EVs, Aspirations vs Reality

[olofscience 422]

10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

So I have a different view. You have hammered Brent on the EV topic and more nonstop. I think his question is fair and you are being unfair to avoid the answer.

Why is his question fair? He just wants to make it personal.

His dishonest arguments stand independently of whoever calls them out - you can call them out, and it wouldn't matter what kind of car, or yacht, you own as long as you pointed out the truth.

 

In fact, some of the best takedowns of Brent have been from lippy, who works in the fossil fuel industry brent loves so much and shills so hard for. We all just have life to deal with and truth exists independently of people's circumstances.

[Phil1111 913]

16 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Why is his question fair? He just wants to make it personal.

His dishonest arguments stand independently of whoever calls them out - you can call them out, and it wouldn't matter what kind of car, or yacht, you own as long as you pointed out the truth.

In fact, some of the best takedowns of Brent have been from lippy, who works in the fossil fuel industry brent loves so much and shills so hard for. We all just have life to deal with and truth exists independently of people's circumstances.

In debate leaving out certain parts of facts or arguing factually incorrect positions isn't actually lying. As long as there is a grain of truth in the position somewhere.

Brent is right there has been a slowdown of EV sales in the US in the last eight months. Consumers are reluctant to buy a second EV or in some case a first. Because recharging stations have not kept up with demand. In addition middle America still doesn't have the infrastructure for them.

Biden's infrastructure plan will address part of that. But pricing is another factor for which used EV sales should play a factor. IMO Brent's reputation plays a part because overreach in his facts hurts his position. But another two or three years like this one for heat, fires, etc should finally drive a nail in the coffin of fossil fuels.The decline of reinvestment by the industry is proof that even they recognize this. Brent recognizing it? Thats another story, sorry Brent.

[brenthutch 384]

23 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

But another two or three years like this one for heat, fires, etc should finally drive a nail in the coffin of fossil fuels.The decline of reinvestment by the industry is proof that even they recognize this. Brent recognizing it? Thats another story, sorry Brent.

Except that is not the case, sorry Phil.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/shell-takes-axe-to-its-low-carbon-division-refocusing-efforts-on-fossil-fuel-extraction/
 

Across the globe, oil giants have been doubling down on their commitment to fossil fuels in the face of global plans to shift to sustainable energy.

Earlier this week Chevron, the second biggest oil company in the U.S., bought rival Hess Corp. in a $53 billion deal.

The acquisition, its biggest ever, gives the group a significant foothold in the growing oil exploration market of Guyana.

That purchase followed Exxon Mobil’s $59 billion deal to buy the fracking giant Pioneer Natural Resources.

The group expanded its presence in the Permian region straddling Texas and New Mexico with the deal, and left the world in little doubt about its commitment to fossil fuels.

The fresh arms race to secure oil resources comes despite the International Energy Agency (IEA), the world’s leading energy agency, reaffirming its prediction that demand for coal, oil, and natural gas would peak in 2030.

Still, oil groups have been emboldened by rising prices in recent years tied to supply chain logjams following COVID-19 and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has left the commodity in short supply and helped companies like Shell to eye-watering profits.

[olofscience 422]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The fresh arms race to secure oil resources comes despite the International Energy Agency (IEA), the world’s leading energy agency, reaffirming its prediction that demand for coal, oil, and natural gas would peak in 2030.

That's one hell of a misquotation.

The IEA has said fossil fuels will peak BEFORE 2030, with related energy generation CO2 emissions probably peaking by 2025.

Edited October 29, 2023 by olofscience

[kallend 1,635]

59 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

In debate leaving out certain parts of facts or arguing factually incorrect positions isn't actually lying. As long as there is a grain of truth in the position somewhere.

 

With the exception of satire, jokes and obvious works of fiction or fantasy, stating something as a fact when you know it is factually incorrect is lying in my lexicon.

[brenthutch 384]

36 minutes ago, olofscience said:

That's one hell of a misquotation.

The IEA has said fossil fuels will peak BEFORE 2030, with related energy generation CO2 emissions probably peaking by 2025.

Based on an accelerated adaptation of EVs.  As I have pointed out, demand is slowing not growing. So their prediction is based on a faulty premise.  That aside they do not predict a swift energy transition, instead they predict “an undulating plateau lasting many years” 

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by brenthutch

[Phil1111 913]

6 minutes ago, kallend said:

With the exception of satire, jokes and obvious works of fiction or fantasy, stating something as a fact when you know it is factually incorrect is lying in my lexicon.

Brent seldom states facts as everyone here knows! He mostly references positions only thinly supported by fact, if at all. Its up to debaters to decide the facts. Or individually think that someone is lying.

A straw is still a straw.

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Based on an accelerated adaptation of EVs.  As I have pointed out, demand is slowing not growing. So their prediction is based on a faulty premise.  That aside they do not predict a swift energy transition, instead they predict “an undulating plateau lasting many years”

Wrong. There is a slowing of the rate of growth in EV demand in the US. In part due to the economy and mostly due to a perceived lack of supply of supporting infrastructure. There is a world outside the US, Brent.

[brenthutch 384]

You are correct Phil, the rate of growth is slowing, I should have been more precise. It really doesn’t matter in the big picture of energy transition. Fossil fuel use will continue to grow for the rest of the decade and plateau at record or near record levels for “many years” according to the IEA.

[gowlerk 1,915]

38 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

There is a slowing of the rate of growth in EV demand in the US. In part due to the economy and mostly due to a perceived lack of supply of supporting infrastructure. There is a world outside the US, Brent.

