This conversation is interesting. The EV "expert" guy does not grasp how the logistics of EV components is more dangerous and complicated than oil. He doesn't understand that the hierarchy of needs can be easier to accomplish with technology, but not overcome. It seems he is unwilling to listen to someone challenging his belief that technology can overcome the basic necessities. Thought some would get a kick out of this.

Can't eat a tweet.

Can't live in a semi-conductor.

Can't use a computer without electricity.



Technology can improve facets of the basic necessities and increase efficiencies, but it cannot fundamentally replace the necessities to sustain human life.

Too many grown ups in society act like this:



Some people simply refuse to believe the truth, or consider the whole picture, because it's not what they want to hear. They feel enlightened, but it makes them extremely ignorant.

Any person who is driving an EV for climate reasons needs to look up "palladium mines" on google. Than we can talk about how they feel about their decision. You can also thank them for supporting Putin since about 40% of palladium comes from Russia.

It's kind of like how AOC thinks she can plug in her car so it is powered by magic unicorn farts.

-Magic Button? Stick to reality. That's a gotcha for stupid people.

-Analysis of EVs vs ICE and then bait and switches at the end to hybrids, with zero analysis on the initial emissions used to build a hybrid vehicle.

-Uses substantially old data to come to his conclusions.

-Is a paid presenter for his full time job. A corporation says we want you to present data that supports our conclusion and he does. Those aren't my words, those are from his LinkedIn.

-In his other position he is an engineer working on hybrid vehicle engines, so we cannot blindly accept his conclusions as unbiased.

-So he has to manipulate the data to meet his statements, like using the worldwide energy mix rather than the energy of the countries that can actually afford EVs presently. People in Mumbai are not going to buy an EV for a long time and when they do it won't look anything like the EVs he's using for his analysis. They will be smaller and more efficient because their street infrastructure cannot support a Model 3.


I point out his potential biases to provide data from another potentially biased source, Tesla's 2021 Impact Report. In it they claim that within 6500 miles an EV becomes neutral in emissions based upon the production gap, and from there it's a dramatic discrepancy for the life of the vehicle. The difference is that Tesla is using more reasonable assumptions (using U.S. energy mix) and the more up to date efficiencies for electric vehicles than the ones in that TED Talk.


The technology has moved rapidly from the ~5+ year old data he's likely using for that presentation. (Video is 2 1/2 years old and data accumulation is not real-time, so there is lag in reporting).

Page 58 discusses lifecycle emissions for combustion vs EVs: https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2021-tesla-impact-report.pdf



The criticisms in the OP are more valid, but they're based upon an assumption that we are headed towards a more de-globalized world due to intergovernmental hostilities rather than due to rapidly improving technologies that allow for more localized production. He may be right, but it is going to lead to a lot of suffering in the world, especially in China/India/Africa.

Here is the full podcast for anyone that wants the full context: https://ark-invest.com/podcast/geopolitics-innovation-and-deglobalization/

hph6203 said:

---

I point out his potential biases to provide data from another potentially biased source, Tesla's 2021 Impact Report. In it they claim that within 6500 miles an EV becomes neutral in emissions based upon the production gap, and from there it's a dramatic discrepancy for the life of the vehicle. The difference is that Tesla is using more reasonable assumptions (using U.S. energy mix) and the more up to date efficiencies for electric vehicles than the ones in that TED Talk.

---

I figured you might come up with the first somewhat hysterical response. Do you know, to pick one example from your attempt at a rebuttal, what the 2021 Tesla Impact Report said, other than PR/happy go lucky feel good crap? They have not had any issues with conflict zone sources? It's self-analyses is limited to wars, not specifically to child labor, right?

Do you feel like a company such as Tesla, which has never found a source in their suppliers which is problematic, is really straightforward about this? It is a corporation as you so quickly jumped to point out as questionable, that is motivated...not to say they contribute to problems, right?

Citing ARK is pretty ****ing awesome. Cathy Woods is about to be on her ass in the street with her firm's performance.

I didn't cite Ark. The OP is a snippet from a larger conversation with Ark Invest on their podcast. I provided the link for anyone that wanted the full context of the conversation rather than a 20 minute clip.

Peter Zeihan's criticisms are not related to the emission profile of EVs, but rather the complexity of the supply chain in a world where governments almost universally become less willing to trade with each other. He also demonstrably miss-states some basic facts which indicates a somewhat lack in knowledge on the subject: combustion vehicles only having 2 lbs of copper. More like 50 lbs.

He may be right about the assumption that governments will trend towards more hostility, but it hasn't been the overarching trend of the last 100 years, more recent history being a reversal. The question is whether China follows Russia or if they want to preserve their power on the world stage. Their choice is starving their people to preserve their culture or adapt. And if they choose to starve their people will the regime survive in a world where their people are far more aware of the realities of the world than they were under Mao.

The controls over information are actually breaking down, not ramping up. People look at what happened on Twitter and Facebook and suppose that the constrictions on speech are increasing, but the reality is that the availability and dissemination of information is increasing, which is in conflict of the old model of singular sources of news and the narrative is the narrative. See: How we ended up in the Iraq War. WMD's were a fact until they weren't.

If you listen to the entirety of the podcast there's a moment where the host pushes back against Zeihan citing the use of Starlink terminals to keep the lines of information open and he responds fingers crossed that you're right, because it effectively lessens the likelihood of his thesis being correct.

He also goes on to say in the podcast that he doesn't doubt that EVs can work in the United States, but rather they won't work in, say, India.


My refutation to nortex's video was based upon the statement that his source has as much reason to be biased as the Tesla Impact Report (which I did cite) and is under far less scrutiny. It's also using an emission profile from a vehicle from 2016 (the 2016 Nissan Leaf being the only mass produced fully electric vehicle with a range in the 125 miles area). And an electrical emission profile that would never be used to power an electric vehicle (the global average electrical production, rather than first world electrical production).

If the presenter was confident in his analysis he would post the assumptions made in determining the emissions, but I for some reason can't find that anywhere. I can't refute Zeihan's statements, because they're about political assumptions for the future, but that TED talk is pretty non-sensical.