around the car for self driving training.
A data company tied to an affordable space services company tied to an EV company tied to a tunneling services company tied to a 1000+ low earth orbit satellite company tied to a huge social media company...
@@garymunson2493 not the same dataset. Completely different data and a completely different software suite on top of the data that’s learning from the info it’s collecting
I usually pay attention to Peter because he makes one hell of a sound argument, but he displays a consistent blind spot where innovation impacts a pillar of that argument. In plain terms, he's a student of history that doesn't observe one of the key lessons of history: we learn how to overcome the limitations.
And we overcame that limitation over a hundread years ago by producing ICE and killed the EVs.
@@lecoureurdesbois86 then 100 years of AC motor and battery Innovation finished fossil fuels vehicles for ever. The whole issue about cobalt and lithium cost and supply is a non issue since the higher the prices the more supply will become available and the more other materials like sodium and aluminum will enter the fray and remove the scarcity.
Give it a couple months and Peter will be shilling for one of the Big 3 auto maker's EV.
In a Life Cycle assessment including battery mining and production most studies show a 50%+ reduction in emitted carbon of EV vs ICE using current energy mix. not sure what data you are using.
Well, a deeper dive might be needed here as far as the EV carbon footprint. I have read some in depth articles that explain that even if an ev gets it's electricity from 100 percent coal it is a 5-7 year carbon break even point vs an equivalent ice vehicle because of Ev's superior efficiency. As battery recycling gets better and battery tech gets better and cleaner we see a an overall improvement in sustainability. We just can't keep spewing emissions from individual tailpipes so this transition to Ev's is necessary and the tech needs to mature to get cleaner and the only way to do this is to build and sell Ev's. Unless you got a better Idea?
A lot of the talking points Zeihan shared are kind of old. The data he speaks about was true in 2018, maybe 2019. But recent data shows we've passed the cost benefit rubicon from ICE to EV about 2 years ago....Both in terms of monetary cost and carbon cost. At the same time I feel like his opinion on this particular topic is a bit childish and short-sighted. Most of what he mentioned is true, but he's ignoring what will happen in the future as a result of the efforts made now. As soon as robo taxis become a thing the cost benefit will skyrocket in favor of EVs. Even more so if/when battery technology improves which it is at a rapid pace. Research for such improvements would never have been financially feasible if someone hadn't first created a market for high-performance EV vehicles. It's all a far sighted baby step that will lead to more efficient energy creation and storage compared to our current model.
And yes, hopefully we also figure out how to make fusion reactors. But, even now....RIGHT now, EVs are still a better choice than ICE. Thats why the demand is greater than the supply! Tesla currently has 2 YEARS worth of commercial megapack orders on their books. Nobody is buying megapacks as their 3rd vehicle status symbol. Cities and corporations are buying them because the value proposition is the same or better than fossil fuel alternatives.
Thank you for this video. I have been very critical of how electric cars are made. NO car currently made(I.C.E) is Carbon neutral, but the idea of using kids to mine Cobalt in the Congo, then having said material sent to China for processing and then having to deal with the less than stellar charging infrastructure and THEN to deal with a -35% battery loss at temps of 20F really pushes me to think that the Green Marketing of "we must do this to save the planet" got the best of most of us. I can fill up my car in less than 3 minutes. Yes, it does pollute, but when I see the current manufacturing process happening now, I do not stand with the flawed principle of getting a car for a status or a "hip" thing. Cost aside, it is not worth it for me, personally and especially in colder climates. Worst is that I am a hypocrite and ordered an EV. I am going to cancel said order because I do not want to be part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution. If there was a sustainable, ethical and ultimately lower cost to do all of this, I would be on board. But there is a rush to pump out electric cars as they generate more profits for the manufacturer (even if they create a lot more cost and headaches), yet if they sell the right amount, profits WILL be high due to high global demand. I am not against electric bikes or other smaller scale items that have always been around. What boggles my mind is the indoctrination of the Greens who are calling on the death of the internal combustion engine.
