I believe you passive aggressively tried to make the implication that the other posters on this thread are stupid and unaware of the existence of a benefit the transition to EVs provides to the Chinese. The point is that the majority of those that believe EVs will largely replace ICE are unconcerned by that fact because the benefits of transportation run off electricity outweigh the transfer of money to the Chinese.

A transfer of money at a rate that you so far have been unable to quantify. There is a big difference between the Chinese making $100 per vehicle sold and $10,000. At $100 per vehicle it's $1.5 billion annually at $10,000 it's $150 billion. Based upon what I know it's far closer to the $100 figure than the $10,000 figure for battery cells and packs manufactured in the U.S., which is why I'm unconcerned and have asked you to quantify it since you're so insistent, and have been for years now, that people should be concerned.


For someone so convinced of this I figured you'd have some data readily available to back it up.

hph6203 said:

---

I believe you passive aggressively tried to make the implication that the other posters on this thread are stupid and unaware of the existence of a benefit the transition to EVs provides to the Chinese. The point is that the majority of those that believe EVs will largely replace ICE are unconcerned by that fact because the benefits of transportation run off electricity outweigh the transfer of money to the Chinese.

A transfer of money at a rate that you so far have been unable to quantify. There is a big difference between the Chinese making $100 per vehicle sold and $10,000. At $100 per vehicle it's $1.5 billion annually at $10,000 it's $150 billion. Based upon what I know it's far closer to the $100 figure than the $10,000 figure for battery cells and packs manufactured in the U.S., which is why I'm unconcerned and have asked you to quantify it since you're so insistent, and have been for years now, that people should be concerned.

For someone so convinced of this I figured you'd have some data readily available to back it up.

---

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me a percentage of a battery for an EV that will be produced, for a given model, at a given date, that is of a specified non-CCP derived rate of materials sold in the US. I am disappointed no one has offered that.

I have no intent of deriding anyone's intelligence, despite your imputation of my motives. I'm not going to entertain hypothetical questions about 'relative value' until someone answers my question, reasonably. The only point I'd make is that if you can't produce/support these vehicles without that key CCP-heart of components, the battery/power source, then the relative cost of the raw material input isn't tremendously significant to the total retail price. And if it wasn't a big deal, well, the CCP wouldn't have worked so hard to corner the market in these refined metals globally.

If Joe Manchin is even worried the EV subsidies benefit China, is he also ignorant/stupid/naive, like me?

nortex97 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

I believe you passive aggressively tried to make the implication that the other posters on this thread are stupid and unaware of the existence of a benefit the transition to EVs provides to the Chinese. The point is that the majority of those that believe EVs will largely replace ICE are unconcerned by that fact because the benefits of transportation run off electricity outweigh the transfer of money to the Chinese.

A transfer of money at a rate that you so far have been unable to quantify. There is a big difference between the Chinese making $100 per vehicle sold and $10,000. At $100 per vehicle it's $1.5 billion annually at $10,000 it's $150 billion. Based upon what I know it's far closer to the $100 figure than the $10,000 figure for battery cells and packs manufactured in the U.S., which is why I'm unconcerned and have asked you to quantify it since you're so insistent, and have been for years now, that people should be concerned.

For someone so convinced of this I figured you'd have some data readily available to back it up.

---

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me a percentage of a battery for an EV that will be produced, for a given model, at a given date, that is of a specified non-CCP derived rate of materials sold in the US. I am disappointed no one has offered that.

I have no intent of deriding anyone's intelligence, despite your imputation of my motives. I'm not going to entertain hypothetical questions about 'relative value' until someone answers my question, reasonably. The only point I'd make is that if you can't produce/support these vehicles without that key CCP-heart of components, the battery/power source, then the relative cost of the raw material input isn't tremendously significant to the total retail price. And if it wasn't a big deal, well, the CCP wouldn't have worked so hard to corner the market in these refined metals globally.

If Joe Manchin is even worried the EV subsidies benefit China, is he also ignorant/stupid/naive, like me?

---

I think you know one can predict an exact date on something like that. I have twice posted that given the refineries being constructed outside China and the push for Tesla to use non-REE motors in their next power trains, you are looking at 2026-28 for the vast majority to be converted. I would bet on the model 3 and/or Y.

Now that I have done that, can you tell me when your beloved ICE vehicles will be off REE and any parts from China. Same thing with your cell phones, computers, clothes, etc….

PS. You know essentially all of us hate the subsidies for EVs and every other industry no matter who they go to. We also hate all the subsidies that have been given to the ICE manufacturers over the years. Can you say multibilllion dollar bailouts and pension contributions?!?!

