Automotive
Lithium Prices: What They Tell Us About the Popularity of Electric Vehicles
From EnergyNow Media
By Jim Warren
The online database, Trading Economics, indicates that in June 2023 the global price for lithium had risen to $59,212 per tonne. But by November it had fallen by more than half to $27,218. Prices have continued to plummet. As of December 31, lithium was selling for just $18,242 per tonne.
How could this be? Electric vehicle (EV) mandates established in many rich developed countries over the past few years had analysts predicting that if targets were actually met, the world would need 388 new lithium mines by 2035. A Fraser Institute study suggests that getting enough mines built to satisfy all the mandates will be a problem. It takes from seven to ten years to get a mine financed, approved and built.
Canada’s Environment Minister, Steven Guilbeault is certainly trying to drive up demand for lithium. The federal government’s Zero Emissions Vehicle Standard insists that by 2030, 20% of all new passenger cars, SUVs and light trucks sold in Canada must be greenhouse gas emissions free. New battery plants are being handsomely subsidized in Canada to power all of the new electric cars that will presumably be required. With similarly aggressive mandates in Europe and US states led by California there should be heavy demand for lots of batteries and a mountain of lithium.
The most likely explanation for collapsing lithium prices is US consumers’ reluctance to embrace electric vehicles. The Economist reports that EVs accounted for just 8% of new vehicle sales in America this past year. GM was only able to sell 20,000 EVs, but it did manage to sell over half a million fossil-fueled vehicles. Disappointing demand for EVs prompted GM to shelve plans to spend $4 bn to convert one of its plants to electric pickup truck production. Ford has similarly lost enthusiasm for EVs. This past fall it decided to delay plans to invest $12bn in EV production. Companies that make lithium batteries for EVs have responded accordingly. This past fall battery plants in Georgia and Michigan laid off hundreds of employees. Fewer batteries translated into less demand for lithium.
It would appear that EV adoption goals established under Joe Biden’s eye-wateringly expensive green transition initiative (disguised as the “Inflation Reduction Act,”) are not being met. The Biden plan offers tax credits of up to $7,500 for people who purchase EVs. However that hasn’t been a sufficient sweetener. The average EV sold in the US has a $52,000 price tag and that doesn’t account for additional costs like wiring a home charging set up. California, Florida and Texas account for over half of US EV sales and are also responsible for high average sticker prices. Ostensibly virtuous EV buyers in the US have a bit of hypocrisy going on. They’ll happily drive EVs as long as they are full size SUVs. Batteries are heavy which makes EVs heavier than gas and diesel fueled vehicles. And, electric SUVs are especially heavy—heavy enough to increase the chances of deadly collisions. Tesla has apparently created a super-sized SUV, designed for wealthy California drivers, that makes the Hummer look like a toy. And, because they are extra heavy, driving them uses more electricity and it takes extra energy and materials to build them. Furthermore, given that fossil fuels still account for 60% of the electricity generated in the US, EVs are less environmentally friendly than advertised. They are far from being “emissions free.”
EVs are indeed more popular in Europe and China. In Europe 1.5 million EVs were sold this past year and 3.5 million were sold in China. The models sold in China are small, zippy units that don’t weigh much. However, like in the US, around 60% of the electricity consumed in China is generated by burning fossil fuels (mostly coal).
Despite having a copycat EV mandate that mirrors those in Europe, Canadian sales have been even less stellar than what the US has been able to achieve. In 2021, EVs accounted for just 5.3% of new car sales in Canada. Most of them were sold in Ontario, BC and Quebec (55,229) which makes sense—those are the provinces where most Canadians and most climate-alarmed Canadians live. In all the rest of Canada just 7,301 electric vehicles were purchased.
Clearly, the adoption of electric vehicles has failed to meet the overly ambitious targets set by environmentally-friendly policy makers. This result lines up with the litany of missteps and missed targets that have plagued green transition projects over the past two years. The failures include the big decline in demand for new solar and wind power projects and the reversal of greenhouse gas emissions reduction projects in the UK and Europe. An issue this could raise for us in Canada is that Steven Guilbeault might see the international data and worry that his transition plans need to be beefed-up. He could make them even more onerous, expensive and ludicrous.
From the Fraser Institute
Political developments in the U.S. over the past few years have substantially increased the risk of any investment that relies on unrestricted access to the U.S. market
Last week, the Trudeau government and the Ford government announced a new multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded subsidy for Honda to expand its Alliston, Ontario plant to manufacture electric vehicles (EV) and host a large EV battery plant. Eventually, the direct and indirect subsidies could total $10 billion from the two governments.