Great video. I bought the first high-accelerating version of Tesla Model S (P85D) in 2015, not for green reasons but because it drove better than any other sedan. If I were replacing it today with an EV I would choose the new BMW 7 (i7) which is less in absolute dollars that the P85D was 8 years ago and is a much better car. I won’t buy another Model S -- not because of Elon’s politics, which doesn’t offend me, but because for some reason known only to him he replaced the round steering wheel with a dangerous steering yoke and took away stalks in favor of buttons on the yoke. I hope Elon succeeds with his rockets but I completely agree with your view on Tesla as a company.
I've only a Model 3, but some of the design choices around stalks and buttons in Teslas are mind numbing and frankly quite dangerous
You have the choice to order a round wheel again now.
Serious inquiry. Love your stuff. I would be mesmerized to see this take juxtaposed to the evolution of horses to cars ~100 years ago. Where might we find interesting parallels? Contrasts? Hopefully with fun charts too showing adoption curves etc :-)
Should look at it vs the oil boom. Initially there was an explosion and crucially, privately funded infrastructure development. Investors liked their returns. Even as Exxon warned of global warming but investors who controlled media tamped that down. Investment returns were enjoyed for years as oil boomed and oil companies built out extensive infrastructure. Well that era is coming to an end and those investors have moved on to EVs. Even now a similar trend emerges where media is trained to ignore negative impacts of battery supply chain. Except now we do not see anyone on the supply chain building significant infrastructure, and certainly not without government incentives.
In 1900, which was more expensive....a horse & carriage or a car?
A great source of info on that very topic is _"Clean Disruption"_ by Tony Seba. He has a bunch of video lectures here on RUclips.
@@taiwanjohn awesome I’ll check it out!
@@PikeBishop14 He's done a bunch of these talks over the years. Here's a recent one that gets right to the point you're interested in, the "technology disruption" of horses by the automobile: watch?v=6Ud-fPKnj3Q
Oh dear Peter!...You got so much wrong there I don’t know where to start! Keep going though, you’re the most entertaining and mostly thought provoking commentator on geopolitics out there...and that’s saying something!....I mean hell, your subject tries to encompass EVERYTHING....and therein lies the problem....love the latest book btw.
EV's will never be ubiquitous. They will continue to be an overpriced novelty. The deal breaker will come when the owners of EV's are faced with the ugly reality if having to replace the battery.
Interesting to hear that in the US EVs are still considered status symbols, and bought as a third or fourth car. By contrast, in Norway, 79.3% of cars sold in 2022 were fully electric, and the rest of Western Europe follows a similar curve. Over here they aren't status symbols - they are simply becoming the preferred option from an economic standpoint, also partly because rooftop solar is gaining such wide adoption. EVs still cost more to acquire than ICE cars, but prices are falling rapidly and, due to their far better energy-efficiency, EVs are cheaper to use.
Indeed, Lithium shortage is a potential problem, which is why so much money and effort is being poured into alternative battery tech - with some promising results. But even Lithium-based batteries are seeing an unabated increase in energy density, meaning the amount of Lithium needed per battery is steadily declining - which largely explains their 97% fall in price per kWh over the last three decades.
Peter is clueless, go see the electric Viking channel. Peter is really destroying his credibility with his opinion on EV's that is not backed by credible data.
Im confused. Where are you seeing these prices “falling” so quickly? I must be living in an alternate universe here because all I see are Teslas shooting up in price, Kia wanting $50k for what is essentially a battery powered Sorrento, GM wanting 6 figures for an electron pushing Avalanche, and $55k for a Blazer priced as much as my Cadillac XT5. So where are all these fan boys seeing these EV prices plummeting?
@@juanzingarello4005 Early December, Tesla cut prices on the Model 3 and Y. In China, EVs from BYD and others are now on par with ICE cars. In Europe and Australia, Chinese automakers introduce EV models that cost significantly less than those of traditional automakers. Perhaps the US is just lagging, dunno.
@Onwrikbaar They did that because they aren't selling well in China. Thats why. Only a few rich people can afford them and thats it. They had to close several showrooms in busy areas like Beijing as a result. And that's the problem. This has become a dysfunctional car market that they are literally begging the Chinese to undercut them and put them out of business should they ever make it to the US market (well underway already in Europe. Just give it time before the Euro brands go out of business there). Simply because the mass market can't afford them. They just never learn. A complete mess these out of touch politicians are creating in our market which I can only see decimating our car industry.
