Supercharger v4 debuting.

https://electrek.co/2024/08/05/tesla-testing-supercharging-at-over-300-kw/

China recall.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-fix-17-mln-vehicles-china-says-market-regulator-2024-08-06/

nortex97 said:

---

Coral reefs and rain forests destroyed mining for nickel in Indonesia.

Quote:

---

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that global demand for the metal will grow at least 65 per cent by 2030, and EVs and battery storage are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel by 2040.

Billion dollar Chinese firms anchor the nickel market in Indonesia, but they are often fed cheap ore by hundreds of smaller, mostly locally-owned mines that dot the rainforest. These mines have transformed once-peaceful agrarian villages and communities, providing economic opportunity but a health and environmental crisis looms from pollution.

---

Filthy Chicom batteries.

---

So I assume since you are outraged by the damage to the land you are also calling for a ban on stainless steel which is 65% of the use of nickel today (I will await your new thread calling for this). EVs are around 1% of total global demand. All batteries including the ones in your other devices is less than 3%.

Glad you continue to show your tree hugging credentials.

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Coral reefs and rain forests destroyed mining for nickel in Indonesia.

Quote:

---

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that global demand for the metal will grow at least 65 per cent by 2030, and EVs and battery storage are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel by 2040.

Billion dollar Chinese firms anchor the nickel market in Indonesia, but they are often fed cheap ore by hundreds of smaller, mostly locally-owned mines that dot the rainforest. These mines have transformed once-peaceful agrarian villages and communities, providing economic opportunity but a health and environmental crisis looms from pollution.

---

Filthy Chicom batteries.

---

So I assume since you are outraged by the damage to the land you are also calling for a ban on stainless steel which is 65% of the use of nickel today (I will await your new thread calling for this). EVs are around 1% of total global demand. All batteries including the ones in your other devices is less than 3%.

Glad you continue to show your tree hugging credentials.

---

The point isn't that nickel isn't necessary but that getting it from Chinese owned companies that rape the environment and leave massive toxic tailings and poisoned waters is the problem. EV companies default to buying Chinese batteries and ignore how the metals in those batteries are mined. The choice isn't between nickel or no nickel but rather a choice on how it is mined and by whom.

Ulysses90 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Coral reefs and rain forests destroyed mining for nickel in Indonesia.

Quote:

---

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that global demand for the metal will grow at least 65 per cent by 2030, and EVs and battery storage are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel by 2040.

Billion dollar Chinese firms anchor the nickel market in Indonesia, but they are often fed cheap ore by hundreds of smaller, mostly locally-owned mines that dot the rainforest. These mines have transformed once-peaceful agrarian villages and communities, providing economic opportunity but a health and environmental crisis looms from pollution.

---

Filthy Chicom batteries.

---

So I assume since you are outraged by the damage to the land you are also calling for a ban on stainless steel which is 65% of the use of nickel today (I will await your new thread calling for this). EVs are around 1% of total global demand. All batteries including the ones in your other devices is less than 3%.

Glad you continue to show your tree hugging credentials.

---

The point isn't that nickel isn't necessary but that getting it from Chinese owned companies that rape the environment and leave massive toxic tailings and poisoned waters is the problem. EV companies default to buying Chinese batteries and ignore how the metals in those batteries are mined. The choice isn't between nickel or no nickel but rather a choice on how it is mined and by whom.

---

Well said. Chi-coms pillaging the earth for batteries is the point, not responsible production of old school materials like stainless steel.

The issue isn't so much that it isn't possible, but that the impact on the used vehicle market will be a lot of folks who don't realize how the battery was treated, for instance with fleet vehicles which might use this fast charging often in communist cities. Oh, and there's no standardized requirement as to how a seller/manufacturer should disclose how the battery was used etc. which I'm aware of.

And the cooling while charging (and discharging) doesn't actually often work 'perfectly' across all cells, which eventually leads to significant degradation/risks in different parts of the massive batteries.

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Coral reefs and rain forests destroyed mining for nickel in Indonesia.

Quote:

---

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that global demand for the metal will grow at least 65 per cent by 2030, and EVs and battery storage are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel by 2040.

