HockeyDad
2 years ago
The EV car business is not in good shape right now. The renewable energy business is in free fall. I’m losing on all my investments in these arenas.
View All Posts by User
RayR
2 years ago
EV authoritarianism in the Land of Enchantment. Specious claims by the GREEN GOVERNOR (green on the outside, red on the inside) that New Mexicans will save money over the life of the vehicle from reducing fuel and maintenance costs, as well as save $62 million in health care costs from healthy air. You've gotta be real dumb to believe that but.I suppose that is their greatest justification for denying consumers making rational choices of their own in a free market. The government knows best!

New Mexico has low rates of EV adoption, but the state went ahead and passed a mandate

The median household income in New Mexico, meanwhile, is $56,420 per year. This may explain why less than 1% of the 650,000 vehicles registered in New Mexico, despite tax credits, are electric vehicles.

New Mexico is tailgating California’s electric vehicle mandate, but unlike California, residents of the Land of Enchantment aren’t so quick to hop on board.

As part of New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's green agenda, the state adopted rules that will require that 43% of all new passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks shipped to the state’s auto dealers be zero-emission vehicles by 2026. By that time, 15% of all commercial heavy-duty trucks will also need to be zero emission. The requirements increase from there, hitting a required 82% emissions-free light-duty trucks by 2031.

The state argues the move will save New Mexicans money over the life of the vehicle from reducing fuel and maintenance costs, as well as $62 million in health care costs from healthy air.

“The adoption of these rules is a victory for customer choice, our ambitious climate goals, and cleaner air for every New Mexican,” Grisham said in a statement.

Before the rules were passed, the state faced plenty of criticism over the proposal.

More...

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/new-mexico-has-low-rates-ev-adoption-state-went-ahead-and-passed-mandate 




View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago
The Biden Admin's EV Goals Are An Expensive Fantasy



The Biden administration is pushing for widespread electrification in less than 20 years through government subsidies and coercive regulations as part of its aggressive climate agenda. The truth is that President Joe Biden’s goals are an illusion at the expense of the American people.

While EV proponents try to claim that EVs will soon be cheaper than gasoline vehicles, our new research demonstrates that EVs benefitted from hidden subsidies that total nearly $50,000 per EV.

Who is footing that bill? Gasoline vehicle owners, taxpayers, and utility ratepayers are.

Electric vehicles primarily benefit from regulatory credits and generous fuel economy standards, which average $27,881 per vehicle. EVs have been given an unlawful 6.67 multiplier to their rated fuel economy, so that an EV with a rated fuel economy of 100 miles per gallon is credited as if it is getting 667 miles per gallon. What’s more, the EPA’s proposed fuel economy standards are designed to require that 67% of new passenger cars sold be all-electric by 2032, demonstrating a clear government preference toward EVs without proper consideration of costs and benefits.

For gasoline vehicles, the price you see at the gas pump covers the cost of extracting, refining, and transporting the gasoline, but the same cannot be said for the cost of charging an EV. EVs require new charging infrastructure, and their large power draw increases the strain on electricity infrastructure. As our research highlights, a typical EV charging overnight at home consumes as much power as several homes, and an EV charging at a fast-charging station in 30 minutes consumes as much power as a small to medium-sized grocery store. A few extra EVs in the neighborhoods are manageable, but widespread EV adoption will require significant and expensive grid upgrades.

Adding insult to injury, EV owners alone aren’t shouldering these increased electricity costs, which average $11,833 per vehicle over 10 years. Until a utility starts charging EV owners for the extra infrastructure costs to serve them, those costs are shared among all the utility’s customers. Residential electricity costs across the U.S. have risen 20% over the last three years, and a rapid forced adoption of EVs will only make this problem worse.

Direct federal and state subsidies provide EVs with another $8,984 per vehicle over 10 years, including the widely publicized $7,500 federal tax credit in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act and smaller state subsidies for EVs. All these subsidies, of course, are borne by the American taxpayer.

President Biden’s expensive green pipe dream is not without irony.

While Biden administration claims that these draconian EV mandates are necessary to combat climate change, the widespread adoption of EVs in the developed world would have negligible effects on global emissions and climate. For starters, if EVs are able to displace all the carbon emissions from U.S. passenger cars, that would only cut out 20% of U.S. carbon emissions. Our calculations show that even if the U.S. eliminated all of its carbon emissions by 2050, the effect on global temperatures in 2100 would only be 0.08 degrees Celsius.