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

I believe you passive aggressively tried to make the implication that the other posters on this thread are stupid and unaware of the existence of a benefit the transition to EVs provides to the Chinese. The point is that the majority of those that believe EVs will largely replace ICE are unconcerned by that fact because the benefits of transportation run off electricity outweigh the transfer of money to the Chinese.

A transfer of money at a rate that you so far have been unable to quantify. There is a big difference between the Chinese making $100 per vehicle sold and $10,000. At $100 per vehicle it's $1.5 billion annually at $10,000 it's $150 billion. Based upon what I know it's far closer to the $100 figure than the $10,000 figure for battery cells and packs manufactured in the U.S., which is why I'm unconcerned and have asked you to quantify it since you're so insistent, and have been for years now, that people should be concerned.

For someone so convinced of this I figured you'd have some data readily available to back it up.

---

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me a percentage of a battery for an EV that will be produced, for a given model, at a given date, that is of a specified non-CCP derived rate of materials sold in the US. I am disappointed no one has offered that.

I have no intent of deriding anyone's intelligence, despite your imputation of my motives. I'm not going to entertain hypothetical questions about 'relative value' until someone answers my question, reasonably. The only point I'd make is that if you can't produce/support these vehicles without that key CCP-heart of components, the battery/power source, then the relative cost of the raw material input isn't tremendously significant to the total retail price. And if it wasn't a big deal, well, the CCP wouldn't have worked so hard to corner the market in these refined metals globally.

If Joe Manchin is even worried the EV subsidies benefit China, is he also ignorant/stupid/naive, like me?

---

I think you know one can predict an exact date on something like that. I have twice posted that given the refineries being constructed outside China and the push for Tesla to use non-REE motors in their next power trains, you are looking at 2026-28 for the vast majority to be converted. I would bet on the model 3 and/or Y.

Now that I have done that, can you tell me when your beloved ICE vehicles will be off REE and any parts from China. Same thing with your cell phones, computers, clothes, etc….

PS. You know essentially all of us hate the subsidies for EVs and every other industry no matter who they go to. We also hate all the subsidies that have been given to the ICE manufacturers over the years. Can you say multibilllion dollar bailouts and pension contributions?!?!

---

A motor is not a battery, and REE is not that common in the battery anyway. Thank you though.

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

I believe you passive aggressively tried to make the implication that the other posters on this thread are stupid and unaware of the existence of a benefit the transition to EVs provides to the Chinese. The point is that the majority of those that believe EVs will largely replace ICE are unconcerned by that fact because the benefits of transportation run off electricity outweigh the transfer of money to the Chinese.

A transfer of money at a rate that you so far have been unable to quantify. There is a big difference between the Chinese making $100 per vehicle sold and $10,000. At $100 per vehicle it's $1.5 billion annually at $10,000 it's $150 billion. Based upon what I know it's far closer to the $100 figure than the $10,000 figure for battery cells and packs manufactured in the U.S., which is why I'm unconcerned and have asked you to quantify it since you're so insistent, and have been for years now, that people should be concerned.

For someone so convinced of this I figured you'd have some data readily available to back it up.

---

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me a percentage of a battery for an EV that will be produced, for a given model, at a given date, that is of a specified non-CCP derived rate of materials sold in the US. I am disappointed no one has offered that.

I have no intent of deriding anyone's intelligence, despite your imputation of my motives. I'm not going to entertain hypothetical questions about 'relative value' until someone answers my question, reasonably. The only point I'd make is that if you can't produce/support these vehicles without that key CCP-heart of components, the battery/power source, then the relative cost of the raw material input isn't tremendously significant to the total retail price. And if it wasn't a big deal, well, the CCP wouldn't have worked so hard to corner the market in these refined metals globally.

If Joe Manchin is even worried the EV subsidies benefit China, is he also ignorant/stupid/naive, like me?

---

I think you know one can predict an exact date on something like that. I have twice posted that given the refineries being constructed outside China and the push for Tesla to use non-REE motors in their next power trains, you are looking at 2026-28 for the vast majority to be converted. I would bet on the model 3 and/or Y.

Now that I have done that, can you tell me when your beloved ICE vehicles will be off REE and any parts from China. Same thing with your cell phones, computers, clothes, etc….

PS. You know essentially all of us hate the subsidies for EVs and every other industry no matter who they go to. We also hate all the subsidies that have been given to the ICE manufacturers over the years. Can you say multibilllion dollar bailouts and pension contributions?!?!

---

A motor is not a battery, and REE is not that common in the battery anyway. Thank you though.

---

So are you saying there are no REE in ICE vehicles? Try again.

