"The study shows that the average negative equity in a traded EV nearly doubled in two years, rising from $5,469 in Q2 2022 to a staggering $10,326 just last quarter."
Dealing with the batteries has real economic and environmental costs. That is just one of the many reasons that government mandates for EVs are sortsighted and damaging.
Only a politician would choose the lowest energy density power source for the national fleet of passenger cars and trucks. Today traction batteries barely reach an energy density of 1 MJ/kg.
Hydrocarbon fuels fall in the range of 40 to 45 MJ/kg. And as Robert Bryce puts it "low power density (and low energy density) means high resource intensity." Furthermore Mark Mills studied this issue and discovered that to produce a 1,000 lb traction battery it is necessary to excavate 500,000 lbs of earth just to extract the necessary chemical elements.
All of this to produce a type of vehicle that creates more problems than it solves... And all subsidized by the public. Remember this tomorrow. 🪫⛽
Nice post, gentlemen, thank you. As with most "surveys," detailed examination reveals more questions than answers. For instance, the percentage showing "ownership" was remarkably higher than I expected, based on what I see in my community and in my recent travels. So I ask, how does ownership vary geographically? Can one draw isobars over the national regarding number of licensed EVs per capita? Can one then overlay government provided charging stations?
Are there sufficient historic data showing EV maintenance and satisfaction record by latitude or state?
Did the survey ask the "would you consider" question assuming the government subsidy was still available? If it were not, how would the answer change?
I completely agree with your premise that the choice to own an EV should be market driven, not policy mandated. Has anyone asked Amazon if they would use electric vehicles if virtue signaling was unnecessary?
Regarding range anxiety, all EV sales adds should include a dog as part of the purchase package. That way, the owner has someone to walk home with when they run out of power.
Most EVs are purchased by middle-aged, university-educated professionals that earn 6-figure salaries. 81% of EV owners also own another gasoline-powered vehicle.
EV ownership is definitely higher in certain areas - California (for example) has much higher rates of EV ownership than North Dakota. I can't post a graph to a comment, but there is more information on this at https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10962.
I work primarily on energy infrastructure projects for both fossil fuels and renewables. Your paper is well written and informative. I was aware of most of the information, but your section on environmental impact and the note on life expectancy was something I hadn’t considered. One point on wildlife conservation and the saving of habitat that isn’t often discussed is the difference in the area needed for energy production between renewables and natural gas.
I checked the reference to "trade in" which took me to https://insideevs.com/news/726659/ev-negative-equity-trade-10000/ and this shocking statement:
"The study shows that the average negative equity in a traded EV nearly doubled in two years, rising from $5,469 in Q2 2022 to a staggering $10,326 just last quarter."
Dealing with the batteries has real economic and environmental costs. That is just one of the many reasons that government mandates for EVs are sortsighted and damaging.
Only a politician would choose the lowest energy density power source for the national fleet of passenger cars and trucks. Today traction batteries barely reach an energy density of 1 MJ/kg.
Hydrocarbon fuels fall in the range of 40 to 45 MJ/kg. And as Robert Bryce puts it "low power density (and low energy density) means high resource intensity." Furthermore Mark Mills studied this issue and discovered that to produce a 1,000 lb traction battery it is necessary to excavate 500,000 lbs of earth just to extract the necessary chemical elements.
All of this to produce a type of vehicle that creates more problems than it solves... And all subsidized by the public. Remember this tomorrow. 🪫⛽
Exactly! Perhaps someday we will find a way to make these batteries more energy dense than fossil fuels, but today is not that day.
Nice post, gentlemen, thank you. As with most "surveys," detailed examination reveals more questions than answers. For instance, the percentage showing "ownership" was remarkably higher than I expected, based on what I see in my community and in my recent travels. So I ask, how does ownership vary geographically? Can one draw isobars over the national regarding number of licensed EVs per capita? Can one then overlay government provided charging stations?
Are there sufficient historic data showing EV maintenance and satisfaction record by latitude or state?
Did the survey ask the "would you consider" question assuming the government subsidy was still available? If it were not, how would the answer change?
I completely agree with your premise that the choice to own an EV should be market driven, not policy mandated. Has anyone asked Amazon if they would use electric vehicles if virtue signaling was unnecessary?
Regarding range anxiety, all EV sales adds should include a dog as part of the purchase package. That way, the owner has someone to walk home with when they run out of power.
All good questions. Geographically, most EVs are bought by urban dwellers of course.
Most EVs are purchased by middle-aged, university-educated professionals that earn 6-figure salaries. 81% of EV owners also own another gasoline-powered vehicle.
EV ownership is definitely higher in certain areas - California (for example) has much higher rates of EV ownership than North Dakota. I can't post a graph to a comment, but there is more information on this at https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10962.
Exactly, there is a market, but the market must choose. There is so much overreach in our current system. Apathy and ignorance by the masses….
A niche market that has been heavily influenced by overly generous tax dollar handouts from state and federal governments.
CNG is the answer. Cheap, efficient, clean, and abundant.
We included a section on CNG vehicles in our study on natural gas - https://www.mackinac.org/30545. (see page 29-31)
I work primarily on energy infrastructure projects for both fossil fuels and renewables. Your paper is well written and informative. I was aware of most of the information, but your section on environmental impact and the note on life expectancy was something I hadn’t considered. One point on wildlife conservation and the saving of habitat that isn’t often discussed is the difference in the area needed for energy production between renewables and natural gas.