Automotive
The EV battery ‘catch-22’
![](https://www.todayville.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/tvrd-cs-ev-charging-electric-vehicle-image-2024-05-21.jpg)
From The Center Square
While setting aggressive goals for electric vehicle market share, the Biden administration also wants tariffs and or restrictions on the importation of vehicles and the minerals needed for their batteries – creating heightened concerns over supply chains in what can be described as a “Catch-22” situation.
Solutions to some of the problems include battery recycling and increased domestic mining, however, the U.S. is currently limited in its capacity for both. Federal funds are spurring new recycling plant projects, but questions remain on whether there will be enough used material to meet projected needs.
In his e-book, “The EV Transition Explained,” Robert Charette, longtime systems engineer, and contributing editor for IEEE Spectrum, says making the transition is harder than anyone thinks. He recently told The Center Square it is truer now than it ever was.
“None of this is simple,” he said.
His argument centers on the lack of planning and systems engineering on initiatives that are politically, not engineering, driven. While change is possible, he suggested it would require trillions more in government spending and enforcing those changes through law.
Charette identified many serious issues in setting up the EV battery infrastructure – and even if those challenges are met, he said, there may be tradeoffs between affordability, security and environmental concerns.
Profitability. Battery recycling is a still-developing process which is time consuming and expensive. The cost of purchasing recycled materials may be more costly than buying them new.
Manufacturing demand and potential backlog. The U.S. will require eight million batteries annually by 2030 to meet the government’s EV target, with increases each year after that.
Standardization. Batteries vary in configuration, size, and chemistry.
Domestic mining. While decreasing our dependency on outside sources, what are the environmental impacts? It can also take years to acquire permits and get a lithium mine up and running.
Mineral shortfalls. Secure and sustainable access to critical minerals like copper, lithium, cobalt, and nickel is essential for a smooth and affordable transition to clean energy. An analysis by the International Energy Agency indicates a “significant gap” between the world’s supply and demand for copper and lithium. Projected supplies will only meet 70% of the copper and 50% of the lithium needed to achieve 2035 climate targets.
The report said that “without the strong uptake of recycling and reuse, “mining capital requirements would need to be one-third higher. The agency also emphasizes China’s dominance in the refining and processing sector.
Transportation of discharged batteries classified as hazardous waste is one of the costliest steps of the recycling process. Experts suggest updates to federal EPA and DOT regulations for how battery-related waste is classified. In addition to health and safety, they say clearer definitions of what constitutes hazardous waste would help reduce transportation costs. Many recycling plants are being built in regions where production sites are located to address this.
Supply chain and skills gap shortages. The timetable set by the government is not aligned with the capabilities of the current supply chain. Software plays a key role in the management and operation of an EV battery, and automakers are competing for a limited supply of software and systems engineers.
Competing interests. The goal is to create a circular battery economy, reducing the need for raw materials. However, an EV battery that is no longer useful for propelling a car still has enough life left for other purposes such as residential energy storage. Experts propose a battery material hierarchy where repurposing and reusing retired EV batteries are more favorable to immediately recycling them, detouring them out of the cycle.
Charette says the biggest problem with recycling projections is that they are built on assumptions that have not been tested.
“We won’t know whether these assumptions hold until we reach a point where we are recycling millions of EV batteries,” he said.
Because most EV lithium-ion batteries produced through 2023 are still on the road, the International Council on Clean Transportation reports that the majority of materials being used as feedstock by recycling plants currently come from scrap materials created during battery production.
According to Charette, manufacturers also claim future generations of batteries will last 15 to 20 years, which he says would put a bigger kink in the used-battery supply chain.
Another issue contributing to consumers’ reluctance to buy an EV is the inability to determine the overall health of your battery. Current testing methods are inefficient and costly.
EV adoption has so far not met projections and with all the competing interests, Charette said the market will ultimately tell us what direction the situation is headed. He is also intrigued over the impact government pressure will have on the eventual outcome.
He said many individual components have yet to be worked out, adding that although there is a vision, “we’re a heck of a long way from that vision to getting where we need to go.”
In his opinion, battery recycling issues are even further behind than transitioning the electric grid to renewable energy sources.