Billion dollar Chinese firms anchor the nickel market in Indonesia, but they are often fed cheap ore by hundreds of smaller, mostly locally-owned mines that dot the rainforest. These mines have transformed once-peaceful agrarian villages and communities, providing economic opportunity but a health and environmental crisis looms from pollution.

---

Filthy Chicom batteries.

---

So I assume since you are outraged by the damage to the land you are also calling for a ban on stainless steel which is 65% of the use of nickel today (I will await your new thread calling for this). EVs are around 1% of total global demand. All batteries including the ones in your other devices is less than 3%.

Glad you continue to show your tree hugging credentials.

---

I don't know that there is necessarily an outrage by the damage to the land. It is more of a reference to the hypocrisy of the narrative of the Left that EV's are "green". The people pushing that green narrative will continue to get the eye roll from people that can see through the nonsense.

I think if the push for EV's were that they are quicker and quieter then a regular, common sense person would think that makes sense. The rest of the EV propaganda is just a big money laundering scheme for the politicians we continue to elect. The "EV's are green" is the leading sheep herder for our increasingly stupid population.

Ulysses90 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Coral reefs and rain forests destroyed mining for nickel in Indonesia.

Quote:

---

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that global demand for the metal will grow at least 65 per cent by 2030, and EVs and battery storage are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel by 2040.

Billion dollar Chinese firms anchor the nickel market in Indonesia, but they are often fed cheap ore by hundreds of smaller, mostly locally-owned mines that dot the rainforest. These mines have transformed once-peaceful agrarian villages and communities, providing economic opportunity but a health and environmental crisis looms from pollution.

---

Filthy Chicom batteries.

---

So I assume since you are outraged by the damage to the land you are also calling for a ban on stainless steel which is 65% of the use of nickel today (I will await your new thread calling for this). EVs are around 1% of total global demand. All batteries including the ones in your other devices is less than 3%.

Glad you continue to show your tree hugging credentials.

---

The point isn't that nickel isn't necessary but that getting it from Chinese owned companies that rape the environment and leave massive toxic tailings and poisoned waters is the problem. EV companies default to buying Chinese batteries and ignore how the metals in those batteries are mined. The choice isn't between nickel or no nickel but rather a choice on how it is mined and by whom.

---

Where is the outrage over Chinese stainless steel?

Good editorial from PJ Media. The EV Scam: A Likely Reason for So Epic a Folly:

Quote:

---

Fewer and fewer people want these cars. As I've written in meticulous detail, they comprise a technical hazard, a convenience disaster, an energy cannibal, a financial liability, and a moral ignominy. The defects associated with the industry are effectively insurmountable for the indefinite future. Cost is prohibitive. EVs are overall polluters. There is not nearly enough available electric power to fuel them. They are not eco-friendly, despite what the propaganda industry would have us believe. The lithium-ion battery is an IED waiting to detonate, flammable, corrosive, and toxic. My neighbor, a Director of Engineering for a major tech firm, cautions: "Never park an EV in an enclosed garage. Not if you value your house."

---

Quote:

---

Detractors may dispute my facts, but aside from months of dedicated research, I have the advantage of a scientist son who runs the nanotechnology lab at a major university and whose experimental knowledge and expertise I am privy to. His analysis of the hazards associated with the lithium-ion battery is devastating. One can't get around the potentially lethal technological issues relating to these batteries and stay honest.

EV drivers, whether they know it or not, seem to have a suicidal impulse and must be talked off the ledge. The EV will never be a savvy consumer's choice. It is only through the tyrannical fiat that the EV, suitable only for a circumscribed urban environment, can become an automotive staple. The imposition of such monstrosities on the market eliminates the democratic option of mobile freedom.

The obvious question has to do with the reason governments have invested so heavily and at such expense in forcing so radical and risky a policy as the complete transformation of the auto sector and the introduction of EVs known to be unreliable, dangerous, and inefficient. After all, the automotive industry is a key element in national prosperity.

Why tinker with the golden goose, the cash cow, or any other theriomorphic image one might wish to use? Why sell one's birthright for a mess of pottage, which is what the EV industry actually is? Todd Lewis, a commenter on my previous article on PJ Media, put it succinctly. "It is a way for governments to advance totalitarian control of the populace, wreck the economy, and disempower the middle class." His thesis is backed up in Joel Kotkin's masterpiece "The Coming of Neo-Feudalism." Kotkin chronicles how the once-numerous and thriving middle class is relentlessly being phased out of existence by a power elite intent on re-medievalizing society while advancing their own social, political, and economic supremacy. Like the serf who lacked freedom of movement and was bound to the lord's estate, the enfiefed EV owner for various reasons is tethered to a sort of manorial orbit.