The Honda announcement follows earlier deals with Northvolt, Stellantis and Volkswagen to build and operate EV battery and auto assembly plants in Ontario. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, these three deals may total $50.7 billion after accounting for the cost of government borrowing to finance the subsidies and foregone corporate tax revenue from tax abatements tied to production.
Clearly, if future taxpayers across the country (not just in Ontario) are to avoid a huge additional tax burden or suffer reductions in government services, a lot needs to go right for Canada’s EV industry.
In particular, there must emerge sufficient market demand for EVs so these “investments” in the EV auto sector will be fully paid for by future tax revenues from corporate and personal income taxes levied on companies and workers in the EV sector. During their joint announcement of the Honda deal, both Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Ford ignored this elephant in the room while claiming that the Honda deal will mean 240,000 vehicles a year manufactured at the site and 4,200 jobs preserved, while adding another 1,000 jobs.
By way of perspective, in 2023 around 185,000 EV vehicles were sold in Canada—about 11 per cent of all new cars sold in Canada that year. This is considerably less than the target capacity of the Honda complex and the total expected production capacity of Canada’s EV sector once all the various announced subsidized production facilities are in operation. In contrast, 1.2 million EVs were sold in the United States.
The demand for EVs in Canada will likely grow over time, especially given the increased incentive the federal government now has to ensure, through legislation or regulation, that Canadians retire their gas-powered vehicles and replace them with EVs. However, the long-run financial health of Canada’s EV sector requires continued access to the much larger U.S. market. Indeed, Honda’s CEO said his company chose Canada as the site for their first EV assembly plant in part because of Canada’s access to the U.S. market.
But political developments in the U.S. over the past few years have substantially increased the risk of any investment that relies on unrestricted access to the U.S. market. The trade protectionist bent of Donald Trump, the Republican nominee in the upcoming presidential election, is well known and he reportedly plans to impose a broad 10 per cent tariff on all manufactured imports to the U.S. if elected.
While the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement ostensibly gives Canadian-based EV producers tariff-free access to the U.S. market, Trump could terminate the treaty or at least insist on major changes in specific Canadian trade policies that he criticized during his first term, including supply management programs for dairy products. The trade agreement is up for trilateral review in 2025, which would allow a new Trump administration to demand political concessions such as increased Canadian spending on defence, in addition to trade concessions.
Nor would the re-election of President Joe Biden immunize Canada from protectionist risks. Biden has been a full-throated supporter of unionized U.S. auto workers and has staked his administration’s legacy on the successful electrification of the U.S. transportation sector through domestic production. Given his government’s financial commitment to growing a domestic EV sector, Biden might well impose trade restrictions on Canada if Canadian exports start to displace domestic production in the U.S.
In short, Canadian politicians, most notably Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford, have staked the future of Canada’s heavily subsidized domestic EV sector on the vagaries of the U.S. political process, which is increasingly embracing “America First” industrial policies. This may turn out to be a very costly gamble for Canadian taxpayers.
Author:
From LifeSiteNews
By Caryn Lipson
Ambiguity surrounds the definitions of ‘impairment’ and the consequent privacy implications of such technology, raising fears of government overreach and erosion of rights.
In the name of safety, the government has taken steps that critics say have denied citizens what used to be considered inalienable constitutional rights.
Citizens are concerned that their right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment is being denied, ostensibly, to keep citizens safe from “harmful misinformation,” and fear that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is being infringed upon to combat gun violence. Watchdogs further contend that citizens are being denied the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment’s right to face one’s accuser when technology is used to gather evidence.
READ: Vietnam’s new biometric ID cards raise fears of privacy violations, data breaches
The fear now is that increased use of technology will soon mean an even greater loss of privacy and further erosion of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, due to certain provisions in Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill which will soon become mandatory. Under the guise of keeping citizens safe by preventing drunk driving, it may amount to ceding the freedom to travel to government control.
H.R.3684 – Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
The infrastructure bill, HR. 3684, passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by Biden on November 15, 2021, includes a provision for several vehicle monitoring technologies to be installed in cars, which have recently or will soon be required in new vehicles, including technology to determine if a driver is drunk or impaired.
The Center for Automotive Research’s Eric Paul Dennis reviewed the bill and summarized “key sections.” Dennis, a senior transportation systems analyst, reviewed the section on “Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology” (HR 3684 Section 24220) and explained that Congress gave the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) the role of determining exactly what this section means and how it will be implemented:
This provision directs NHTSA to issue a rule to require ‘advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology’ in new light vehicles.