But EVs will not even get us that far because they don’t cut carbon emissions much—if at all—compared to gasoline vehicles. As pointed out by Mark Mills in a recent op-ed in Real Clear Energy, it is nearly impossible to measure an individual EV’s emissions. While driving an EV itself does not directly produce emissions, the emissions to generate the electricity used to charge EVs vary widely depending on location.

EV batteries also require fossil fuels to produce, and many components of EV batteries are made in emissions-heavy China. The emissions resulting from mining and processing the materials used in the battery are largely unreported, and the emissions during EV production could potentially be enough to wipe out the emissions saved by not combusting gasoline.

A recent study by Volvo attempts to quantify some of these factors, and the result is not rosy for EVs. The lifetime emissions of the electric version of the Volvo SUV at the center of the study are only a third less than the emissions of the gasoline version, and that is when it is charged on the carbon-light European grid. Different assumptions could lead to an EV emitting more carbon than its gasoline counterpart. The obvious conclusion is that without rapid reductions in carbon emissions from the electric grid, an equally Herculean task to EV mass adoption, EVs will continue to produce significant carbon emissions.

Emissions from gasoline vehicles are projected to decline 20% over the next decade, and hybrids, which nearly double the fuel efficiency of a gasoline vehicle with a battery that is 50-100 times smaller than an EV battery, would actually produce the least amount of lifetime emissions. But the net-zero advocates are needlessly demanding all EVs—or nothing.

EVs would also have little impact on levels of actual pollution in U.S. cities, like soot and smog, because the U.S. is already a world leader in clean air. When the number of passenger cars on the road fell by half during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, there was no measurable impact on air quality in the U.S. Our air pollution levels are so close their natural state that weather has a far greater impact on pollution levels in most U.S. cities than the emissions from our vehicles.

The reality is, EVs are not going away any time soon, but neither are cars in general. Americans are still driving at nearly the same rate they were before the COVID-19 pandemic—more than 3.2 trillion miles total annually. Even the addition of a few hundred million new EVs over the next decade, up from 20 million today, will only account for approximately 10-20% of all passenger vehicles globally.[GU1] [GU2] [3] Currently, 90% of EVs in the U.S. are purchased as a second or third car, usually in addition to a gasoline vehicle. If the U.S. were to adopt the Biden administration’s preferred number EVs, consumers would have to purchase EVs at a scale and velocity 10 times greater and faster than any new model car in history.

Even this isn’t enough to achieve the left’s dystopian net-zero goals. The International Energy Agency forecasts [GU4] the number of global households without a car needs to rise from 45% today to 70% to achieve net-zero by 2050. That’s right—70% of people around the world must not have a car to meet the global elite’s climate goals. Most of the 45% of households who do not own cars are in developing world and crave the kind of personal mobility we enjoy in the U.S. and in Europe, but net-zero will require them to remain confined forever or to rely solely on government-owned transit. Even the developed world will have to cut its driving dramatically. In California, regulators predicted [GU5] that the state’s emissions goals will require Californians to both buy EVs and reduce miles driven by 25%.

Coercing American citizens into buying EVs is simply untenable and is not truly environmentally friendly. As our research shows, EV subsidies and mandates are already costing Americans $22 billion annually, and that amount is set to rise dramatically, with particularly adverse impacts on lower-income Americans. The Biden administration would be wise to end its special treatment of EVs, prioritize the American consumer, and stop driving the U.S. auto industry off a cliff.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-administrations-ev-goals-are-expensive-fantasy 


So, are they going to rollback the fuel taxes any time soon? I mean, they currently fund most road projects.:-k
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago
Well, that was fun.


Ford Offers Updated 2023 Guidance, Will Slash $12 Billion In EV Investments As Result Of UAW Contract



Weeks after settling labor negotiations with the UAW and hours after General Motors shares skyrocketed after the company hiked its dividend 33% and announced a $10 billion buyback, Ford is also reinstating its 2023 guidance.

In its revised guidance, Ford says it is aiming for adjusted EBIT in the range of $10 billion to $10.5 billion, along with adjusted free cash flow between $5 billion and $5.5 billion, according to CNBC.

This guide is a shift from the company's previous projections of adjusted EBIT between $11 billion and $12 billion and adjusted free cash flow of $6.5 billion to $7 billion.

