Tag: EV Battery

Morning Midas and Chums

The Morning Midas caught fire about ten days ago. It was carrying cars, and some of them were EVs, and some hybrids. Was the fire caused by a lithium battery? I don’t know. The crew probably knows, but they don’t appear to be going freelance and telling us, no doubt much to the relief of their employers. For there may be a tussle at some future point re: who is going to pony up: the shipper, the cargo owner, or their insurers.

From Climate Scepticism

By Jit

EVs and fire risk in car carriers

Regular readers may have noticed that my humble offerings have been scant of late. Well, the fact is, I’ve been distracted by working on a book. But Jit, you’re always working on a book. Yes, but this one is non-fiction. When I write fiction, I just make stuff up. When I write non-fiction, Dr. Pedant here has to make sure that every thing I say is true, or sufficiently caveated that it is at least not misleading. And this particular project, which will probably see the light of day in about 2027 the way things are going, and sell north of ten copies, is particularly irksome in that regard.

More on that another day. Today, I wanted to talk about the Morning Midas.

The Morning Midas caught fire about ten days ago. It was carrying cars, and some of them were EVs, and some hybrids. Was the fire caused by a lithium battery? I don’t know. The crew probably knows, but they don’t appear to be going freelance and telling us, no doubt much to the relief of their employers. For there may be a tussle at some future point re: who is going to pony up: the shipper, the cargo owner, or their insurers.

One way the media has of making us believe certain things is to filter out the events they deem unhelpful to whatever line they hold. Of course, they already filter out events that are not very newsworthy. That’s their job. But it must be tempting to move the line between newsworthy and not newsworthy based on your preferred narrative.

As far as I know, the Morning Midas fire has not been mentioned by the BBC. It is either not newsworthy, or (the cynic says) not helpful owing to the whiff of lithium in the sea breeze.

Was it an EV? There is circumstantial evidence to support the theory. Top of these, to my mind, is the fact that the crew had to abandon ship. Several news sources have hinted darkly that an EV battery lit the spark. News.com.au:

The floating inferno is said to have been caused by the lithium-iron batteries in the 70 electric vehicles on board – batteries that are can cause fires that can burn for weeks. [sic.]

Hinting not only darkly, but illiterately too. The same top-drawer outlet:

…said to have started in the deck where the EVs were being ferried.

And

Local media reports said lithium-iron batteries from one or several of the electric vehicles on board may have been the cause of the blaze.

It doesn’t help that a degree of misinformation is swirling around the event, as these snips from searches under “news” for “Morning Midas” demonstrate:

And

The Midas was not full of EVs, nor were there 3,000 on board. According to Shipwreck Log:

The Morning Midas departed from Yantai, China with over 3100 vehicles with 65 electric and over 600 hybrid vehicles…

As John Cadogan noted in the wake of the Fremantle Highway fire (2023), in a real sense, it doesn’t really matter whether an EV caused the fire. The point is that once a fire has begun, EVs represent a cargo that is far more dangerous than other vehicles. The one cannot be extinguished by carbon dioxide, when the other can. One of Cadogan’s vlogs on the topic:

The Felicity Ace

This is the one that everyone has heard of, because it sank. It was sailing from Emden to Davisville in February 2022 carrying about 4,000 cars when a fire broke out on board. The crew were unable to contain the fire and abandoned the ship, which subsequently sank. Presumably there has now been ample time for an investigation into the cause of the fire. Was it an EV?

I found a report from the Panama Maritime Authority, which leaves the reader in no doubt that the blaze began in a Porsche Taycan. The Taycan is the electric Porsche, whose battery, shall we say, has an indifferent reputation re: fire risk.

8.8 According to the crew evidence, the fire started on a electrical Porche Taycan. [sic.]

[This comes from a third party website, and I could not find it on the PMA site. According to gCaptain, the report has not been released yet, so presumably the third party have received an draft copy somehow. Maybe the document, when finalised, will have a different tale to tell.]

The owners of the ship and the insurers Allianz are suing Volkswagen [owners of Porsche] for causing their losses. This is somewhat indicative that they believe the Taycan was responsible.

The BBC reported the fire and sinking, but as far as I know have not mentioned the possibility that an EV was the cause.