Here is where this review fell flat. Name one US or foreign car company model(s) that are superior in range to Telsa at the same or lower price at scale? Serious questions, anyone.
You have badly ignored the hidden carbon footprint of the oil industry, which needs to be included in the calculation for a petrol car if you're including everything in the calculation for an electric car...
For heavy transport I would point out that there is available the Tesla semi with 500 miles of range along with a number of other, shorter-range heavy transport vehicles. These should have really good economics as trucks are high-fuel-usage, high-mileage (how do metric people say that?) vehicles, and while diesel is more expensive than gas, industrial electric is cheaper than consumer electric. Also on software vs. hardware, keep in mind how software is a huge part of these vehicles - think of all those ID.3s that were so much dead metal sitting on lots waiting for VW to get some software for them. Or BMW's notorious heated-seats-as-a-service model. Or the fabled robotaxis.
Electric semi's (not only Teslas) have a massive problem. The most important metric for transport companies is the cargo capacity of the truck, e.g how much weight you can put on it. The upper limit for how heavy a vehicle can be is set by the government and the transport authority and is done to prevent damage to the road. For long range semis the battery is estimated to take up a significant part of that weight. So while the cost efficiency of the fuel consumption goes up they can't transport less with each truck. All in all, the tradeoff is not worth it for the trucking companies. The batteries have to get lighter (kg/kwh) for them to be viable.
(I see what you did there, with the massive problem...) Certainly true. This is a start.
Aptera! A solar EV. Lightweight, grid semi-independent, not expensive. A niche vehicle leading the way to more rational EVs.
Aptera is an ugly looking EV in my opinion.
@@Superman-xr1oh That’s a good omen for me as many conventional people have thought ground breaking design are ugly. I have cars from 70s people thought were ugly that are now classics. Aptera May very well be VW bug of our era.
We need twice the electric power now on the grid. Check out Thorium Molten Salt Reactors
I love the thorium 232 fuel cycle, but I don't think it would fit under the hood.
Hello Peter,
The Swedish company Northvolt is actively building a battery plant in Canada, and this facility will be powered exclusively by hydroelectricity. This strategic approach aims to significantly reduce overall fuel energy consumption within the project.
if Tesla's autopilot efforts fail, then yes, it should be valued more in line with other manufacturers. but if they succeed, the multiple is more than justified.
Autopilot already “works” to some degree. There is already value there it’s just not yet 100%. It’s already pretty impressive.
My Tesla drives me pretty much everywhere now. I press one button, say "Drive me to Home Depot" (or whatever) then downclick on the right steering wheel stalk - and the car drives me the whole way. So - I think they've pretty much succeeded.
About a couple decades ago my science teacher once said he was surprised gas cars were not replaced yet. It stuck with me for a weird reason because despite constantly being told gas is on the out, 2023 vehicles frequently have V8 options. But even the reduction in V8 popularity is more of an indication of economic issues than gas issues, cars in the 70's were slower than cars in the 60's because of gas crisis. Today most cars have only 4 cylinders and turbo charged, with modern tech we can make same power in way smaller and cheaper package. Better gas, cheaper to operate. I made a lot of money on Tesla stock but honestly think my estimate for EV transition was off by 1-2 decades. Gas will be around awhile longer but the availability / price is an absurdly huge issue Peter seemed to carefully avoid, power your life with solar panels in your backyard vs buying toxic sludge from often hostile adversaries like Russia? Gas is still very problematic so gap with EVs isn't as huge as Peter suggests
there is nothing to avoid, oil and gas can be gotten from otherplaces than russia, america has native oil fields and gas fields, in huge quantities too
He also notes separately that while he does believe in green energy, you can’t have a universal green energy solution. For example, in places where there is sun, lake, Arizona, and Colorado, solar panels, work. In other places where they have wind, you can use wind energy. A place like the north east, solar is not efficient. He has spoken on this at length.