Ford disclosed that its new labor agreement with the UAW is anticipated to have a financial impact of $8.8 billion throughout the contract's duration, which concludes in April 2028. In comparison, General Motors, a rival in the industry, recently reported a $9.3 billion impact resulting from their own labor agreement.

Before the conclusion of the approximately six-week-long UAW strikes, Ford had been on track to meet its financial projections, CFO John Lawler said during its late October earnings call.

He had indicated that the UAW strike had already caused a $1.3 billion loss in earnings for the company, primarily due to the disruption in production, resulting in around 80,000 vehicles not being manufactured. Of this amount, approximately $100 million was attributed to the third quarter. Subsequently, the company has updated this figure to $1.7 billion.

The CNBC report says that Ford also confirmed the UAW agreement is expected to increase costs by approximately $900 per assembled vehicle by 2028.

As a result, Ford "plans to cancel or postpone $12 billion in investments related to electric vehicles," CNBC wrote. In other words, the Biden administration supports labor unions and wants to push for electric vehicles. But the UAW's extortion contract negotiations with Ford have prompted the company to slash $12 billion in EV investments.

“We’ve got a highly talented team that allocates capital with great discipline, so that we’re executing with consistency, generating strong growth and profitability, and are less cyclical,” Lawler said Thursday.

Recall yesterday GM said it was launching a swift $10 billion share buyback, according to CNBC. "GM will immediately receive and retire $6.8 billion worth of its common stock," the report said.

In its 2023 projections, it has also reincorporated expectations, factoring in an anticipated impact of $1.1 billion in EBIT-adjusted earnings due to approximately six weeks of labor strikes by the United Auto Workers union in the U.S.

“The long-term plan we are executing includes reducing the capital intensity of the business, developing products even more efficiently, and further reducing our fixed and variable costs,” CEO Mary Barra said in a statement.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ford-offers-updated-2023-guidance-will-slash-12-billion-ev-investments-result-uaw-contract 

Wondering when they tell the US government to f off?
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago
GM Pulls Funding from Floundering Electric Vehicle Efforts in $10 Billion Bid to Appease Investors


General Motors is reassessing its investment plans in electric vehicles as sales collapse and shareholders fear that the initial headlong dive into EVs was a major mistake.

The massive carmaker is preparing a move to pull back from EVs and reassure investors that the business is still strong despite the slow EV sales, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.

It is yet more evidence that Americans simply aren't interested in EVs despite the enthusiastic boosterism of left-wing government officials who don't have to worry about sales figures.

According to the Journal, GM is planning a $10 billion stock buyback, the largest in years, and will fund that buyback by curtailing many of its previously announced investments in EV and self-driving car development.
"[CEO Mary Barra] is trying to jump-start GM’s flailing shares while also refocusing investors on the underlying strength of its main business: selling gas- and diesel-powered trucks and SUVs," the Journal reported.

In a Wednesday letter, Barra told shareholders that "the profitability and cash generation of our [internal combustion engine] business remains strong."

GM's stock has fallen 14 percent this year and hit a three-year low this month, due in part to the auto worker strike that cut its profitability projections from $12.7 billion to $11.7 billion.

One of the first moves the company made to try and right the ship after the strike was to reduce spending on the less reliable EVs. That included delaying the construction of a new electric truck factory and abandoning its stated goal of producing 400,000 EVs by 2024.

GM is also hitting the brakes on the development of its Cruise self-driving car project.

While admitting that "EV demand is evolving more slowly than expected," Barra insisted that EVs are the future and that sales will grow. This, of course, is simply a feeling, as actual proof is non-existent.

"Our strategy hasn’t changed," she said during an analyst call on Wednesday, despite the evidence staring her in the face that most Americans don't want EVs. "Our tactics are changing to align with what’s happening in the marketplace."

But some automakers are seeing the writing on the wall. Last month, Toyota chairman and former CEO Akio Toyoda said "people are finally seeing reality" as EV sales grind to a halt.

GM is not alone in pulling back from EV production. Ford recently downsized a planned $3.5 billion electric vehicle battery plant, and EV companies both large and small have slashed production targets.

Neither are carmakers the only ones realizing how problematic EVs are.

Insurance companies have discovered that EVs are less reliable, making them more expensive to insure. Meanwhile, car dealers have been desperately offering discounts and attractive leases to try and cajole customers into taking an EV off the lot.

According to The Blaze, a coalition of almost 4,000 car dealers recently issued an open letter urging the federal government to "tap the brakes" on its "unrealistic" EV mandates.