The fact is that EV obsession has nothing to do with "saving the earth," replacing fossil energy with presumably "clean" alternatives, or reducing across-the-board costs involving transportation and maintenance all of which reasons are contra-indicated by the facts. They are delusions, mere fetishes, or outright lies that a modicum of sober research would render null and void. The real issue has to do with the ongoing battle between a market economy and a command economy, between a business-oriented system and a centripetal Marxist political organization, and between an individualistic political economy and oligarchic socialism.

The EV project is a major strategy in a political program that envisages replacing not simply fossil fuel propulsion with electrical power, which is neither feasible nor even conceivable, but swapping a free market economy, in which the law of supply and demand determines output and prices, for a centralized government authority that dictates production, prices, and distribution. Top-down control supersedes private enterprise.

---

Sorry, more at the link, but I don't want to copy/paste too much. Worth the click, imho!

nortex97 said:

---

Good editorial from PJ Media. The EV Scam: A Likely Reason for So Epic a Folly:

Quote:

---

Fewer and fewer people want these cars. As I've written in meticulous detail, they comprise a technical hazard, a convenience disaster, an energy cannibal, a financial liability, and a moral ignominy. The defects associated with the industry are effectively insurmountable for the indefinite future. Cost is prohibitive. EVs are overall polluters. There is not nearly enough available electric power to fuel them. They are not eco-friendly, despite what the propaganda industry would have us believe. The lithium-ion battery is an IED waiting to detonate, flammable, corrosive, and toxic. My neighbor, a Director of Engineering for a major tech firm, cautions: "Never park an EV in an enclosed garage. Not if you value your house."

---

Quote:

---

Detractors may dispute my facts, but aside from months of dedicated research, I have the advantage of a scientist son who runs the nanotechnology lab at a major university and whose experimental knowledge and expertise I am privy to. His analysis of the hazards associated with the lithium-ion battery is devastating. One can't get around the potentially lethal technological issues relating to these batteries and stay honest.

EV drivers, whether they know it or not, seem to have a suicidal impulse and must be talked off the ledge. The EV will never be a savvy consumer's choice. It is only through the tyrannical fiat that the EV, suitable only for a circumscribed urban environment, can become an automotive staple. The imposition of such monstrosities on the market eliminates the democratic option of mobile freedom.

The obvious question has to do with the reason governments have invested so heavily and at such expense in forcing so radical and risky a policy as the complete transformation of the auto sector and the introduction of EVs known to be unreliable, dangerous, and inefficient. After all, the automotive industry is a key element in national prosperity.

Why tinker with the golden goose, the cash cow, or any other theriomorphic image one might wish to use? Why sell one's birthright for a mess of pottage, which is what the EV industry actually is? Todd Lewis, a commenter on my previous article on PJ Media, put it succinctly. "It is a way for governments to advance totalitarian control of the populace, wreck the economy, and disempower the middle class." His thesis is backed up in Joel Kotkin's masterpiece "The Coming of Neo-Feudalism." Kotkin chronicles how the once-numerous and thriving middle class is relentlessly being phased out of existence by a power elite intent on re-medievalizing society while advancing their own social, political, and economic supremacy. Like the serf who lacked freedom of movement and was bound to the lord's estate, the enfiefed EV owner for various reasons is tethered to a sort of manorial orbit.

The fact is that EV obsession has nothing to do with "saving the earth," replacing fossil energy with presumably "clean" alternatives, or reducing across-the-board costs involving transportation and maintenance all of which reasons are contra-indicated by the facts. They are delusions, mere fetishes, or outright lies that a modicum of sober research would render null and void. The real issue has to do with the ongoing battle between a market economy and a command economy, between a business-oriented system and a centripetal Marxist political organization, and between an individualistic political economy and oligarchic socialism.

The EV project is a major strategy in a political program that envisages replacing not simply fossil fuel propulsion with electrical power, which is neither feasible nor even conceivable, but swapping a free market economy, in which the law of supply and demand determines output and prices, for a centralized government authority that dictates production, prices, and distribution. Top-down control supersedes private enterprise.