 

When you consider the enormity of the task, the change over to EVs in personal transportation is gaining steam and happening remarkably quickly. Even so it will probably be well past the end of the decade before they surpass the 50% of sales mark and then even longer until the used market has a lot of availability. 

[JoeWeber 2,316]

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

He just wants to make it personal.

And you haven't?

[olofscience 422]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

And you haven't?

Oh, I definitely have. But why give him the same pleasure?

[JoeWeber 2,316]

8 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Oh, I definitely have. But why give him the same pleasure?

So as not to come off as smarmy and dishonest by over finessing a trivial thing?

[olofscience 422]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

So as not to come off as smarmy and dishonest by over finessing a trivial thing?

Sorry that you think that, but I don't think that's going to be solved by telling everyone here what car I drive.

Because in a discussion about global EV sales, that IS a trivial thing.

[JoeWeber 2,316]

Just now, olofscience said:

Sorry that you think that, but I don't think that's going to be solved by telling everyone here what car I drive.

Because in a discussion about global EV sales, that IS a trivial thing.

Fair enough, but as this is a civil not criminal proceeding by pleading the fifth the judges are allowed to assume the worst.

[brenthutch 384]

10 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Sorry that you think that, but I don't think that's going to be solved by telling everyone here what car I drive.

Because in a discussion about global EV sales, that IS a trivial thing.

The reason you don’t have an EV is the same reason most folks don’t own one, $$$.

It is curious that one who claims EVs will outsell traditional cars in the next few years doesn’t even own one. 

[olofscience 422]

17 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Fair enough, but as this is a civil not criminal proceeding by pleading the fifth the judges are allowed to assume the worst.

Yes, you are allowed to assume the worst, you are allowed to assume anything really.

 

Brent assumes that I live in my parents' basement and don't have an EV, but that's more for stroking his own ego than any connection to reality.

 

Now, shall we get back to the topic?

[brenthutch 384]

11 minutes ago, olofscience said:

 

Now, shall we get back to the topic?

Which is how car manufacturers overestimated demand for EVs and are now scaling back their efforts.  Do you have anything to contribute?

[olofscience 422]

29 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Which is how car manufacturers overestimated demand for EVs and are now scaling back their efforts.  Do you have anything to contribute?

Oh, I did. I pointed out your misrepresentation of the cause of the sales slowdown (it's not because they were EVs).

You said "EVs remain a niche market for lefty effetes" and pointed to slowing down demand, but ALL cars (not just EVs) experienced slowing demand in 2023 because of high interest rates, which was highlighted by the end of the article you quoted.

I then pointed out how you misquoted the IEA and the fossil fuel peak dates.

 

So how about you, what can you contribute to this thread besides misinformation?

[brenthutch 384]

16 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Oh, I did. I pointed out your misrepresentation of the cause of the sales slowdown (it's not because they were EVs).

You said "EVs remain a niche market for lefty effetes" and pointed to slowing down demand, but ALL cars (not just EVs) experienced slowing demand in 2023 

 

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/03/business/us-new-car-sales/index.html

 

“US new car sales soared in the third quarter, despite the combination of a strike at General Motors, Ford and Stellantis, high prices and rising interest rates.

GM reported a 21% jump in sales in the quarter, compared to a year earlier.”

[olofscience 422]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Do you know the difference between quarters and years?

 

EV sales have slowed down compared to the last quarter. But as billvon has pointed out, they're up 50% since last year.

 

Your link says car sales are up in the 3rd quarter compared to last year. By how much? 21%.

Here's some more maths: 21% is less than 50%.

Edited October 29, 2023 by olofscience

[brenthutch 384]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Do you know the difference between quarters and years?

 

EV sales have slowed down compared to the last quarter. But as billvon has pointed out, they're up 50% since last year.

 

Your link says car sales are up in the 3rd quarter compared to last year. By how much? 21%.

Here's some more maths: 21% is less than 50%.

Mercedes, Ford, GM, and Honda aren’t scaling back their efforts in the traditional auto market, only in the EV sector.

[brenthutch 384]

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

Do you know the difference between quarters and years?

 

EV sales have slowed down compared to the last quarter. But as billvon has pointed out, they're up 50% since last year.

 

Your link says car sales are up in the 3rd quarter compared to last year. By how much? 21%.

Here's some more maths: 21% is less than 50%.

Here is some more maths: a 21% increase in a market share of 86% is much greater than a 50% increase in a market share of 14% in real terms. I am no math genius but it would seem neither are you. Feel free to correct me.

Edited October 29, 2023 by brenthutch

[lippy 773]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The reason you don’t have an EV is the same reason most folks don’t own one, $$$.

It is curious that one who claims EVs will outsell traditional cars in the next few years doesn’t even own one. 

How frequently do you buy new vehicles? Rather than asking if somebody owns an EV right now, a better question may be if their next vehicle will be an EV. Personally, I’ve driven Minis since 2009 and I’m holding off getting a new car until the Mini 2025 SE drops. The range on electric Minis up till then is pretty crap. 

 

 

[brenthutch 384]

8 minutes ago, lippy said:

The range on electric Minis up till then is pretty crap. 
 

And that is one of the reasons the growth in EV sales is slowing. (And the cost, the lack of charging stations, the depreciation, the battery fires, etc etc)

[brenthutch 384]

“Ford also said it plans to delay about $12 billion in previously announced spending on EV manufacturing capacity, saying that its customers in North America are no longer willing to pay a premium for an EV vehicle versus a comparable internal-combustion alternative.”

Just exactly what I said