Here is a chart from an auto supplier showing where they are used in cars. Good luck running a car without an alternator or starter not to mention brakes.

nortex97 said:

---

🔸 MANCHIN CRITICIZES BIDEN EV TAX CREDIT RULES AS SOFT ON CHINA

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) December 1, 2023

Weird, I guess Joe Manchin didn't get the memo that EV's are not favorable to CCP China.

---

And Machin says he's not running. Who does he think he's fooling.

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

I believe you passive aggressively tried to make the implication that the other posters on this thread are stupid and unaware of the existence of a benefit the transition to EVs provides to the Chinese. The point is that the majority of those that believe EVs will largely replace ICE are unconcerned by that fact because the benefits of transportation run off electricity outweigh the transfer of money to the Chinese.

A transfer of money at a rate that you so far have been unable to quantify. There is a big difference between the Chinese making $100 per vehicle sold and $10,000. At $100 per vehicle it's $1.5 billion annually at $10,000 it's $150 billion. Based upon what I know it's far closer to the $100 figure than the $10,000 figure for battery cells and packs manufactured in the U.S., which is why I'm unconcerned and have asked you to quantify it since you're so insistent, and have been for years now, that people should be concerned.

For someone so convinced of this I figured you'd have some data readily available to back it up.

---

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me a percentage of a battery for an EV that will be produced, for a given model, at a given date, that is of a specified non-CCP derived rate of materials sold in the US. I am disappointed no one has offered that.

I have no intent of deriding anyone's intelligence, despite your imputation of my motives. I'm not going to entertain hypothetical questions about 'relative value' until someone answers my question, reasonably. The only point I'd make is that if you can't produce/support these vehicles without that key CCP-heart of components, the battery/power source, then the relative cost of the raw material input isn't tremendously significant to the total retail price. And if it wasn't a big deal, well, the CCP wouldn't have worked so hard to corner the market in these refined metals globally.

If Joe Manchin is even worried the EV subsidies benefit China, is he also ignorant/stupid/naive, like me?

---

I think you know one can predict an exact date on something like that. I have twice posted that given the refineries being constructed outside China and the push for Tesla to use non-REE motors in their next power trains, you are looking at 2026-28 for the vast majority to be converted. I would bet on the model 3 and/or Y.

Now that I have done that, can you tell me when your beloved ICE vehicles will be off REE and any parts from China. Same thing with your cell phones, computers, clothes, etc….

PS. You know essentially all of us hate the subsidies for EVs and every other industry no matter who they go to. We also hate all the subsidies that have been given to the ICE manufacturers over the years. Can you say multibilllion dollar bailouts and pension contributions?!?!

---

A motor is not a battery, and REE is not that common in the battery anyway. Thank you though.

---

So are you saying there are no REE in ICE vehicles? Try again.

Here is a chart from an auto supplier showing where they are used in cars. Good luck running a car without an alternator or starter not to mention brakes.

---

No idea at all what your point here is but thank you for taking an increased interest in magnets. It's remarkable how such a simple question about EV batteries can generate so many responses from EV fans, without any on-point data within them.

Now, as an aside, as the resident EV CCP expert, I think I should share that the Biden regime issued new rules yesterday trying to cut down on CCP if manufacturers 'vouch' for their supply chains. LOL. Sure thing, Albert Gore.

Quote:

---

Under the proposal, automakers would vouch that their supplies came from companies that aren't headquartered in China and aren't controlled by Chinese companies or investors. Only deals that gave American manufacturers "effective control" over how products are made and sold would get federal funding, according to a senior administration official in a media briefing.

Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, a trade group for EV-related companies, said that based on the limited information available, the rule is "an enforcement regime that seems to be workable."

The rule is targeted at so-called foreign entities of concern, a category created in last year's Inflation Reduction Act alongside generous funding for the EV supply chain. The definition includes several countries, but China is the significant one, given the country's dominance in the battery industry.
Unless they follow the government's measures, new EV supply-chain companies could lose access to $6 billion in federal grants. Automakers also won't be able to offer customers all or part of a $7,500 tax rebate on EV purchases.

The rule, which has a 30-day comment period, establishes the beginnings of a system for automakers to track critical minerals contained in their cars from the source and for the IRS and the Energy Department to review the materials that automakers procure. The new requirements will kick in over two years, starting in 2024.

---

Why are they having to do this if EV's don't come from CCP sourced goods/metals, already? Well, when none of our 'EV's are not CCP' posters have an answer, and even NPR has documented that…well the CCP is the big winner with EV's.