---

Sorry, more at the link, but I don't want to copy/paste too much. Worth the click, imho!

---

techno-ag said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Coral reefs and rain forests destroyed mining for nickel in Indonesia.

Quote:

---

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that global demand for the metal will grow at least 65 per cent by 2030, and EVs and battery storage are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel by 2040.

Billion dollar Chinese firms anchor the nickel market in Indonesia, but they are often fed cheap ore by hundreds of smaller, mostly locally-owned mines that dot the rainforest. These mines have transformed once-peaceful agrarian villages and communities, providing economic opportunity but a health and environmental crisis looms from pollution.

---

Filthy Chicom batteries.

---

So I assume since you are outraged by the damage to the land you are also calling for a ban on stainless steel which is 65% of the use of nickel today (I will await your new thread calling for this). EVs are around 1% of total global demand. All batteries including the ones in your other devices is less than 3%.

Glad you continue to show your tree hugging credentials.

---

The point isn't that nickel isn't necessary but that getting it from Chinese owned companies that rape the environment and leave massive toxic tailings and poisoned waters is the problem. EV companies default to buying Chinese batteries and ignore how the metals in those batteries are mined. The choice isn't between nickel or no nickel but rather a choice on how it is mined and by whom.

---

Well said. Chi-coms pillaging the earth for batteries is the point, not responsible production of old school materials like stainless steel.

---

So where do you think the stainless steel producers get their nickel? You guys always like to comment they control almost all of the metals including nickel.

Kansas Kid said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Coral reefs and rain forests destroyed mining for nickel in Indonesia.

Quote:

---

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that global demand for the metal will grow at least 65 per cent by 2030, and EVs and battery storage are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel by 2040.

Billion dollar Chinese firms anchor the nickel market in Indonesia, but they are often fed cheap ore by hundreds of smaller, mostly locally-owned mines that dot the rainforest. These mines have transformed once-peaceful agrarian villages and communities, providing economic opportunity but a health and environmental crisis looms from pollution.

---

Filthy Chicom batteries.

---

So I assume since you are outraged by the damage to the land you are also calling for a ban on stainless steel which is 65% of the use of nickel today (I will await your new thread calling for this). EVs are around 1% of total global demand. All batteries including the ones in your other devices is less than 3%.

Glad you continue to show your tree hugging credentials.

---

The point isn't that nickel isn't necessary but that getting it from Chinese owned companies that rape the environment and leave massive toxic tailings and poisoned waters is the problem. EV companies default to buying Chinese batteries and ignore how the metals in those batteries are mined. The choice isn't between nickel or no nickel but rather a choice on how it is mined and by whom.

---

Well said. Chi-coms pillaging the earth for batteries is the point, not responsible production of old school materials like stainless steel.

---

So where do you think the stainless steel producers get their nickel? You guys always like to comment they control almost all of the metals including nickel.

---

From what I understand stainless steel uses nickel from older established mines in places like the Philippines. It's newer sites in Indonesia and such that are being hastily exploited for batteries that are the problem.

techno-ag said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Coral reefs and rain forests destroyed mining for nickel in Indonesia.

Quote:

---

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that global demand for the metal will grow at least 65 per cent by 2030, and EVs and battery storage are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel by 2040.

Billion dollar Chinese firms anchor the nickel market in Indonesia, but they are often fed cheap ore by hundreds of smaller, mostly locally-owned mines that dot the rainforest. These mines have transformed once-peaceful agrarian villages and communities, providing economic opportunity but a health and environmental crisis looms from pollution.

---

Filthy Chicom batteries.

---

So I assume since you are outraged by the damage to the land you are also calling for a ban on stainless steel which is 65% of the use of nickel today (I will await your new thread calling for this). EVs are around 1% of total global demand. All batteries including the ones in your other devices is less than 3%.

Glad you continue to show your tree hugging credentials.

---

The point isn't that nickel isn't necessary but that getting it from Chinese owned companies that rape the environment and leave massive toxic tailings and poisoned waters is the problem. EV companies default to buying Chinese batteries and ignore how the metals in those batteries are mined. The choice isn't between nickel or no nickel but rather a choice on how it is mined and by whom.