When you do your takedown of EVs and Tesla in the snow and start off referring to them as Electronic Vehicles it's a giant tell that all the rest is likely going to be off base as well, and you didn't disappoint. One of your first rebuttal videos: ruclips.net/video/UvagAlGjAPQ/видео.html
Tesla fan boys and stockholders will be heard from in the comments!
@@Doug97803 my comment stands, if you’re incapable of reading it I really don’t care.
@@steviesevieria1868
"Tesla fan boys and stockholders will be heard from in the comments!"
You are completely right
They seem to be allergic to half truths, ignorance and straight lies.
How dare they.
@@BendeVette they are also immune to complete truths, and very fond of spreading half-truths and complete lies themselves.
@@steviesevieria1868
"they are also immune to complete truths, and very fond of spreading half-truths and complete lies themselves."
So tell us what you're referring to.
As the above video is one big lie where each and every "fact" can be proven wrong (except for Elon Musk as everybody seems to hate the guy ;-)
Than again, only very few will not buy a great car because the CEO of a company is an asshole.
Does your analysis include the 3,35-6,7 lb/gallon it costs to produce and transport gasoline?
Say that you drive 25000 km per year (15534miles) with a super efficient car that consumes 0,5L/10km (0,2 gallon/mile). You would still end up releasing 503-1005 metric tons just from the fuel you bought. Your car will just release 1,3 metric tons per year. And then we haven’t even mentioned all other green house gases like methane or carbon monoxide that are released in the refinery process.
For combustion engines there aren’t much more improvements to do if everyone should own one. We can either choose food or fuel if you want to produce them sustainably and CSS has been whispered about since the 90s without any progress or full scale use (not economically viable). So right now only EV or hydrogen have the potential to be fully sustainable
Came for "electronic vehicles", stayed for "we don't have the technology to electrify semi trucks" 😂
Do you believe that electric semi trucks exist that can haul 40 tons 500 miles without recharging? I am not a Zeihan fan but he is right about electric vehicles.
@@Withnail1969 engineering explained ran the numbers. Yes, an electric semi can run 40 tons of weight
@@davidx.1504 For 500 miles withot recharging? Impossible.
@@Withnail1969 "engineering explained Tesla semi" type it in, and watch
@@Withnail1969 you can't haul 40tons legally in the US except for special use permits which are less than 1% of shipping.
Tesla semi proved it could haul 45k lbs 500miles and go over a mtn pass in the process. It only took 93% of the charge. Max load is around 48-50k for diesels in the US so this is barely less and 60% of shipping doesn't max weight anyway.
So yes, he was extremely misleading about the EV semis.
I've just bought two EVs and I'm seeing them everywhere around here. Subsidies are almost nothing in Australia and yet they're booming here in Queensland. I'm guessing it's the same in other states too.
Ur dumb AF.. EVs are garbage
@@ramtrucks721 Ok. Why then are they the best selling luxury cars in US and Europe. You clearly ain't no Einstein.
@@Timnea1 Teslas aren't really luxury at all tho that's why. Most luxury cars are way more expensive and harder to maintain, its much easier to buy a Tesla which again isn't a luxury vehicle by any standards so its gonna sell more and top a category that it doesn't belong to.
@@reboabed After owning my first Tesla I'll never be buying a BMW or Audi ever again. All the old "luxury" brands are screwed IMO. But our opinions don't matter, the market is voting with it's dollars.
@@reboabed You're about as off-base as they come.
No one ever mentions the extreme energy cost of mining and extracting platinum for combustion vehicles catalytic converters. It's literally one of the most expensive and energy intense materials to get hold of. Then of course it gets chucked out the exhaust system onto the road.
It’s ADL’d on ceramics so it’s the future today maybe for you. E.g we need a very very tiny amount of it, it’s still expensive but mostly because of the process.
"If you're talking about hard-rock lithium mining, the environmental impact is pretty much the same as any other comparable mining operation," Gavin Mudd says. "Brine is radically different"
Mudd is an associate professor with Melbourne's RMIT University and the chair of the Mineral Policy Institute, an independent organisation that monitors Australia's mining industry. He says misinformation and confusion about lithium mining is common.