Automotive
Ottawa’s tariffs undercut Ottawa’s EV mandate
![](https://www.todayville.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/tvrd-energynow-justin-trudeau-image-2024-01-30.jpg)
From the Fraser Institute
Asian countries such as China and Japan were not particular threats to prior automotive markets because North America’s massive and diverse internal combustion vehicle markets were capable of relatively lower-cost production of superior quality vehicles. That’s not shaping up to be the case for EVs, which are vastly more expensive coming off North American assembly lines than in China and other Asian countries.
Seemingly every week, Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) transition policy framework grows more incoherent. The goal of Canada’s EV policy is to ensure all new light-duty vehicle sales in Canada are zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), with a strong emphasis on battery-electric vehicles, by 2035.
The latest incoherence is Prime Minister Trudeau’s announcement of 100 per cent tariffs on Chinese EV imports and 25 per cent tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum imports (the Canada needs to build EVs). This will directly undercut the government’s EV transition targets by denying Canadians access to affordable electric cars.
The stated rationale for the tariffs is, according to Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, that the “Chinese are trying to corner the North American EV market by dumping subsidized vehicles into it” and that “China has an intentional, state-directed policy of overcapacity and oversupply designed to cripple our own industry” so “we simply will not allow that to happen to our EV sector.” And arguably, some of that is probably reasonable.
Tariffs are generally understood as protectionist mechanisms, designed to shield domestic industries from lower-cost foreign competition by making imported goods more expensive. Additionally, they can serve as punitive measures to penalize countries for hostile economic or political actions. By limiting access to one’s markets, tariffs can reduce the profits of the targeted country, thereby pressuring it to alter behaviours or policies. When imposed against countries intentionally sabotaging markets, tariffs may be considered a legitimate response.
But tariffs on China will also hurt Canadians by keeping lower-cost goods out of our market, leaving them with only higher-priced goods and services provided by protected domestic industries that need not fear price competition and thus feel little pressure to lower the prices for their goods and services.
And this is part of the incoherence of the new Trudeau tariff policy. The Trudeau EV mandates are set to create, in essence, a monopoly on the types of automotive technologies (again, EVs) allowed to be used in Canada, which other countries can manufacture more cheaply than domestic manufacturers. Asian countries such as China and Japan were not particular threats to prior automotive markets because North America’s massive and diverse internal combustion vehicle markets were capable of relatively lower-cost production of superior quality vehicles. That’s not shaping up to be the case for EVs, which are vastly more expensive coming off North American assembly lines than in China and other Asian countries.
By driving up the costs of buying EVs in Canada, the Trudeau government will directly undercut its EVs-by-2035 mandate. If people can’t afford EVs, as most currently cannot, the EV mandate targets are doomed. People will simply hold their old internal-combustion vehicles for longer. This trend is already observable in the United States where new vehicles have become more expensive. Americans are holding on to their vehicles longer than ever, with the average vehicle age reaching 13.6 years.
The Trudeau government’s highest priority has been the war on climate change, which various government leaders in Canada and around the world have proclaimed the greatest threat to people and the planet in human history. But if the government is sincere about this, then the priority should be to maximize Canadians’ access to cheaper EVs, and the prime minister should be largely indifferent to where Canadians choose to source those EVs. Indeed, he should urgently want low-cost EVs available to Canadians for there to be any hope of achieving his all-EV by 2035 goal.
Author:
Automotive
Trudeau and Ford at it again with more taxpayers dollars for EVs
![](https://www.todayville.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/tvrd-cfae-electric-vehicle-charging-ev-image-2024-08-21-scaled.jpg)
From Canadians For Affordable Energy
More good money is being thrown after bad, but that seems to be the theme of Trudeau’s government.
On Monday Goodyear Tire announced a $575 million expansion of their Eastern Ontario manufacturing plant to produce electric vehicles, and to make their plant more energy efficient.
And Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau were there for the photo opportunity. Why? Because — shocker — this move comes with serious money from taxpayers in Ontario and throughout Canada. Goodyear is set to receive up to $44.3 million from the federal government through the Strategic Innovation Fund and $20 million from Ontario through the provincial Invest Ontario.