---

Well said. Chi-coms pillaging the earth for batteries is the point, not responsible production of old school materials like stainless steel.

---

So where do you think the stainless steel producers get their nickel? You guys always like to comment they control almost all of the metals including nickel.

---

From what I understand stainless steel uses nickel from older established mines in places like the Philippines. It's newer sites in Indonesia and such that are being hastily exploited for batteries that are the problem.

---

And where did you hear this? Let me guess, some X post.

"Indonesia has grown to absolutely dominate production and now provides more than 55% of the world's supply. A lot of that is going to China, which has partnered with Indonesia to help grow its nickel industry at a phenomenal rate."

"In China, the EV manufacturers have gone down the route of using what is called a lithium iron phosphate battery. It used to be a very simple chemistry, didn't have the same kind of energy density, didn't give you the same kind of driving ranges that you would get with other types of batteries, but it was cheap. And I think that's one reason why the Chinese EVs are not as expensive as the Western EVs."

"The West, the world outside China, has relied on a different type of EV battery chemistry, and these batteries contain nickel, they give you more energy density, they give you a higher driving range as well."

So in other words, Chinese EVs don't rely on nickel.

Since EVs are around 1% of total demand it means the vast majority of their nickel goes into stainless steel production. I assume you now want to ban stainless steel since it is so destructive to the environment, right?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-13/how-indonesia-became-the-biggest-player-in-the-nickel-market

Kansas Kid said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Coral reefs and rain forests destroyed mining for nickel in Indonesia.

Quote:

---

The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that global demand for the metal will grow at least 65 per cent by 2030, and EVs and battery storage are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel by 2040.

Billion dollar Chinese firms anchor the nickel market in Indonesia, but they are often fed cheap ore by hundreds of smaller, mostly locally-owned mines that dot the rainforest. These mines have transformed once-peaceful agrarian villages and communities, providing economic opportunity but a health and environmental crisis looms from pollution.

---

Filthy Chicom batteries.

---

So I assume since you are outraged by the damage to the land you are also calling for a ban on stainless steel which is 65% of the use of nickel today (I will await your new thread calling for this). EVs are around 1% of total global demand. All batteries including the ones in your other devices is less than 3%.

Glad you continue to show your tree hugging credentials.

---

The point isn't that nickel isn't necessary but that getting it from Chinese owned companies that rape the environment and leave massive toxic tailings and poisoned waters is the problem. EV companies default to buying Chinese batteries and ignore how the metals in those batteries are mined. The choice isn't between nickel or no nickel but rather a choice on how it is mined and by whom.

---

Well said. Chi-coms pillaging the earth for batteries is the point, not responsible production of old school materials like stainless steel.

---

So where do you think the stainless steel producers get their nickel? You guys always like to comment they control almost all of the metals including nickel.

---

From what I understand stainless steel uses nickel from older established mines in places like the Philippines. It's newer sites in Indonesia and such that are being hastily exploited for batteries that are the problem.

---

And where did you hear this? Let me guess, some X post.

"Indonesia has grown to absolutely dominate production and now provides more than 55% of the world's supply. A lot of that is going to China, which has partnered with Indonesia to help grow its nickel industry at a phenomenal rate."

"In China, the EV manufacturers have gone down the route of using what is called a lithium iron phosphate battery. It used to be a very simple chemistry, didn't have the same kind of energy density, didn't give you the same kind of driving ranges that you would get with other types of batteries, but it was cheap. And I think that's one reason why the Chinese EVs are not as expensive as the Western EVs."

"The West, the world outside China, has relied on a different type of EV battery chemistry, and these batteries contain nickel, they give you more energy density, they give you a higher driving range as well."

So in other words, Chinese EVs don't rely on nickel.

Since EVs are around 1% of total demand it means the vast majority of their nickel goes into stainless steel production. I assume you now want to ban stainless steel since it is so destructive to the environment, right?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-13/how-indonesia-became-the-biggest-player-in-the-nickel-market

---

OK you win. Chi-coms are safe and environmentally friendly. We should buy all our EVs and all our batteries from them.

Yeah that was a real check mate. And none of the EV batteries in the US use CCP-provided refined raw materials or batteries. Wait, that's not true, every single one does. It's EV growth that has driven the spike in nickel production, and will moving forward, not a surge in stainless steel. Tesla's not selling that many stainless steel cyber trucks (with ginormous Li batteries).