Wikipedia says “Contrary to speculations in the media, it is unknown whether an electric car caused the initial fire.” Of course, my referring to a draft report is just such speculation, so that is a fair position for them to hold.

Fremantle Highway

The Fremantle Highway caught fire off the coast of Holland in July 2023 en route from Bramerhaven to Singapore. It was carrying 3800 cars. There was a little to-ing an fro-ing between EV sceptics and the EVangelists, who were keen to make it clear that an EV was not responsible. [The vlog by John Cadogan above refers to the spontaneous ignition of one of the EVs that survived the initial fire.]

The Dutch Safety Board’s report on the incident only considers the emergency response. Investigating the cause of the incident is the responsibility of the flag owner, Panama again. The Panama Maritime Authority has yet to pronounce.

See also Mike’s post on JC’s vlogs on this topic, and comments below.

Minor Friends

In searching for answers on this topic, I came across a number of other ship fires that were potentially caused by EVs. Operator Grimaldi seems to have a particular problem with fires. Helpfully their vessels all begin “Grande,” making them easy to pick out in a line up. However, the internet is full of crap, so beware when reading anything. There appears to be AI-generated pages on more-or-less any topic you search for these days, whose goal no doubt is to sell advertising. For example, this page says that there were 1,000 passengers on the Grande America, which was not a passenger ship. [It might be real. Just dumb.]

Grande America 2019, caught fire off the west coast of France and sank. Carrying 2,000 cars. The incident report cannot say what started the fire. (Actually, there were two fires, at remote locations.)

Grande California – fire in 2023 when carrying 2,000 vehicles [put out by CO2 and seemingly not an EV therefore], and in 2025 when docked. Link as for Brasile.

Grande Costa D’Avorio – 2023, fire when alongside, apparently due to a faulty battery in a loading vehicle (not an EV?). Link as that for Brasile.

Grande Brasile – 2025, in the English Channel. EVs were on board, cause unknown. The fire started in the vehicle decks.

Grande Congo – 2025. A small-scale fire, mentioned at same link as for Grande Brasile.

Conclusion

It has to be admitted, that answers on this topic are rather thin on the ground. It takes a long time for investigations to complete, and they often come up with a shrug when they finally do. Suspicion has fallen on EVs on several occasions, but there have been no convictions yet in the incidents I’ve read about. Suspicions, elevated concerns re: carrying EVs yes, but definitive answers, no. There are a number of further incidents that I lost the will to read up on. Maybe one of them caught the EV red handed, or smoky batteried.

Addendum

Allianz’s Safety and Shipping Review for 2025 makes for interesting reading. There is a whole page (p.42) with the title “Lithium-ion battery risks continue to develop in the electrification age.”

gCaptain’s page on recent car carrier fires.

Featured image

USCG’s snap on approach to Morning Midas on 8 June.

An embargo by China could implode Biden’s Green economy

No one seems to remember the Arab oil embargo of 1973, just 50 years ago, as America’s National Security is now with China’s monopoly of critical Minerals!

From CFACT

By Ronald Stein

USA and China trade war economy conflict tax business finance money / United States raised taxes on imports of goods from China on industry container ship in export and import logistics background

No one seems to remember the Arab oil embargo of 1973, just 50 years ago, as America’s National Security is now with China’s monopoly of critical Minerals!

In 1973, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) imposed an oil embargo against the United States, triggering a crude oil crisis that sent the U.S. economy into a recession.

Move over OPEC, today, the “green” revolution to occasionally generated electricity from wind and solar has the world on the cusp of a Green Embargo by China that may trigger a financial crisis that could send the U.S. economy into a recession.

Fifty years ago, in the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis in 1977, the Department of Energy (D.O.E) was established to lessen our dependence on foreign locations for America’s energy independence, but today, with its 14,000 employees and a 2024 budget of $52B, the D.O.E. continues to remain dead silent and has allowed foreign nations to take control of California, and for China to monopolize the supply chain of minerals and metals for America to achieve it’s “green” policies.

CALIFORNIA: The fourth-largest economy in the world has increased its imports of crude oil from 5 percent in 1992 to almost 60 percent of total consumption today.

California is home to 9 International airports, 41 Military airports, and 3 of the largest shipping ports in America. California’s growing dependency on other nations for crude oil poses a serious national security risk for America!