Quote:

---

DOMONOSKE: In fact, when it comes to the massive batteries that are essential to electric vehicles, China is way ahead. It controls something like three-quarters of the market for the raw materials that go into these batteries, like lithium, cobalt and nickel. So automakers rely on China for these minerals. And as companies go electric, they'll need a lot more.

KWASI AMPOFO: You're looking at a scenario where demand is going to jump about eight times what it is.
DOMONOSKE: Kwasi Ampofo is the head of metals and mining at BloombergNEF.

Now, it's not like China won the geological lottery and just happens to have a bunch of rich deposits. These particular minerals are in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South America and Australia. Instead of getting lucky, China got busy.

AMPOFO: The other way of bringing metals onshore into your country is to build the refineries that are needed to actually refine these metals. And that is where the China story started 10 years ago.
DOMONOSKE: Beijing decided it wanted to dominate the electric vehicle market down to the minerals. China has an authoritarian government that often intervenes in the economy. When it makes a decision like this, it acts on it.

---

So is NPR, and Joe Manchin way off base on this? No, imho, and Americans should resist, as they are doing more and more, the push (not just 'mandates') from our CCP-friendly Democrat government toward buying CCP-backed EV's. It's not just the 4,000 car dealers' fault.

No Spin Ag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

🔸 MANCHIN CRITICIZES BIDEN EV TAX CREDIT RULES AS SOFT ON CHINA

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) December 1, 2023

Weird, I guess Joe Manchin didn't get the memo that EV's are not favorable to CCP China.

---

And Machin says he's not running. Who does he think he's fooling.

---

In general he is only ever honest during election years, but in this case I think he realizes that even coming 'clean' about policies/issues for the next 11 months wouldn't save him. I think he's done unless he tries to leverage his 'brand' into some cash as a presidential/VP nominee for an independent etc.

Nortex, the point is your vehicle relies on the Chinese for its parts and no manufacturer is talking about getting REEs out of their vehicles. Tesla and other EV manufacturers have announced plans to go back to induction motors so they will use essentially no REE other than potentially the windshield wipers and electric windows. You on the other hand will be the Communist supporter with your ICE vehicle. That is the point.

Also remember we need REE in our refineries as part of the FCC catalyst which is where the majority of gasoline blend components are made. Most catalytic converters have REE as well.

REE or REEEEEEEE

GAC06 said:

---

REE or REEEEEEEE

---

For libs, it's the latter.

For those that say oil isn't heavily subsidized, I give you the US military. Please convince me we care about Guyana other than it is a major oil producer with assets held by US oil companies.

WAR: Biden has committed US AirPower to defend Guyana from Venezuela. Do you support American involvement in yet another conflict? How many wars is too many? pic.twitter.com/GIGRUKe4iY

— @amuse (@amuse) December 7, 2023

Kansas Kid said:

---

For those that say oil isn't heavily subsidized, I give you the US military. Please convince me we care about Guyana other than it is a major oil producer with assets held by US oil companies.

WAR: Biden has committed US AirPower to defend Guyana from Venezuela. Do you support American involvement in yet another conflict? How many wars is too many? pic.twitter.com/GIGRUKe4iY

— @amuse (@amuse) December 7, 2023

---

Hey genius we could produce our own oil without these wars. So consider yourself convinced.

texagbeliever said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

For those that say oil isn't heavily subsidized, I give you the US military. Please convince me we care about Guyana other than it is a major oil producer with assets held by US oil companies.

WAR: Biden has committed US AirPower to defend Guyana from Venezuela. Do you support American involvement in yet another conflict? How many wars is too many? pic.twitter.com/GIGRUKe4iY

— @amuse (@amuse) December 7, 2023

---

Hey genius we could produce our own oil without these wars. So consider yourself convinced.

---

And what would be the price of that oil? Also, our refineries import the overseas oil while we export the light shale oil. Can you please enlighten us since you are a genius on why we do that?

If we aren't worried about their oil production, why do we care about Guyana? Why did we care about Kuwait? Why have we made accommodations to allow Russian oil onto the market?

Let me give you some reading to help with your reply.
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/oil-conflict-and-us-national-interests

LOL, and wow. You have really come out of your shell to lambast 'the oil industry' via the Harvard Kennedy School.

Quote:

---

Conclusion

Appreciating the eight ways in which oil contributes to war can help policymakers design grand strategy, allocate military resources, and shape domestic energy policy. Policy analysts tend to focus too narrowly on "energy security" as defined only by reliable access to fuel supplies, while missing the broader relationships between energy and security. Only by thinking systematically about the oil-conflict relationship can they craft intelligent foreign policy.