Rivian loses $32K on every EV built in the last quarter, dropping $1.2 billion in losses. I think that's around half of Ford's per-EV loss though, so good for them. Partnering with the Germans should save them.

I think one of the assorted EVangelist claims is that EV's have fewer parts so the maintenance/reliability will be better. But, EV's have 79% more reliability problems?

Quote:

---

The results are a little inconvenient for the EV evangelist. EVs had 79 percent more reliability problems than a gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicle, on average. Plug-in hybrids fared even worse; these had 146 percent more issues on average than the conventional alternative. But simpler not-plug-in hybrids bucked this trend, with 26 percent fewer reliability problems than conventionally powered vehicles.

PHEVs also had the greatest number of potential trouble areas. A conventionally powered car, truck, or SUV has 17 main problem areas, according to CR, including minor stuff like trim rattling and more significant areas like the engine or transmission. PHEVs have all these plus electric motors, a high-voltage traction battery, and charging to contend with.

Electric motors, charging, and battery problems make up most of the EV reliability complaints (and those are charging problems with the car, not with home or public charging hardware). The relative rawness of most EVs on sale is a big factor in this, and CR has some good advice for potential EV buyers: Do not get seduced by that launch edition vehicle.

"EVs are still in their relative infancy as mainstream vehicles, so it's really not surprising that manufacturers, by and large, are still working out the kinks. That said, we are seeing signs of movement in the right direction. And as our data has consistently shown, reliability-minded consumers would be best served by forgoing brand new vehicles in their first model year," said Jake Fisher, senior director of auto testing at CR.

---

nortex97 said:

---

Yeah that was a real check mate. And none of the EV batteries in the US use CCP-provided refined raw materials or batteries. Wait, that's not true, every single one does. It's EV growth that has driven the spike in nickel production, and will moving forward, not a surge in stainless steel. Tesla's not selling that many stainless steel cyber trucks (with ginormous Li batteries).

Rivian loses $32K on every EV built in the last quarter, dropping $1.2 billion in losses. I think that's around half of Ford's per-EV loss though, so good for them. Partnering with the Germans should save them.

I think one of the assorted EVangelist claims is that EV's have fewer parts so the maintenance/reliability will be better. But, EV's have 79% more reliability problems?

Quote:

---

The results are a little inconvenient for the EV evangelist. EVs had 79 percent more reliability problems than a gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicle, on average. Plug-in hybrids fared even worse; these had 146 percent more issues on average than the conventional alternative. But simpler not-plug-in hybrids bucked this trend, with 26 percent fewer reliability problems than conventionally powered vehicles.

PHEVs also had the greatest number of potential trouble areas. A conventionally powered car, truck, or SUV has 17 main problem areas, according to CR, including minor stuff like trim rattling and more significant areas like the engine or transmission. PHEVs have all these plus electric motors, a high-voltage traction battery, and charging to contend with.

Electric motors, charging, and battery problems make up most of the EV reliability complaints (and those are charging problems with the car, not with home or public charging hardware). The relative rawness of most EVs on sale is a big factor in this, and CR has some good advice for potential EV buyers: Do not get seduced by that launch edition vehicle.

"EVs are still in their relative infancy as mainstream vehicles, so it's really not surprising that manufacturers, by and large, are still working out the kinks. That said, we are seeing signs of movement in the right direction. And as our data has consistently shown, reliability-minded consumers would be best served by forgoing brand new vehicles in their first model year," said Jake Fisher, senior director of auto testing at CR.

---

---

Devastating.

Guys, all the nickel that goes in batteries comes from these bad mines. Even though the vast majority of nickel produced goes to other uses, all of that nickel comes from responsible sources. No I don't have a source for that, quick here's something else bad I heard about EV's!

Devastating

Show us the math on nickel used in EVs compared to the growth in nickel production from Indonesia for the last 10 years. If you do, you will see that the growth rate is orders of magnitude greater than EV demand.

Also, go look at the volume increase in nickel used in stainless steel production over the same time and you will see it is also much higher than that used in EVs. Hint, stainless grew over 4% last year alone which when it is about 2/3rds of the market means it grew more last year than the entire EV demand for nickel.