CHINA: For the transition to a “green” revolution reliance on electricity, the D.O.E. has remained silent while wind, solar, and electric vehicle policies have made America increasingly dependent on rare earth minerals and metals mined for those batteries under atrocious slave labor and environmental conditions in other countries that the D.O.E. and bureaucratic policymakers accept and encourage!

China controls a stranglehold of 80% of the global supply monopoly on rare earth minerals and metals, with the Congo in Africa a 90% source of vital cobalt.

Graphite: On a total component basis, graphite accounts for about 25% to 28% of an EV battery. Turkey has the largest reserves of graphite, followed by Brazil and China. Together, these three countries account for 66% of the estimated world graphite reserves.

Environmentalists’ vision just toward the wealthier countries on this planet that can afford the cost of regulations for the environmental movement, large batteries for electric cars, trucks, buses, and electricity generated occasionally by wind turbines and solar panels is tunnel vision that is hypocritical, unethical, and immoral.

  • China controls a stranglehold of 80% of the global supply monopoly on rare earth minerals and metals.
  • The Congo in Africa is a 90% source of vital cobalt.
  • Lithium: The Lithium Triangle, which covers parts of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile, holds more than 50% of the world’s supply of lithium.
  • Graphite: On a total component basis, graphite accounts for about 25% to 28% of an EV battery. Turkey has the largest reserves of graphite, followed by Brazil and China. Together, these three countries account for 66% of the estimated world graphite reserves.

Today, a typical EV battery weighs 1,000 pounds and contains:

  • 25 pounds of lithium,
  • 60 pounds of nickel,
  • 44 pounds of manganese,
  • 30 pounds cobalt,
  • 200 pounds of copper, and
  • 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic.
  • Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.

It should concern everyone that all those “blood minerals” come from mining at locations in the world that are never seen by environmentalists, policymakers, or EV buyers.

  • For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, just one Tesla EV battery requires the processing of more than 500,000 pounds of materials somewhere on the planet.
  • A battery for a heavy-duty electric truck can weigh up to 16,000 pounds, which is 16 times more than the Tesla battery! A single truck battery requires 8,000,000 pounds of earth to be dug up. That’s astounding – digging up 8 million pounds of earth for each truck battery!

EVs are heavily subsidized in multiple ways: through direct federal and state tax benefits to purchasers, through government loan incentives to manufacturers, and through added production costs passed on to gasoline vehicle purchasers.

Both China and Africa have minimal labor and environmental laws, resulting in extensive environmental degradation and humanity atrocities that support “clean” EV batteries. Both Lithium and Cobalt, the major components of the EV battery, are noted on The Periodic Table of Endangered Elements as having limited availability or experiencing a rising threat from increased usage.

It appears that it is both unethical and immoral to continue financially encouraging China and Africa to exploit “their” poor with yellow, brown, and black skin and financially supporting environmental degradation to “their” landscapes just to support clean EV batteries in “our backyards”!

The D.O.E.’s silence has become deafening as America approaches three and a half years into the Biden presidency—a presidency that from the outset promised an “all-government” regulatory onslaught to force a transition away from fossil fuels and to “green” electricity. The regulatory onslaught on fossil fuels has provided incentives for China to attain control of America’s green movement toward electricity!

China is positioned to influence lithium-ion battery production worldwide adversely. China has monopoly control over processed graphite, an essential component of almost all lithium-ion batteries. Virtually all processed graphite, natural and synthetic, is made in China and then exported to the battery makers worldwide.

These batteries are used universally in electric and electronic devices, from cell phones and watches to EVs and huge grid-scale backup batteries; they also have numerous essential military uses.

China is just now beginning to implement an export control program for processed graphite. By controlling exports, China could, to a significant degree, adversely influence lithium-ion battery production, such as by raising prices to selected producers or even blacklisting entire countries.

Thus, the potential adverse impact of the Chinese monopoly power is enormous. What they will do remains to be seen, but the threat is very real.”

Much has been written about China’s market power in other crucial materials like cobalt and rare earths. However, these cases are weak compared to its monopoly in processed graphite.

China is a major player in both cases, coincidentally producing about 70% of processed cobalt and 70% of rare earths. Numbers like this are nothing like monopoly control, as many other suppliers exist. China consumes most of its production because it makes a lot of lithium-ion batteries. It is a net importer of rare earths.