."When it comes to the environmental impact of lithium mining in Australia, he says people often confuse the situation with what occurs in South America.The difference starts with the underlying geology. In younger landscapes like South America, lithium is found at the bottom of crusted salt lakes at high altitudes.
Australia, meanwhile, is a more ancient geology. Lithium-bearing pegmatite deposits are found across the county, in chunks of landmass that collided over hundreds of millennia to form the continent of Australia. These regions include the Pilbara and Yilgarn cratons (continental rocks that have been stable for over a billion years) in Western Australia, Pine Creek Province in the Northern Territory, the Georgetown region in Queensland and central Victoria.
The refining process carries environmental risks as its energy and chemically intensive, however Allison Britt, director of minerals advice with the government agency Geoscience Australia, says the process of extracting lithium in Australia is not much different to other forms of metals mining. When an economically viable resource is identified, the surface is cleared, the earth is scraped away, the rock blasted and the rubble hauled off for processing into concentrate.
"Each hard rock deposit is its own unique beast," Britt says. "At a higher-grade deposit, you dig up less rock compared to lithium produced."
www.bbc.com/future/article/20221110-how-australia-became-the-worlds-greatest-lithium-supplier
So after telling us it can't be done economically re EVs, and they're dreadful, and there's terrible environmental cost....more recently you're telling us there is a big find of lithium in Iran? (I must watch when there's some ironing to be done...).
They said we couldn't go to the moon either.
Let's also recognise that it's more than possible to ramp up mining and production, it takes motivation and money but it can be done. Pilbara Mining which supplies 9% of the world's lithium got theirs done in 4 years. FOUR.
Also which technology worked out ticketey-boo immediately?
NONE.
There are always iterations and improvements and then there's things that pop up like the Henry Ford production line.
I used to be a bit of a Zeihan fan but the extremist positions, whining and hysteria is getting tiresome.
I'm a comfortable upper middle class guy with a wife who also works and we both get paid quite well. We have a house, disposable income, etc. I'm not buying an EV solely because of cost alone. They are damn expensive and what no one is talking about is that when the batter goes .... and it will eventually go, the cost to replace that is essentially a new car.
You are sadly misinformed. For a new Model 3 or Model Y battery installed by Tesla the cost is $16,000, currently, the price is dropping. You can also buy a used battery for $5000. I have one of the early Model 3s and put 100,000 miles on it and my loss of battery life is 3%. Tesla builds their batteries to have a life span of 300,000 to 500,000 miles. I might add that I have had zero maintenance in the last five years except for tires, I charge at home off my solar roof for $5 on a 325 mile range so basically, I have stopped thinking of my transportation as an expense. In 55 years I’ve never owned a car as good as this.
My whole truck was only $12000, so your replacement battery costs $4000 more than my truck.
@@bobbyjohnson2433 But did you see, you can buy a used battery for $5k. Amazing deals in the EV world we are missing out on 😂
@@jamessullenriot That's a way better deal than getting one at auto zone for my truck for $100.😄
That appears to be a very solid assessment now - boy did Hertz and SixT get burnt. Also the troubles with EV buses and trucks are such their future is questionable. Oh and then there's Ford's F150 lightning... oh my! 🙉
Lithium and copper mining and refining are ramping up in Australia. Increasingly it is powered by 100% renewables and is competitive against Chinese coal based industries
No it is not. The Aussie mining market is wholly dependent on Chinese manufacturing. Of which there is currently very little.
@@ralphemerson497 Did you just try to contradict news that new mines not aimed at China are being built by arguing that currently existing mines are aimed at china, as if that means anything to what he said?
@@ralphemerson497
Australia has everything it needs to build its own industries with. Australia also has a growing population and a new consumer market that will be arriving in the late 2020s.
It isn't powered by renewables
Calling diesel fuel that powers the majority of mining equipment renewable is a fact. Mother Earth continues to make oil everyday in a process we don't yet fully understand. And the other benefit of oil in general is it is 100% natural and organic.
Respect to you for remembering all of this
Yes, it was a great time, back in 2002 when all of this information was true.
Nowadays it's a complet other story.