I know math is hard for EVidians and trying to accept your premise as being wrong is even harder.

I'm not willing to play the 'you have to show me' game but it's pretty easy to find the market demand/forecast changes reflecting EV adoption for Nickel among other metals China dominates in the refined market for BEV batteries. And, the 'disappointing' growth/adoption rate of EV's in Europe/the US is actually creating a glut of the metals making even the 'inflation reduction act' subsidies etc. fail to make a dent in CCP market dominance for these metals/graphite etc.

You're welcome to just not agree with me, and I certainly won't pretend I care/can change your mind.

Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So basically that's wrong.

Russia produces a lot of nickel. Nickel prices respond to risks. Risks include the loss of access to nickel produced by a big and powerful country like Russia that invades a smaller country like Ukraine. The market adapts to those risks by producing more nickel elsewhere. The price of nickel doesn't actually fall relative to pre-invasion prices, so it's unlikely that the fall in prices can be attributable to a loss in demand from a very small fraction of the market, but rather a correction in supply.



https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/nickel

That's nickel prices, not production. Thank you for agreeing with me there is a glut on the market (and temporary price surges due to idiotic sanctions, when buyers bought up as much Russian ore as they could prior to them hitting, don't really impact that). Oh, and btw, Norilsk Nickel, Russia's big metals company, is moving smelters to China (within brics of course) to avoid sanctions, so those EV's will actually be Sino-Russian vehicles still, after all.

I am also not in favor of the provoked Biden Harris proxy war with Russia, but whatever, different topic. Regardless, production is going up by 5 to 10 percent per year, driven by the growth in EV demand.

Quote:

---

Global nickel production was expected to increase to 3,372.3kt in 2023, an increase of 10.2% over 2022, with Indonesia contributing most of this rise. Production in 2023 was supported by the commissioning of the Indonesian NPI, NPI-to-matte conversion capacities, and HPAL projects.

Global nickel production is expected to increase at a CAGR of 5.6% over the forecast period to reach 5,089.7kt in 2030.

---

But please, do go on. This is now entertaining me.

Your argument was that the reduction in demand for EV batteries created a glut in supply of nickel, which would have resulted in a significant drop in prices. The actual shift in prices was centered around and adaptation to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Global nickel demand is up, global nickel production is up, the demand growth for EV batteries has slowed, and yet prices are within range of the pre-invasion pricing. A glut would suggest a price reduction below those levels.


You are simultaneously arguing that an increase in nickel demand for EV batteries has resulted in mines extending into more environmentally damaging areas, while also arguing that the lack of demand for EV batteries has resulted in a massive drop in nickel pricing. Those are conflicting arguments.

LOL, sorry. A glut since 2023 has happened as the supplies (read: production volume) into the market in anticipation of the fantastical rate of EV adoption has not resulted in an appreciating price of the refined product. Your tangent about Russia was amusing.

I won't bother to look it up further, but essentially markets anticipated (swag) a 20 percent growth rate for EV demand and the real growth rate has been half that anticipated rate, so the prices have dropped. Also why Ford, GM and others have backed out of additional battery plants. EV market share is growing, but ideations/fantasies about EV's being 100 percent of new vehicle sales in for instance the EU by 2030, 2035 etc. are clearly evaporating/history.

And it's not just nickel. All the critical metals in the BEV variants (recognizing many still need cobalt, vs. iron phosphate etc. derivatives) are not as high as thought due to…demand not meeting projections just a year or 2 or 5 ago.

Honestly, I don't even know what your argument is at this point. Do you really question if decreased forecast EV sales are impacting these commodity prices? "Declining Demand for EV's is Weighing on the Nickel Market"

Quote:

---

Steering away from EVs
On the other side of the equation, demand for EVs is weakening, pulling nickel prices even further down. Nickel is a key component in EV batteries.

After a frenzy of activity and hype in the last few years, sales of EVs slowed in 2023 and are likely to slow further.

China, which is forecast to account for a majority of global EV sales in 2024, had an "underwhelming performance" in 2024, which hit supply chains and "impacted investor sentiment toward [EVs]", according to Global X ETFs.

Similarly, the amount of US consumers planning to buy an EV has fallen by around a fifth in the last year, according to Deloitte's 2024 Global Automotive Consumer Study.