- Congress tasked NHTSA with interpreting this law, including establishing the statutory meaning of ‘impaired.’
- The legislation directs NHTSA to adopt a new safety mandate by 15 November 2024 and begin enforcing it by September 2027 (at the latest) if this is feasible. [Emphases added.]
Impaired driving not defined
Others, such as Michael Satterfield, writing as The Gentleman Racer®, were more detailed in their review of the legislation. Satterfield poured through the 1,039-page infrastructure bill. He agreed that good roads, bridges, and safety are important to automotive enthusiasts, but wrote that he uncovered some concerning legislation “buried deep within HR.3684.” The legislation calls not only for changes in crash testing and advanced pedestrian crash standards but also for a “kill switch” to be standard for all new vehicles by 2026.
Satterfield explained that all new vehicles will be required to have passive monitoring systems for the driver’s behavior and an algorithm will determine if the driver is too impaired to operate the vehicle. If the algorithm decides that the driver is too impaired to operate the car, the program will have some means of taking control of the vehicle. But what constitutes impairment and what the program will actually do was not explained by the legislation, as Satterfield noted:
What is not outlined in the bill is what constitutes impairment, outside of the blood alcohol standard, how does the software determine the difference between being tired and being impaired? Passive blood alcohol testing won’t detect impairment from prescription painkillers or other narcotics.
The bill also doesn’t outline what happens when a vehicle detects a driver may be impaired other than that the system must ‘prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected’ which is all well and good in a bar’s parking lot. But what will this system do if an ‘impairment is detected’ while traveling at 75 mph on the highway? [Emphasis added.]
Accused by your own car’s surveillance system
Satterfield’s greatest concern was the question of individual privacy that a vehicle that monitors the driver raises, including who will have access to the data, and other issues such as the right not to self-incriminate under the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to face your accuser.
He also expressed concern that most drivers will not be aware of the new technology until it affects them in some way:
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the legislation is the lack of detail. The main concerns expressed by many, including former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, come down to privacy. Who will have access to the data? How long will it be stored? Will this capability be exploitable by third-party or government agencies to shut down vehicles outside of the function of preventing impaired driving?
Privacy concerns and the 5th Amendment’s right to not self-incriminate, and the 6th Amendment’s right to face one’s accuser, have already been used to challenge data collection from license plate readers and redlight cameras. Automakers have little choice but to comply with new federal mandates and the majority of consumers will likely be unaware of this new technology until it impacts them in some way. [Emphasis added.]
Freedom or control?
John Stossel recently interviewed former vintage race car driver Lauren Fix about what she believes are the implications of the soon-to-be-implemented impaired driving technology, as reported on FrontPage Magazine.
READ: High-tech cars are secretly spying on drivers, resulting in insurance rejections: NYT report
Fix pointed out that the algorithm cannot determine what exactly is happening in the car and with the driver and asks Stossel how much control over his life he is willing to give up:
Are you willing to give up every bit of control of your life? Once you give that up, you have no more freedom. This computer decides you can’t drive your vehicle. Great. Unless someone’s having a heart attack and trying to get to the hospital.
California, Fix pointed out, already requires vehicle software to limit excess speed to 10 miles over the limit, legislation about which Frontline News reported.
Fix also revealed to Stossel that some companies already collect and sell driver data and proceeded to outline further abuses that could occur as a result of computer surveillance technology, such as charging for mileage or monitoring your “carbon footprint” and deciding that you maxed out on your monthly carbon credits so you can’t drive anymore until the following month. Or perhaps the car won’t start because the software determines you may be on your way to purchase a firearm.
What about hackers?
Can hackers access a vehicle’s software and take control of someone’s car? This possibility is another worrying aspect of the infrastructure bill, which Frontline News will discuss in an upcoming report.
Reprinted with permission from America’s Frontline News.
-
Business3 hours agoUN plastics plans are unscientific and unrealistic
-
Brownstone Institute6 hours agoThe Teams Are Set for World War III
-
Education47 mins agoSupport a young reader through the Tim Hortons Smile Cookie campaign
-
Opinion4 hours agoThe Climate-Alarmist Movement Has A Big PR Problem On Its Hands
-
Addictions5 hours agoWhy can’t we just say no?
-
Automotive2 days ago
Vehicle monitoring software could soon use ‘kill switch’ under the guise of ‘safety’
-
Opinion2 days agoClimate Murder? Media Picks Up Novel Legal Theory Suggesting Big Oil Is Homicidal
-
Energy1 day agoNet Zero’s days are numbered? Why Europeans are souring on the climate agenda