China’s stranglehold monopoly on the global supply of rare earth minerals and metals for the “green” movement to EVs and generating electricity by wind and solar is a clear and potential “embargo” danger to the American and World economies.

To reiterate, move over OPEC, the next foreign embargo may be a “GREEN” Embargo by China!

Please share this information with your friends to encourage energy literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

This article originally appeared at America Out Loud.

The Used EV Timebomb

The situation is even worse than the Mail thinks.

This is not just a problem for eight year old cars, because it will cascade back up the supply chain.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Dave Ward

Money Mail can today reveal a timebomb looming in the second-hand market for electric vehicles (EVs).

Our investigation found that many EVs could become almost impossible to resell because of their limited battery life.

Experts said that the average EV battery guarantee lasts just eight years. After this time, the battery may lose power more quickly and so reduce mileage between charges.

Many EVs will lose up to 12 per cent of their charge capacity by six years. Some may lose even more.

Yet the cost of replacing an EV battery is astonishingly high, our research found.

A five-year-old Renault Zoe costs £9,100 but a new battery will set you back £24,124

In some cases, the cost of a replacement battery is as much as £40,000. For certain EVs, the cost of replacing the battery could be ten times the value of the vehicle itself on the second-hand market.

That means used EVs have a limited lifespan — which makes them a bigger and bigger risk as the years go by.

Research into EV batteries is yet to be conclusive and the second-hand EV market is new, given the first popular EVs were rolled off the production line in 2009.

Last night, one motoring expert said customers should be wary of buying a used electric car beyond its warranty (typically eight years), as after that timespan there is no easy way of measuring how much the battery will degrade before it needs replacing.

This may mean you end up needing to pay for an expensive new battery.

Motor expert Shahzad Sheikh, who runs the YouTube channel Brown Car Guy, said: ‘With a decaying battery, the range will be poor and you may find it becomes increasingly hard to resell the vehicle after eight years.

Buyers will know that they’ll only get a small amount of life out of the car so will pay only a small sum, if anything at all.’

This problem is exacerbated by the fact all new cars coming onto the market by 2035 will be electric and motorists will have to get used to paying around £10,000 more than it’s petrol equivalent, for a vehicle which is not built to last as long.

Take a new petrol-driven Renault Clio — it costs around £20,000, while its all-electric opposite, the Renault Zoe, costs closer to £30,000.

While you can drive a traditional petrol or diesel car for around 200,000 miles over 14 years before the engine needs fixing or replacing, by comparison a new EV is typically guaranteed under a warranty for 100,000 miles over eight years.

Should your petrol engine need replacing you can expect to pay around £5,000, but replace the battery on your EV outside warranty and you’re looking at an eye-watering £13,000 to £40,000, depending on the make of your car, if you fit a manufacturer’s new unit.

And there are external factors at play with battery degradation — including use of fast chargers and even a colder climate.

The high cost of EV batteries is a result of it being difficult to mine metals such as nickel, cobalt, lithium and manganese that are used in the lithium-ion batteries.

They are also in demand for the production of other electronics, including mobile phones and laptops.

In the most extreme cases, such as with a 12-year-old Nissan Leaf that cost £2,000 to buy, you can pay as much as £24,000 for a brand-new replacement 24kWh battery.

However, most owners would upgrade to a newer 40kWh Nissan battery costing £12,780 before garage installation fees of around £2,000. This later battery has a bigger capacity but can still be fitted into older models.

These high costs to maintain an electric car do not bode well for a fledgling second-hand market believes Shahzad Sheikh, who points out: ‘Early adopters have already bought electric cars while the next wave of buyers are looking for value for money — and struggling to find it.

‘The second-hand market might seem a natural place to look for an EV but unfortunately it is fraught with danger as the batteries are worth more than the car. If the battery stops working, the vehicle becomes almost worthless.’

Vehicle trading website AA Cars agrees and says that nearly half of all potential second-hand EV buyers are put off because of concerns about battery life.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mailplus/article-13367571/The-used-electric-car-timebomb-Tens-thousands-EVs-soon-impossible-sell-batteries-wont-affected.html

The situation is even worse than the Mail thinks.