Electric vehicles are simply not the panacea that Joe Biden and his climate change co-conspirators are claiming. And as each month passes, more and more people are realizing the truth.

https://www.westernjournal.com/general-motors-pulls-funding-floundering-electric-vehicle-efforts-10-billion-bid-appease-investors/ 

Just pronouncing the proof that they're not as viable as Brewha suggests. Maybe he can "engineer" over there.

View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago
Who runs Bartertown?


[frypan] [frypan] [frypan]

Colossal Failure: Biden's $7.5B on EV Infrastructure Has Yet to Produce One Single Charger



Just over two years ago, on Nov. 6, 2021, the White House celebrated the passage of the so-called Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal as a “once-in-a-generation investment in our nation’s infrastructure and competitiveness.”

Among the goals of the act, known formally as the “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,” was to “invest $7.5 billion to build out a national network of EV chargers in the United States,” according to a Biden administration statement at the time.

“The legislation will provide funding for deployment of EV chargers along highway corridors to facilitate long-distance travel and within communities to provide convenient charging where people live, work, and shop,” the administration claimed.

“This investment will support the President’s goal of building a nationwide network of 500,000 EV chargers to accelerate the adoption of EVs, reduce emissions, improve air quality, and create good-paying jobs across the country.”

But it didn’t say when.

Which may explain why, over two years later, not a single electric vehicle charger has been installed using the money appropriated for that purpose by Congress through the IIJA.

While many may jump to the conclusion that some sort of corruption or conspiracy is to blame, the answer, according to Politico (behind a paywall) is much more banal.

The culprit is run-of-the-mill government inefficiency, the outlet reported Tuesday.

“States and the charger industry blame the delays mostly on the labyrinth of new contracting and performance requirements they have to navigate to receive federal funds,” according to Politico.

Because of course they do; it’s not like anyone would expect them to take responsibility for the delays themselves, not when there’s big ol’ federal behemoth to point fingers at.

“While federal officials have authorized more than $2 billion of the funds to be sent to states, fewer than half of states have even started to take bids from contractors to build the chargers — let alone begin construction,” it added.

Federal estimates (which are likely to be inflated, given who’s running things at the moment) cited by Politico (which is unlikely to fact check the current administration, given its political biases) said that because of the “rising” consumer demand for electric vehicles, the U.S. by 2030 is going to need six times the number of EV chargers currently available.

So far, the IIJA has provided one-sixth of that. The number of EV chargers available to U.S. consumers prior to the passage of the act has been multiplied by … one.

If you’re trying to figure out how much that means each new charger has cost the American taxpayer, don’t bother. It’s not possible to divide by zero.

The utter failure of this “once-in-a-generation” legislation is yet another clear example of the ineffectiveness of the government to accomplish much of anything at all — as if we needed another one.

It also seems likely to hurt Joe Biden at the ballot box next year, as leftists can’t possibly be happy at the lack of progress and even if a handful of chargers do by some minor miracle appear between now and then, it won’t give the incumbent much of a talking point to run on.

In fact, if the IIJA winds up being the straw that breaks the backs of leftists who might otherwise have voted to re-elect Biden next year and motivates them to stay home, that might end up being the legislation’s most significant accomplishment.

And there are plenty who would argue that preventing a second Biden term would be well worth $7.5 billion all by itself.

https://www.westernjournal.com/colossal-failure-bidens-7-5b-ev-infrastructure-yet-produce-one-single-charger/ 


[whip]
View All Posts by User
RayR
2 years ago
The euphemistic name “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,” translates to "fooled ya again, just a robbery in progress".
View All Posts by User
Brewha
2 years ago
So looks like the future is arriving -

Deliveries have started for the CYBERTRUCK

0-60 in 2.6 seconds
2,500 Lbs payload
Tows 11,000 Lbs.

And it'll piss off every redneck in sight.




Somebody needs to tell Tesla that EVs are not viable - cause they don't seem to know.

Please, take a moment and judge a book by its cover....
View All Posts by User
MACS
2 years ago
My truck tows 11,800 lbs with a Hemi... and can tow it 500 miles without stopping. What you gonna tow with that Cybertruck? A 5th wheel to the absolute nearest campground?

How many of them campgrounds gonna have EV charging stations? Maybe just a small boat to the closest launch ramp?