Greenspan in the Age of Turbulence discussed the Fed's inability to account for the gains from technology in forcasting GDP. I often see a similar dilema in your research. While I do not disagree with your points in this video and appreciate them, I do see that there have been similar inflections in the past. This would be a fun respectful discussion over coffee as a RUclips comment does not allow for the development of an argument.
Luckily enough, there are some significantly better battery and capacitor technologies on the horizon that use different and more readily available materials. They should improve the range, price, and charge time of EVs.
Not saying you’re wrong but what are some of these things you’re talking about?
@@justinjustinjustin10 Sulfuric and saline batteries are the closest, but the graphene battery will be a massive game changer if they can scale production. Great energy density and quickly recharge.
The LFP battery used in more than 50% of Teslas are iron phosphate and do not contain cobalt or nickel, they also don’t catch fire.
It should be noted that Tesla uses very, very little cobalt in their batteries and the cost to mine what ores they use is way less detrimental than mining coal or oil. Once you burn coal or oil, it is gone , released into the atmosphere as hydrocarbons. An EV battery is 95% recyclable.
I see the key as being efficient use of resources. Regenerative braking in an efficient manor is a key element to reducing the waste. I think Elon is a visionary and undoubtedly not perfect. I believe he is very sincere if not perfectly correct. Betting against him isn’t a great move. Adoption and refining of new ideas is the only way forward. Time will tell.
@@shepherdsknoll EV batteries and individual Li-Ion batteries are recyclable but more are still trashed than recycled because few countries have mandated it and the materials you get back from recycling them costs more than virgin material so it will not help the cost component and then there is the energy used to recycle them, where does it come from. Because BEV's have to be constructed in a unique way due to their weight problems their repair costs are outlandish and thus two major car rental companies are winding back their BEV fleet due to maintenance costs being excessive. The next big battery breakthrough has been about to pop for how many years now? its always five years away. BEV's consume many other critical materials needed in other critical areas that can reduce greenhouse gas production by greater amounts than a car. Like Peter said you can not ramp up production for these things in short periods of time, manufacturing supply does not work like that. While LFP batteries are safer from a thermal runaway point they are still dangerous when exposed to fire from another source and will burn hotter than an ICE vehicle. Last but not least is that the private car fleet in global terms is not a huge emitter of Greenhouse gases it is actually quite small and if we are to make a big dent in their reduction it is the big emitters that need to be looked at and addressed. all the fuss over BEV's is fluff on the edge and it is taking up to much of the narrative.
This information is wrong. Check out the new ATRI report which is fact based. 30% carbon reduction and improving.
I blogged about this in September. Everyone forgets hybrids. With 1/200th as much battery, they always pollute less than conventional, and pollute less than BEV for twice as long as conventional - so up to 20 years, based on Peter's data. Even hybrids that don't plug in - mine gets 50 mpg, charging off braking and excess engine rotations alone. And this is the innovation in the newest Abrams tank, giving it twice the range and allowing it to stay in fights twice as long. But they're boring so nobody cares, being a compromise with a lame-sounding engine that's unsexy to both enginephiles and batteryphiles.
I care. I bought a Prius in 2010, gave it to my GF recently, it has 204k miles on it and has had only one non regular maintenance repair. I just threw a new suspension on it for $575 (I did the labor, took 5 hours) and it drives like a new car. I could go on, but suffice to say that car is one of the most reliable and reasonably comfortable and utilitarian cars ever made. As I understand it Toyota started working on the project from Clinton's threats of environmental legislation that never came to be. My buddies Volt is a comparable vehicle too, feels like it has more power and handles better but maybe not as reliable.
for how long lifespan car has from store to finally getting scrapped and as price of new ones go up, it can be as high as 20 years.... to me that sounds good interim solution while also electric grid needs to catch up until everyone uses EV... and that demands huge capital we dont want to drop all today but slower pace over 10-20 years. Also NA has challenging climates when EV battery, if it is any compromise in quality, can be problem. not every EV is 90k$ tesla level every weather from north pole to +50C scorching sun temps functional.
+ obvious already happening is smaller vehicles ebikes, emotorcycles becoming popular, so every trip on those also reduces potential car trip... this is aint sexy topic coz it needs some city planning support which can be even more emotiondriven than general politics.