---

Not impacting my stance on EV's being a CCP platform/tool. Next I bet Fergie Chambers can be cited as a source here, from down the road at MIT;

Fergie Chambers is the heir to the Cox Media empire. He is also a devoted Communist and a fan of Mao (see tattoo on his thigh). He is spending his fortune from capitalism on a proletariat Revolution to overthrow capitalism.

How was he introduced to Communism? By a history… pic.twitter.com/V0KeJutqr7

— Xi Van Fleet (@XVanFleet) December 7, 2023

So Nortex, why not answer my questions. I would think most educated adults wouldn't think we are supporting the Saudi's because they're a great country. That we went into Kuwait out of the goodness of our heart. Allow Russian oil on the market because we just think it is the right thing to do. Removed sanctions on Venezuela because they have seen the light.

Why do we export shale oil and import heavy oil from Mexico, Canada and Venezuela?

Do you really think we don't haven't used the US military to protect oil trade and production?

Kansas Kid said:

---

So Nortex, why not answer my questions. I would think most educated adults wouldn't think we are supporting the Saudi's because they're a great country. That we went into Kuwait out of the goodness of our heart. Allow Russian oil on the market because we just think it is the right thing to do. Removed sanctions on Venezuela because they have seen the light.

Why do we export shale oil and import heavy oil from Mexico, Canada and Venezuela?

Do you really think we don't haven't used the US military to protect oil trade and production?

---

I didn't really read your questions.

The answer to what you posted here that I am responding to: Joe Biden. Ukraine war has also been about Joe Biden using Russia-Ukraine as a proxy to spike global oil and gas prices. You're welcome.

Quote:

---

You have really come out of your shell to lambast 'the oil industry' via the Harvard Kennedy School.

---

Maybe it's just another perspective?

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

So Nortex, why not answer my questions. I would think most educated adults wouldn't think we are supporting the Saudi's because they're a great country. That we went into Kuwait out of the goodness of our heart. Allow Russian oil on the market because we just think it is the right thing to do. Removed sanctions on Venezuela because they have seen the light.

Why do we export shale oil and import heavy oil from Mexico, Canada and Venezuela?

Do you really think we don't haven't used the US military to protect oil trade and production?

---

I didn't really read your questions.

The answer to what you posted here that I am responding to: Joe Biden. Ukraine war has also been about Joe Biden using Russia-Ukraine as a proxy to spike global oil and gas prices. You're welcome.

---

You say that with no proof. Ukraine is the 58th largest oil producer in the world. If that was the goal, then why not use it to prevent Russian oil from getting to market rather than putting a cap on the oil price. Also, how do higher prices help Biden get reelected? He released the SPR to bring down prices because he was getting killed in the polls for high gasoline prices.

Once again, you choose not to answer any questions that expose the flaws in your arguments.

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

So Nortex, why not answer my questions. I would think most educated adults wouldn't think we are supporting the Saudi's because they're a great country. That we went into Kuwait out of the goodness of our heart. Allow Russian oil on the market because we just think it is the right thing to do. Removed sanctions on Venezuela because they have seen the light.

Why do we export shale oil and import heavy oil from Mexico, Canada and Venezuela?

Do you really think we don't haven't used the US military to protect oil trade and production?

---

I didn't really read your questions.

The answer to what you posted here that I am responding to: Joe Biden. Ukraine war has also been about Joe Biden using Russia-Ukraine as a proxy to spike global oil and gas prices. You're welcome.

---

You say that with no proof. Ukraine is the 58th largest oil producer in the world. If that was the goal, then why not use it to prevent Russian oil from getting to market rather than putting a cap on the oil price. Also, how do higher prices help Biden get reelected? He released the SPR to bring down prices because he was getting killed in the polls for high gasoline prices.

Once again, you choose not to answer any questions that expose the flaws in your arguments.

---

Your cognitive dissonance is showing again. The whole war functionally took a lot of Russian and Ukrainian oil off the market. Sanctions and bombs. Don't take my word for it, look it up for around 20 seconds. All for the Biden proxy war in Ukraine:

Quote:

---

Global energy prices have been steadily rising since mid-2021 as pent-up demand spurred by the post-pandemic recovery fuelled considerable tightness in the energy market. This dynamic was particularly pronounced in Europe where Russia's invasion of Ukraine added unprecedented pressure to the European energy market: between 23 February, the day before the start of the conflict, and 31 July (27 September), European gas and electricity wholesale prices increased by 115% (109%) and 237% (138%), respectively. As the war escalated, prices tensions spread from the spot market to the whole term structure of futures energy prices, suggesting that the cost of energy will remain higher for longer.