Tesla and all the other manufacturers have cut back on production. Battery makers have done the same... since the demand ain't there.



https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/11/23997632/ford-f150-lightning-production-reduce-ev-demand 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2023/11/14/ev-sales-2023-slow-inventory-pile-up/71572499007/ 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2023/11/14/ev-sales-2023-slow-inventory-pile-up/71572499007/ 

^^Just ignore the f--- out of all that. People do not want the damn things. They are not yet viable, and the infrastructure is WAY behind. Ignore that, too. Oh, and the fact most states could not meet the demand for power if even 1/4 of the country switched to EV's.
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
2 years ago
I don’t bet against Elon.
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago
Ford is tossing in the towel.

They're halving estimates for yearly production due to slow demand.

LOL...So...I'm pretty sure ev's aren't disappearing but they're a niche mode of travel. Like a skateboard. Strip away taxpayer dollars and the market will figure it out.
View All Posts by User
MACS
2 years ago

Ford is tossing in the towel.

They're halving estimates for yearly production due to slow demand.

LOL...So...I'm pretty sure ev's aren't disappearing but they're a niche mode of travel. Like a skateboard. Strip away taxpayer dollars and the market will figure it out.

DrMaddVibe wrote:



THAT FKN PART RIGHT THERE!
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago

So looks like the future is arriving -

Deliveries have started for the CYBERTRUCK

0-60 in 2.6 seconds
2,500 Lbs payload
Tows 11,000 Lbs.

And it'll piss off every redneck in sight.




Somebody needs to tell Tesla that EVs are not viable - cause they don't seem to know.

Please, take a moment and judge a book by its cover....

Brewha wrote:



Only tards race trucks.
It's ugly and looks like you designed it.
The payload and towing falls behind most ICE trucks

You should buy one for sure.
View All Posts by User
MACS
2 years ago
Uhhhhm... no.

Light. weighted to drift like a mutha fugger... you've had to have seen the NASCAR craftsman truck series, no? Drop a pickup, put it on coilovers, boost the sheit out of the motor... that'll smoke a lot of sports cars. Quickly.
View All Posts by User
BuckyB93
2 years ago
Putting numbers and functionality aside, that truck is efn uggly with 2 g's.
View All Posts by User
MACS
2 years ago

Putting numbers and functionality aside, that truck is efn uggly with 2 g's.

BuckyB93 wrote:



Then there's that.
View All Posts by User
MACS
2 years ago


Archie Bunker had it right. Trying to be satirical, but being prophetic. lol
View All Posts by User
Brewha
2 years ago

My truck tows 11,800 lbs with a Hemi... and can tow it 500 miles without stopping. What you gonna tow with that Cybertruck? A 5th wheel to the absolute nearest campground?

How many of them campgrounds gonna have EV charging stations? Maybe just a small boat to the closest launch ramp?

Tesla and all the other manufacturers have cut back on production. Battery makers have done the same... since the demand ain't there.



https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/11/23997632/ford-f150-lightning-production-reduce-ev-demand 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2023/11/14/ev-sales-2023-slow-inventory-pile-up/71572499007/ 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2023/11/14/ev-sales-2023-slow-inventory-pile-up/71572499007/ 

^^Just ignore the f--- out of all that. People do not want the damn things. They are not yet viable, and the infrastructure is WAY behind. Ignore that, too. Oh, and the fact most states could not meet the demand for power if even 1/4 of the country switched to EV's.

MACS wrote:



You drive 500 miles without stopping? If you took a family camping you'd be lucky to get 200 miles without stopping! 😂

Any campground that takes an RV has a 240 volt plug.

Yeah sure - no one is buying EVs - sure.

You Sir, have no clue - only YouTube.
View All Posts by User
Brewha
2 years ago

Ford is tossing in the towel.

They're halving estimates for yearly production due to slow demand.

LOL...So...I'm pretty sure ev's aren't disappearing but they're a niche mode of travel. Like a skateboard. Strip away taxpayer dollars and the market will figure it out.

DrMaddVibe wrote:



If Ford can't cut the mustard, at least they can lick the jar! 😂
View All Posts by User
Brewha
2 years ago

Only tards race trucks.
It's ugly and looks like you designed it.
The payload and towing falls behind most ICE trucks

You should buy one for sure.

DrMaddVibe wrote:



Wait - how long have you been racing trucks?

NASCAR?

Are NASCAR truck drivers tards?
People will want to know.
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com