This is not just a problem for eight year old cars, because it will cascade back up the supply chain.

For instance, if you buy a 5 year old petrol car now, you can reasonably assume you will still get a couple of thousand back when you trade it in in three years time. Buy a 5 year old EV, and and you probably won’t get a penny back. That in turn therefore devalues that 5-year old EV, as buyers cannot afford to buy one otherwise. And so on up the chain.

Get Real, Bloomberg, Climate Change Is No Child Labor ‘Threat Multiplier,’ Climate Policies Are

A recent Bloomberg article describes a new tool that scores companies based on how much they rely on child labor, which the news outlet claims is exacerbated by climate change. This is false. While weather disasters can force people into desperate circumstances, extreme weather is not getting worse.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

A recent Bloomberg article describes a new tool that scores companies based on how much they rely on child labor, which the news outlet claims is exacerbated by climate change. This is false. While weather disasters can force people into desperate circumstances, extreme weather is not getting worse. Further, it is much more likely that the increasingly forced energy transition to renewable energy technologies in the name of stopping climate change is a much more direct child labor threat multiplier.

In the article, titled “Climate Change Poses a Child Labor ‘Threat Multiplier’,” Bloomberg describes the new tool is an AI-driven index that it refers to as “a newly developed quantitative approach may help raise its prominence as an environmental, social, and governance issue.” This corporate speak means that it is supposed be used to pressure companies that rely on high amounts of child labor anywhere in their supply chain.

The article goes off the rails when Bloomberg cites an International Labour Organization study that claimed climate change is a “threat multiplier” for child labor, because poverty forces people to rely on their children to help work and earn money for the family.

Bloomberg insists that “[a]s environmental disasters push more people into poverty, families are forced to pull children from school and put them to work in farm and field,” citing child labor due to bad weather in Cambodia, Tanzania, Uganda, Pakistan, and “a similar dynamic is unfolding in Peru, Ethiopia, Nepal, and Ivory Coast[.]”

The problem is, climate change is not causing more frequent or intense extreme weather conditions and the poverty rate has fallen considerably over the past few decades of modest warming.

As explained in Climate at a Glance: Deaths from Extreme Weather, real world data show no significant increase in extreme weather over the last 100 years. What’s more, data show that certain types of extreme weather, like extreme cold conditions, have declined, and so have human deaths associated with weather or climate related disasters. While deaths are not a direct and perfect analog to the destruction of crops or homes, they do show that the peril associated with extreme weather in general is declining –due to advancements in technologies, and the fact that the weather simply isn’t getting worse.

Even in the case of Africa, although the media has recently run plenty of articles claiming that climate change is devastating a variety of crops this year, it’s not clear that climate change is actually making the weather or even crop production worse.

In the case of West Africa, for example, which is directly referenced by Bloomberg’s post by mentioning the Ivory Coast, Climate Realism has already shown, here, that bad harvests of cocoa due to weather this year were mostly driven by the naturally occurring El Niño conditions, not climate change. When crop production data is looked at over a longer period, it becomes clear that the average trend over time is towards increasing crop production, not catastrophe. (See figure below)

Bloomberg is also wrong to claim climate change is driving rising poverty globally, and pushing more people into using children as laborers. Poverty has been on a multi-decade decline, especially during the periods with the most warming. According to data from the U.S. Agency of International Development, poverty levels dropped from 43 percent of the global population in the 1990s, to just 21 percent by 2011.

World Bank data likewise show the share of the population living in extreme poverty around the world has been dropping. (See figure below)

Future projections by groups like the Brookings Institution project that this trend in declining extreme poverty will continue, (see Figure below) and organizations like the United Nations, U.S. government, World Bank and others target 2030 as the year extreme poverty may be driven down to “global zero.”

Various projections for the prospect of ending extreme poverty by 2030. The y-axis represents the percentage of people living in extreme poverty worldwide. Via Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty

The real driver of child labor, other than lingering poverty in general, is the increasing demand for materials, often materials demanded for green energy technologies, found in third-world countries that are currently responsible for a lot of child labor. A prime example is, cobalt used for lithium-ion batteries, more of which is needed for things like electric vehicles, than phones or laptops. A 2018 report says each EV battery needs over 30 pounds of cobalt, and predicted that the cobalt demand would skyrocket as electric vehicle sales (pushed by climate mandates) increased.