---

And Indonesia's share of the nickel market has definitely grown, at least for the time being (until Russia gets around the sanctions or gets them dropped etc);

That there's more impacting markets and sourcing of nickel production than merely EV battery production. That the majority of Indonesia's nickel production actually goes into stainless steel production in part, because a significant proportion of the nickel produced there is not suitable for use in batteries. As an example of that, Tesla is likely the largest consumer of nickel for EV batteries and in their 2023 Impact Report they stated that only 13% of the nickel in their batteries was sourced from Indonesia. That your goal is to tie every negative mining scenario back to EV production when the market for metals is far more complicated than just EV battery production.

hph6203 said:

---

That there's more impacting markets and sourcing of production than merely EV battery production. That the majority of Indonesia's nickel production actually goes into stainless steel production in part, because a significant proportion of the nickel produced there is not suitable for use in batteries. As an example of that, Tesla is likely the largest consumer of nickel for EV batteries and in their 2023 Impact Report they stated that only 13% of the nickel in their batteries was sourced from Indonesia. That your goal is to tie every negative mining scenario back to EV production when the market for metals is far more complicated than just EV battery production.

---

There are so many statistically wrong causation/correlation etc. arguments in this post I am not going to bother with trying to deconstruct it. Your first sentence however I will point out is grammatically illogical/wrong.

Thank you for the dialog.

Next he will be blaming the forecast of a glut in the oil markets on EVs. This glut of nickel production is the first in the industries history because commodities never suffer from over saturation from excess production being brought on.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/gas-prices-oil-supply-international-energy-agency-2030/

Quote:

---

I'm not willing to play the 'you have to show me' game

I won't bother to look it up further

I am not going to bother with trying to deconstruct it.

---

On this page alone. No I absolutely refuse to defend my ridiculous assertion, but here's a bunch of distractions and deflections.

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not willing to play the 'you have to show me' game

I won't bother to look it up further

I am not going to bother with trying to deconstruct it.

---

On this page alone. No I absolutely refuse to defend my ridiculous assertion, but here's a bunch of distractions and deflections.

---

Assertions so ridiculous, you forgot to refute a single one.

That's been done repeatedly, although the burden was on him to back up his claim in the first place. Surprised you're back so soon after your embarrassing debacle with your risk equation. Not surprised you're back to one liners.

GAC06 said:

---

That's been done repeatedly, although the burden was on him to back up his claim in the first place. Surprised you're back so soon after your embarrassing debacle with your risk equation. Not surprised you're back to one liners.

---

You should actually click his links.

He was "refuted" by (1) poster who misunderstand the difference between price and production. Hardly "repeatedly."

I never left, you're thinking of Teslag. RIP in peace.

When you vanished for a week after hph whack-a-mole'd every deflection you offered, and you declined to use your risk formula to back up your argument I figured you would stay away a while, and rightfully so. You're back with the one liner trolling again though so I guess we don't need to bid you "rest in peace in peace" as you say.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

That's been done repeatedly, although the burden was on him to back up his claim in the first place. Surprised you're back so soon after your embarrassing debacle with your risk equation. Not surprised you're back to one liners.

---

You should actually click his links.

He was "refuted" by (1) poster who misunderstand the difference between price and production. Hardly "repeatedly."

I never left, you're thinking of Teslag. RIP in peace.

---

Well, your whining was the cause of that...

Congrats???

No one misunderstood the difference between price and production, price reflects a mismatch between production and demand and I was illustrating that price skyrocketed in association with Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the resulting expected loss of access to material from Russia and the price subsequently normalized to pre-invasion levels.

Nortex was attributing reduction in prices to a reduction in demand for EV batteries, when the reality is it's more associated with Russia's invasion and normalization thereafter.

He is simultaneously arguing that expansion of nickel production in Indonesia is a result of EV battery production while claiming EV battery production is down, and my point is that the expansion of Indonesia's nickel production is just as easily associated with countries seeking sources of nickel outside of Russia.

The U.S., as an example, cut imports of Russian nickel by 93%. Russian nickel exports fell by 28% from 2021 to 2023, so the implication that all of those losses to Russia from other countries was absorbed by an increase in imports by China is just not accurate. Those purchases had to shift elsewhere with the overall demand for nickel up in those same years.