Europe's heavy reliance on energy imports from Russia explains the marked response of local energy prices to the war in Ukraine. In 2020, Russia accounted for around 29% of crude oil and 43% of natural gas imports into the EU, though dependence on Russian energy exhibits a large heterogeneity across member states, with countries in central and Eastern Europe, Germany, and Italy displaying the greatest reliance.

The war in Ukraine has spurred a prolific policy and academic debate spanning across multiple dimensions (Garicano et al. 2022). Most recent contributions concerning the economic implications have analysed how the war has exacerbated recession risks and inflation dynamics (Bachmann et al. 2022, Ferrara et al. 2022, Pestova et al. 2022), and amplified trade disruptions and supply bottlenecks (Borin et al. 2022, Langot et al. 2022). Micro-level evidence is still scarce and mostly reliant on event studies to quantify the impact of the Russian invasion on companies' stock prices (Boungou and Yati 2022, Boubaker et al. 2022).

---

Higher energy prices are a goal of the communists/left/democrats, and it's reflected across their policy decisions/actions since he was sworn in. The WEF, notably, loved it.

Yay, more consumer pushback on EV's being noted here and in Europe as the politicians are failing to find funding to force consumers to buy them;

Quote:

---

An Edmunds Used Vehicle report says:

Quote:

---

Used EV values feel the aftershock from price cuts on new EVs: With electric vehicle demand slowing and dealers struggling to move new EVs off lots, the near-immediate impact on used values should be unsettling to anyone who has recently bought an EV, new or used. Such large, overarching price adjustments are rare, even when there's increased competition with traditional gas-engine vehicles or redesigns that usher in selldowns of outgoing models. The difference here is the price cuts aren't just for one or two new models; new EVs across the board are collecting dust, requiring OEM discounts in addition to the already hefty tax credits to move into buyers' hands. Beyond pricing issues for new EVs, the low resale values for used EVs could become a major deterrent to new EV purchases and EV adoption more broadly.

---

It's not a good situation to be in. What dealers have to do to move them is working against them.
It's not only the US feeling the lack of love for EVs, either. The European union has had to cave to reality in their Green Dreaming, and back off the proposed tariffs they had planned, because EV sales are nowhere near where they'd projected they'd be at this point. And there is no indication they are going to get there any time soon.

POOF! goes that Green-pie-in-the-sky revenue stream, before it even began.

Quote:

---

Brussels delays electric car tariffs as UK EV sales slump

Postponement of new trade rules comes amid a collapse in private buyer demand for EVs
Brussels is set to push back planned post-Brexit tariffs on electric cars by three years in a boost for vehicle manufacturers on both sides of the Channel.

The European Commission will reportedly approve a plan to delay new tariffs that would add 10pc to the cost of many electric cars from January.

News of the delay came as industry figures showed that sales of electric vehicles in the UK fell by the most ever in a month in November after Rishi Sunak's climbdown on banning petrol models.
Sales of electric vehicles (EVs) plummeted by 17pc in November, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).

---

When people in the UK realized they'd gotten a reprieve and weren't being forced to buy EVs after all, well…they didn't.

That should tell the powers that be something, but I'm an optimist. It's enough that that the EU scaled back plans to soak the consumer further, without adding to the general misery already established dictating every facet of citizens' lives.

---

One of the only good news stories of the Ukraine war is that it has stretched EU budgets so much they can't subsidize EV's more and more right now to connive more consumers to buy them.

So if the US hadn't sent aid to Ukraine, you seem to be saying energy prices wouldn't have gone up. I say this because you blame it on "Biden's proxy war." It is either that or you believe Biden and the liberals convinced Putin to invade Ukraine.

You still haven't refuted anything about the US military having heavily subsidized oil btw over the last number of decades. If you really don't believe it, convince us as to why we care about the situation in Guyana. I assure you Exxon, Chevron and others are lobbying for military action to protect their investments.

Kansas Kid said:

---

So if the US hadn't sent aid to Ukraine, you seem to be saying energy prices wouldn't have gone up. I say this because you blame it on "Biden's proxy war." It is either that or you believe Biden and the liberals convinced Putin to invade Ukraine.

You still haven't refuted anything about the US military having heavily subsidized oil btw over the last number of decades. If you really don't believe it, convince us as to why we care about the situation in Guyana. I assure you Exxon, Chevron and others are lobbying for military action to protect their investments.

---

I almost admire how determined you are to make this an oil industry debate thread. I'm no expert but maybe start a thread to debate that? This is a Wendy's, for people who won't be buying EV's, namely.

Your "lot of Russian supply taken off the market". There was a small disruption for 2 months.