According to Humantraffickingsearch.org, the world’s largest cobalt producer is the Democratic Republic of Congo, about 60 percent of global production. The DRC is known for using child labor in “artesian” cobalt production.

Bloomberg gets partial credit for a single paragraph in which the writer acknowledges that materials vital for “climate transition commodities” also use child labor, which the founder of the company that created the index said might surprise some investors.

“For example, an asset manager may be unaware of the true extent of child-labor risk for certain climate-transition commodities, such as tin used in solar panels, lithium for batteries or even sugarcane used for some forms of renewable energy,” they write.

Bloomberg’s writer seemed to miss the fact that while it is true that poverty drives much of the world’s worst child labor exploitation, in most places it is allowed to flourish due to government corruption, limited private property rights, a lack of child labor protections, and, increasingly, the demand for green energy technologies. Child labor is not being caused or exacerbated by climate change. One good way to ensure that child labor continues is by increasing the demand for solar panels and other “green” technologies that rely on mining in extremely poor areas, and by refusing those poorer countries the ability to develop using cheap and reliable fossil fuel energy. Bloomberg turned what could have been a powerful expose of the use of child labor in the creation of modern technologies, into another false, “climate change causes everything” narrative.

Demand for electric cars slows sharply as customers revert to petrol

Market share of EVs declines amid high costs and concerns over lack of infrastructure.

Electric car demand has slowed sharply in a sign that drivers are turning back to petrol.

Market share of EVs declines amid high costs and concerns over lack of infrastructure.

Electric car demand has slowed sharply in a sign that drivers are turning back to petrol.

The market share of battery electric vehicles (EVs) declined last month, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said. The Telegraph has the story.

EV registrations rose only 3.8pc from a year earlier, compared with a 10pc advance in the overall car market. Hybrid and petrol-powered cars showed the strongest growth.

Petrol-engine sales rose 9.2pc and accounted for more than half of the total, while plug-in hybrids saw a 37pc increase.

What gains EVs did achieve in March were driven entirely by fleet and business purchases, with sales to ordinary drivers dropping, the SMMT said.

The figures add to evidence that the immediate market for battery-powered cars is a limited one. Early adopters desperate to drive a zero-emissions vehicle have already made the switch but the mass market is proving more reluctant.

EVs cost significantly more than a similar diesel or petrol model, which is a major deterrent. Concerns about the UK’s sparsely spread charging infrastructure also continue to stoke so-called range anxiety.

The SMMT’s figures came as Carlos Tavares, the head of carmaking giant Stellantis, whose brands include Vauxhall, Peugeot and Fiat, warned that electric vehicles are unlikely to ever be universally popular among drivers.

Mr Tavares said at the company’s Freedom of Mobility Forum: “We should move away from a dogmatic thinking where one size fits all.

Read the full story here.

Will EV mandates decide the 2024 election?

From  CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin 

Let’s see just how long this auto workers’ strike lasts. It’s not really about the 46% pay raise, but the 2009 Obama deal that took away cost-of-living adjustments. It’s not really about the short run, either.

But let’s see what the auto workers get in the face of President Biden’s unrealistic demand that would force us to buy Chinese battery-powered vehicles.

The compliant will remain loyal – just as they are to every other radical idea – because to resist is to be uncool or, worse, deplatformed from woke society.

But those who buck the system are getting restless about an all-out plunge into the uncharted waters of EV world – a world dominated by China and its forced laborers in Xinjiang and Congolese child laborers.

Funny how bedfellows make strange politics. The UAW bosses are all in with the EV mandate, but the rank and file just cheered an Orange man in a red elephant jacket. But if you think this is merely an American phenomenon, you’d be wrong.

This – this is the battle of the century, between those seeking to control all thought and action and those who only seek to control some (controversial) thought and action – a real-world game of thrones. Power, not progress, or even prosperity, is the goal. And, of course, big money.

Every day, the dangers of total reliance on electricity generation and transmission at a level twice that of today are exposed. And every day, these warnings are ignored by the media and lampooned by the Karines of the world.