Hybrid batteries are about 1/6th of a full EV
@@michellelewis3063 Do you mean plugin hybrids? My non-plugin hybrid as about 10 pounds of lithium, enough to go about 1 mile on battery. It goes through a full charge-discharge cycle every 20 miles or so. My last car had a 250 pound NIMH battery, a different technology that couldn't be used in BEVs.
We're trying to solve the transportation carbon problem in the wrong way. We've come up with 100% solutions for 1% of the market, and 80% solutions for 20% of the market. What we need is a 20% solution for 80% of the market - get every semi truck to carry 1 mile of battery and have a hybrid transmission. That would cut semi truck pollution in half. Likewise, if every car had to have the same 10 lb battery as my car, it would cut automotive pollution by 50%.
We don't have to mandate that all cars are hybrid, or ban the internal combustion engine, just mandate that all cars get 50+ MPG. That's what we did with fuel injection - set the CAFE standards so fuel injected cars would always pass, and let the market sort out the details. It led to much innovation in carburetion that we wouldn't have had otherwise. Here, too, we could see more innovation in the turbocharger and combustion spaces.
I've read that Toyota, the pioneer of mass produced hybrid vehicles, is not jumping on the EV bandwagon.
They are looking at hydrogen as a future alternative to petroleum, and do have a model that is sold in markets where hydrogen is available.
Hi, Base lightning F150 cost is not over 90k, it is 56k. Am I missing something? Tesla semi and other brands are on the roads now also.
You're not the one missing something. This appears to be a very poorly researched piece.
EVs can be great for air quality in a place like Utah where in the Winter months we get a strong inversion effect due to being in a giant bowl of mountains in the Salt Lake Valley, a great deal of the poor air quality is caused by vehicle emissions because those emissions are low to the ground and stay trapped in the inversion, unlike with a smoke stack which ejects things higher into the atmosphere and more of it disperses and escapes into the upper atmosphere (which aside from some filtering is the whole point of the smoke stack).
at the cost of burning more coal else where.
Good luck in the winter
@@fuzztsimmers3415 coal stacks are regulated to be at such a height that they largely push up into the upper atmosphere, the point is to mitigate the red air caused by inversion which is mostly car exhaust, I wasn't saying this would impact overall carbon emissions.
EVs exist to help to stop global warming, not winter smog, although they do that too, smog will probably not end civilization
@@why_not_both I live in Wisconsin and drive a Tesla. Winter isn't a problem.
Same arguments were made when Daimler introduced his gas powered car… about petrol and steel. horse carriages were made mostly of wood.
He's making the same argument here. Internal combustion cars were the toys of the rich when Daimler introduced them. It took Ford about 30 years later to make them affordable and pratical for every man. So he's saying we are still at least 10 years away for EVs.
Sure, and how many decades did it take to get from then to now? Most of your governments are pushing EV initiatives in the 10-year range which is ludicrous. You're never going to mine enough lithium for that, particularly not when your lithium mines spend decades going through court before they get to mine because they endanger the life of some rare lifeform.
Tesla has that nice convenient screen, that people spend a lot of time in front of. Its just as much a computer on wheels, as it is a car with a computer.
IMO, the industry and governments didn't spend enough time investigating PHEV technology. My PHEV has 10kWh of range (good for 30-40 miles), for comparison, a Tesla Model 3 Long Range has 80kWh!!! (Like 8 of my PHEVs)... 85% of the time, my daily commute is on electricity - when I need it, I switch to gas to get 40mpg with zero range anxiety - I never use public chargers - because I don't need to. A small battery for weight reduction and efficiency combined with a simple generator _was_ the most practical solution. A small rotary generator that runs at a constant speed - or if they invested in making microturbines more efficient might have been a better solution for the next 30 years. What would "fix" most of what you highlight Peter, is a sharp turn towards nuclear power. On the PHEV technology side of Class 8 trucking - Hyllion has the right idea (the Karno generator possibilities are interesting as well) - but people are still mesmerized by the Tesla Truck (which takes like two Empire State buildings' worth of power while it charges).