In case you’ve lost track of the money — your money — which has been thrown down this blackhole to date, here’s only some of the close to $46 billion that has been committed:
- Northvolt, electric vehicle battery manufacturing facility, up to $1.34 billion
- Stellantis—LGES (NextStar), EV battery manufacturing facility — $5 billion
- Volkswagen (PowerCo), Federal ($700 million) and Ontario governments ($500 million)
- Ford EcoPro, $322 million
- Stellantis, Federal ($529 million) and Ontario government ($513 million)
- Umicore, Federal ($551.3 million) and Ontario government ($424.6 million)
- Ford Motor Company of Canada, $295 million from both the Federal and Ontario governments
- GM Ingersoll, $259 million from both the Federal and Ontario governments
More taxpayer dollars for cars that no one wants to buy, and are only affordable with heavy government subsidies.
In fact, last month Ford Canada announced that they would be abandoning their plans to retool their plant in Oakville, ON to focus on EV production. Instead, the plant will begin to produce their popular F-Series gasoline-powered heavy duty pickup truck. Ford plants in Ohio and Kentucky are at full capacity and can’t keep up with the demand for the F-Series, so they are shifting some of the load to Oakville. (Trudeau might learn a lesson here about supply and demand, which is what makes a healthy economy work.)
Plant workers were no doubt relieved to hear this, as Ford had already delayed the date when the plant would begin producing EVs from 2025 to 2027, due no doubt to their multi-billion dollar annual losses on EVs. (They lost $4.7 billion on EVs in 2023 and they’re projected to lose nearly $5.5 billion this year.) Many workers had already been laid off, and many more layoffs were expected. But now they’ll be hard at work producing a reliable Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) pickup.
This should come as no surprise. We need only look around the world for examples of dwindling EV sales. In Germany, EV sales fell by 37%. This slump is directly related to the premature ending of the purchase subsidies program. Budget issues forced Germany to end the program a year sooner than anticipated.
In fact, whenever a country reports an increase in EV sales, be sure to look at the subsidies being offered. “In France, a social leasing scheme which helps to provide cheap EVs to low-income households helped see BEV sales increase by 14.9 per cent in the first half of 2024”. And in Italy EV incentives helped push EV sales “up by 7 per cent across the first six months of the year.”
The lavish subsidy programs for EVs have created a false economy whereby they are only attractive and affordable with taxpayer handouts. Canada should expect the same slump in sales when our own subsidy programs come to an end.
In fact, the only nation which shows no sign of slowing down on electric vehicles is China, where they’re pumping them out at breakneck speed. This is, of course, so that they can take advantage of the EV mandates which Canada and other nations have enacted. China’s EV manufacturers are able to undercut Western producers since they control the lion’s share of Lithium battery production.
Their government also heavily subsidizes the industry. But chances are, once they control most of the EV market share, bankrupting smaller producers, they’ll jack up the price. And because of the mandates, drivers will either have to pay what they’re asking, or else invest in a horse and buggy.
This has led to calls for the Trudeau government to impose punitive tariffs on Chinese EVs, to prevent them from inundating the Canadian market to the detriment of Canada’s economy and Canadian workers. Trudeau and co have dragged their feet, likely because they don’t want to offend Chairman Xi.
We certainly should impose those tariffs. But what would be even better for regular, everyday Canadian taxpayers — not that that ever seems to be top-of-mind for Trudeau or Doug Ford — would be to scrap the EV mandates altogether. Forcing Canadians to buy EVs by 2035 is a terrible policy that will make us poorer as individuals and poorer as a nation. And it will ultimately fail.
Better to admit that now, while we still have some money we haven’t paid out by the truckload to green corporate grifters.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
-
Brownstone Institute8 hours ago
Why Did Zuckerberg Choose Now to Confess?
-
Agriculture5 hours ago
Glimpse into the Future of Food
-
Alberta6 hours ago
‘Coutts Two’ Verdict: Bail and Mischief
-
illegal immigration7 hours ago
Illegal immigrants crossing from Canada into USA in record numbers
-
Bruce Dowbiggin4 hours ago
From Deal With It: A Cruel, Senseless Fate Ends A Brilliant Career
-
National1 day ago
Unemployment Surges as Trudeau’s Policies Wreak Havoc on the Economy
-
Crime2 days ago
Officials Arrest Father Of Suspected Georgia School Shooter
-
National2 days ago
Poilievre calls for immediate election after NDP pulls support from Trudeau’s Liberals