In Pakistan, lightning hits a warehouse full of electric vehicles and batteries, causing a fire and explosions that killed a 15-year-old boy and injured 163 others. Five electric vehicles were destroyed at Sydney’s airport when a detached EV battery from a luxury vehicle burst into flames.

Taxpayer-subsidized Proterra’s bankruptcy has left the entire eight-vehicle Jackson (Wyoming) bus fleet grounded for months. Parts are not available. Naturally, Jackson’s bureaucrats plan to buy more electric buses. Greenie points!

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced a five-year delay on banning new gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles (till 2035), citing “unacceptable costs” on ordinary people. All across Europe, the battle is raging over the “transition.” Unless “net zero” is modified, predictions are that “the base car market will either vanish or will not be done by European manufacturers.”

Those “ordinary people” are speaking with their pocketbooks. Prices for used EVs have been slashed by nearly 25% “as drivers lose confidence.” Over half of British drivers deem EVs too expensive, and nearly half fear shortages of charging stations.

No wonder American auto workers are striking!

But that’s not the worst!

British auto insurer John Lewis Financial Services has “temporarily” paused issuing policies on battery-powered vehicles until its underwriter analyses risks and costs (and raises rates). Another insurer, Aviva, reportedly is refusing to insure Teslas, while other EV owners saw premiums go up 1,000% in just one year (up to £4,000 more).

Costs for EV repairs have risen sharply, and there is a shortage of technicians with the skills to carry out repairs – meaning EV owners may wait weeks with their toys in the shop. No wonder a J.D. Power survey reports 76% of new EV sales come from the luxury market – mainstream buyers cannot afford them.

Nonetheless, the Association of British Insurers reassured the elites and deplatformers that, “Our members fully support the roll-out of electric vehicles and efforts to transition to Net Zero.” With the caveat that, “Whether to offer insurance, and at what price, is a commercial decision for insurers based on their risk appetite.”

The “rosy scenario” (if tomorrow’s EV sales match today’s non-EV sales) predicts a loss of 117,000 automotive jobs to “the transition.” Thousands of jobs are already lost as automakers gear up to meet political demands – despite public resistance.

These numbers, however, do not factor in the 75% reduction in private vehicle ownership demanded by Klaus Schwab and his fellow gazillionaire would-be gods.

Nor do they factor in massive losses in the petrochemical industry and other manufacturing jobs – at least 6,000 products use byproducts of gasoline and diesel production. Those industries, too, will be devastated by an end to fossil fuel production – and nobody in the power structure cares.

Yes, horse-related jobs disappeared as automobiles replaced saddled animals on American roads. But such comparisons are political spin. American auto workers – like former American appliance and electronics workers — watch production move to Mexico and China as our auto industry is crippled by regulations and mandates that make no economic or geopolitical sense.

Despite the acquiescence by automakers to Biden’s diktat (do any mainstream reporters still drive ICE vehicles?), there are signs of a burgeoning revolt, and not just from Trump-loving auto workers.

The House just sent to the Senate the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, crafted by Rep. John Joyce (R, PA) to prevent governments from banning ICE vehicle sales. Says Joyce, “The last thing my constituents want is another oppressive Biden administration mandate that puts a radical environmental agenda and far-left special interests above their individual freedoms.”

(Meanwhile, in France, 41% (and 59% from ages 18 to 24) approved the idea of limiting people to four airplane flights over their entire lifetime.)

Analyzing the British marketplace, Telegraph city editor Ben Marlow suggests that “the time has come to accept that the economics of net zero are more fantasy than reality.”

Despite London mayor Sadiq Khan’s infamous Ultra-Low Emissions Zone scheme that forced ICE vehicle drivers to pay £12.50 per day just to enter downtown London, an initial spike in EV sales petered out quickly, leading to layoffs at EV assembly plants, carlots full of unsold EVs, and a price war by frustrated dealerships.

In the U.S., Ford Motor Company CEO Jim Farley addressed the United Auto Workers’ demands, acknowledging that, “we want everyone to participate in our success, but if it prevents us from investing in this transition to EVs … then everyone’s job is at risk if we don’t invest.”

Really? Ford is losing $4.5 billion in its EV division this year despite President Biden’s welfare-for-the-rich scheme of massive subsidies for EV purchases, $12 billion for retrofitting auto plants for EV production, and $7.5 billion for charging stations. If Schwab has his way, Ford may soon find itself out of business or relegated to manufacturing nameplates for Chinese “Fords.”