Also, if Biden wanted higher oil prices to stick, why did he go aggressively lobby the Saudi's to ramp up production shortly after Russian invaded Ukraine.

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

So if the US hadn't sent aid to Ukraine, you seem to be saying energy prices wouldn't have gone up. I say this because you blame it on "Biden's proxy war." It is either that or you believe Biden and the liberals convinced Putin to invade Ukraine.

You still haven't refuted anything about the US military having heavily subsidized oil btw over the last number of decades. If you really don't believe it, convince us as to why we care about the situation in Guyana. I assure you Exxon, Chevron and others are lobbying for military action to protect their investments.

---

I almost admire how determined you are to make this an oil industry debate thread. I'm no expert but maybe start a thread to debate that? This is a Wendy's, for people who won't be buying EV's, namely.

---

You claim EVs get a ton of subsidies (which they do) but it can be argued it is less than oil gets once you include American military actions many of which have cost Americans their lives. In other words, the US subsidizes energy a lot and have for a long time.

If you are going to keep saying EVs are the worst thing ever, you need to defend how they are better than the alternative.

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

So if the US hadn't sent aid to Ukraine, you seem to be saying energy prices wouldn't have gone up. I say this because you blame it on "Biden's proxy war." It is either that or you believe Biden and the liberals convinced Putin to invade Ukraine.

You still haven't refuted anything about the US military having heavily subsidized oil btw over the last number of decades. If you really don't believe it, convince us as to why we care about the situation in Guyana. I assure you Exxon, Chevron and others are lobbying for military action to protect their investments.

---

I almost admire how determined you are to make this an oil industry debate thread. I'm no expert but maybe start a thread to debate that? This is a Wendy's, for people who won't be buying EV's, namely.

---

You claim EVs get a ton of subsidies (which they do) but it can be argued it is less than oil gets once you include American military actions many of which have cost Americans their lives. In other words, the US subsidizes energy a lot and have for a long time.

If you are going to keep saying EVs are the worst thing ever, you need to defend how they are better than the alternative.

---

Ok, well, this is almost on topic at least. (And Biden(*) does love Saudi/Venezuelan oil and gas more than American oil and gas because Democrats hate American energy independence as a founding principle, right up there with their faith that african american children should be slaughtered in and out of the womb).

EV's and ICE vehicles alike rely on oil and gas products for charging/fueling and their production (EV's require much more in production, where they in fact are a lot worse for the environment). EV's however also require more metals refined from China, the global supply of which China has largely monopolized, as documented ad nauseum up thread.

We shouldn't subsidize a key consumer product as a replacement that is wholly dependent on a periodically replaced battery/engine/key component like the BEV lithium ion batteries which has such dependence from China. They are also less safe and have use case scenario's which are silly. HTH. China and the American leftists/communists are pushing them for a reason, and it's not American patriotism.

We warned you. 👇

‘My jaw dropped’: Car owner shocked by $20,000 price tag to replace hybrid battery https://t.co/vgpvqYjz6R

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) December 9, 2023

Belongs in the hybrid thread, and is a pretty good example of why hybrids are dead technology long term. All the added extra infrastructure, smaller batteries that are destined to die faster, and you have to buy a gas engine on top of it.

$20,000 is "**** you we don't want to fix it" pricing, not actual cost of materials.

Mustang Mach-E loses fed subsidies Jan 1 because new LFP batteries are…from the CCP directly. Now, raise your hand if you are surprised the newest battery tech is CCP-dependent!

Quote:

---

Vehicles that are assembled in North America, and whose batteries are made up of materials that are primarily sourced from the U.S.A. and its allies, are eligible for up to $7,500 in tax credits under the IRA. However, incoming modifications to the rule mean that EVs whose batteries are made using materials from "foreign entities of concern" are not eligible for any credits, which appears to be what Ford is concerned about here.

China is one of those concerning entities, and Ford announced earlier this year that certain vehicles in its lineup will be powered by lithium iron phosphate batteries. The cheaper batteries use technology licensed from China's CATL.

Although Ford plans to assemble the batteries in Michigan, the plant that builds them won't be up and running until 2026. However, base model versions of the Mustang Mach-E have started using LFP batteries, and reports suggest that they come straight from CATL.

---

There's nothing special about a hybrid battery vs. a BEV one, other than the former being smaller/cheaper. And we do have folks shopping for BEV's who then deflect to hybrids thinking they get around some problems/costs entirely, so stories like this are helpful to keep in mind, imho, here. Same politics for the batteries too, as far as CCP, though if it's not a plug in hybrid at least the risk of fire while charging at home is lower.

Yes, you have explained why hybrids as a technology are bad. They are inherently more expensive than gas currently and they are more expensive than BEV long term.