Will Americans understand that the auto workers (who just want a big paycheck before their forced retirement) are the canary in this nation’s coal mine – that if their industry dies, the nation’s economy dies with it?

It will take great courage to stand up to teacher unions, indoctrinated children, the deplatforming media, the Justice Department, and hate speech from on high to demand an end to the climate hysteria that elitists use to scare people into accepting a massive decline in their prosperity.

But that is the battle – more than immigration, funding foreign wars, or even “structural racism” – that ought to be the dividing line in 2024. Like 2020’s vaccine mandates, EV mandates force tremendous losses of personal freedom. And our children are being taught that freedom – speaking out against government and the ruling class – is a bad thing.

But so is darkness.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

Author

Duggan Flanakin

Duggan Flanakin is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.

A former Senior Fellow with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Mr. Flanakin authored definitive works on the creation of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and on environmental education in Texas.

A brief history of his multifaceted career appears in his book, “Infinite Galaxies: Poems from the Dugout.”

EV Battery Factory Will Require So Much Energy It Needs A Coal Plant To Power It

A $4 billion Panasonic electric vehicle battery factory in De Soto, Kansas, will help satisfy the Biden administration’s efforts to get everyone into an EV.

Panasonic Breaks Ground On EV Battery Factory In Kansas

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Dave Ward

A $4 billion Panasonic electric vehicle battery factory in De Soto, Kansas, will help satisfy the Biden administration’s efforts to get everyone into an EV.

It also will help extend the life of a coal-fired power plant.

Panasonic broke ground on the facility last year. The Japanese company was slated to receive $6.8 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act, which has been pouring billions into electric vehicles and battery factories as part of its effort to transition America away from fossil fuels.

The Kansas City Star reports that the factory will require between 200 and 250 megawatts of electricity to operate. That’s roughly the amount of power needed for a small city.

In testimony to the Kansas City Corporation Commission, which is the state’s equivalent of the Wyoming Public Service Commission, a representative of Evergy, the utility serving the factory, said that the 4 million-square-foot Panasonic facility creates “near term challenges from a resource adequacy perspective,” according to the newspaper.

As a result, the utility will continue to burn coal at a power plant near Lawrence, Kansas, and it will delay plants to transition units at the plant to natural gas.

And environmentalists are not happy about that.

The situation reflects an ignored fact about EVs — they require enormous amounts of energy to produce.

A 15-pound lithium-ion battery holds about the same amount of energy as a pound of oil. To make that battery requires 7,000 pounds of rock and dirt to get the minerals that go into that battery. The average EV battery weighs around 1,000 pounds.

All of that mining and factory processing produces a lot more carbon dioxide emissions than a gas-powered car, so EVs have to be driven around 50,000 to 60,000 miles before there’s a net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

So, as more factories are built in the U.S. to supply EV manufacturers, there will be higher demands on the grid for power.

Emily Arthun, CEO of the American Coal Council, was in Washington, D.C., this week speaking with federal lawmakers and members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Arthun, who lives in Gillette, told Cowboy State Daily that there’s a growing recognition of the need for coal to supply baseload power.

“I met with senators and representatives who understand that we’re going to need coal for far longer than people are talking about,” Arthun said. 

The Inflation Reduction Act aims to produce more green energy industries here in America, and Arthun said there’s a growing recognition that these are energy intensive.

“People are starting to understand that energy needs are increasing, and these premature [coal-fired power plant] closures are a liability,” Arthun said.

Rep. Cyrus Western, R-Big Horn, told Cowboy State Daily that many people are unaware of how energy is produced to create a reliable grid.

“Kilowatts don’t just fall out of the sky,” he said.

Besides the energy demand for the industrial capacity in America, there will be more demands placed on the grid to charge all these vehicles.

“That electricity has got to come from somewhere. It’s not going to come from solar farms and wind turbines,” he said.

Western said renewables are a great source of “auxiliary supplemental power,” but without a solid base load to ensure a reliable energy supply, they don’t work. These are realities that some still don’t want to accept.

“This administration wants to put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” he said.

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/09/22/ev-battery-factory-will-require-so-much-energy-it-needs-a-coal-plant-to-power-it/