You are living in a false reality where gas will remain competitive with BEV long term. Higher energy densities, faster charge rates, more charge cycles and cheaper batteries are going to incrementally reduce demand for gas vehicles (they are already losing market share to BEV, while BEV is nowhere near cost of production efficiency).

What you're advocating for would result in not just a proportion of the battery getting directed to China, but the whole damn car. It's bad chess.

Ice vehicles should also get cheaper, and oil and gas as well, in my lifetime anyway, I'd the government would get out of the way a bit. Everything else you posted is wishcasting.

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

So if the US hadn't sent aid to Ukraine, you seem to be saying energy prices wouldn't have gone up. I say this because you blame it on "Biden's proxy war." It is either that or you believe Biden and the liberals convinced Putin to invade Ukraine.

You still haven't refuted anything about the US military having heavily subsidized oil btw over the last number of decades. If you really don't believe it, convince us as to why we care about the situation in Guyana. I assure you Exxon, Chevron and others are lobbying for military action to protect their investments.

---

I almost admire how determined you are to make this an oil industry debate thread. I'm no expert but maybe start a thread to debate that? This is a Wendy's, for people who won't be buying EV's, namely.

---

You claim EVs get a ton of subsidies (which they do) but it can be argued it is less than oil gets once you include American military actions many of which have cost Americans their lives. In other words, the US subsidizes energy a lot and have for a long time.

If you are going to keep saying EVs are the worst thing ever, you need to defend how they are better than the alternative.

---

Ok, well, this is almost on topic at least. (And Biden(*) does love Saudi/Venezuelan oil and gas more than American oil and gas because Democrats hate American energy independence as a founding principle, right up there with their faith that african american children should be slaughtered in and out of the womb).

EV's and ICE vehicles alike rely on oil and gas products for charging/fueling and their production (EV's require much more in production, where they in fact are a lot worse for the environment). EV's however also require more metals refined from China, the global supply of which China has largely monopolized, as documented ad nauseum up thread.

We shouldn't subsidize a key consumer product as a replacement that is wholly dependent on a periodically replaced battery/engine/key component like the BEV lithium ion batteries which has such dependence from China. They are also less safe and have use case scenario's which are silly. HTH. China and the American leftists/communists are pushing them for a reason, and it's not American patriotism.

---

We agree on no product should be subsidized. Where we disagree is your statement there is no use case for an EV.

People like you are just like Biden and libs, you think you know what is best for everyone when you say the use case for EVs are silly. That is central planning at its core. I and a lot of others on this thread are neither pro EV or pro ICE. We believe both (and hybrids) have use cases but only each consumer can make that decision for themselves.

As for the safety risk, there is a lot more to safety than the risk of fires while in the garage. The biggest risk, by far, is the risk of dying in a traffic accident. If you want to try to convince us, show us how they are a higher risk than an ICE in an accident.

I drive a 5.0 truck with a race tune, guzzling lots of gas. I tow a trailer and that won't change.

The best reason to buy a Cybertruck for the wife is the 2.8 seconds for when I drive it. Who the heck doesn't want that! The rest of the politics be damned it's a grocery hauler.

Edit: I don't think it fits in garage so she's out. For now……

Build It said:

---

I drive a 5.0 truck with a race tune, guzzling lots of gas. I tow a trailer and that won't change.

The best reason to buy a Cybertruck for the wife is the 2.8 seconds for when I drive it. Who the heck doesn't want that! The rest of the politics be damned it's a grocery hauler.

Edit: I don't think it fits in garage so she's out. For now……

---

And that is and should be your right as an American. As for a grocery getter. Get your wife the model S with Plaid mode and enjoy 0-60 in under 2 seconds. No reason to settle for a "pedestrian" 2.8 seconds.

nortex97 said:

---

Ice vehicles should also get cheaper, and oil and gas as well, in my lifetime anyway, I'd the government would get out of the way a bit. Everything else you posted is wishcasting.

---

The price of ICE vehicles has been rising, their volumes have been falling on average since 2017, they're now dealing with incremental loss of market to BEV, which means reduction in part volumes, which increases part prices, which drives up costs, which drives up price of the finished vehicle. There is margin compression coming to the market for ICE which will look like falling prices, but it's not falling costs.

The EV prices are falling due to the limited number of parts, the proportion of overlap in parts between different vehicles and vehicle types, and the capacity for those parts production to be further and further automated. That and the production efficiencies have not been fully realized in terms of each one of those individual parts, like, I dunno, the batteries.

When you talk about wishcasting, believing that ICE vehicles are meaningfully going to fall in price is just that.