Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Automotive

Electric vehicles facing uphill climb

Published

8 months ago

8 minute read

From Resource Works

Ford shifts from EVs to gasoline trucks in Oakville due to declining demand and financial losses, challenging government EV targets.

In October 2020, the federal and Ontario governments announced with fanfare that they would each pour $295 million into helping Ford upgrade its assembly plant in Oakville to start making electric vehicles.

“The upgrade of the Ford plant will make Oakville into the company’s No 1. electric vehicle factory in North America,” we were told.

And Prime Minister Trudeau declared: “This is a win-win. . . . helping accelerate our transition to a low-carbon, clean-growth economy, which will help protect our environment, drive innovation, and create many good middle-class jobs.”

In April 2023, Ford announced it will spend $1.8 billion to retool its Oakville Assembly Complex, beginning in mid-2024, to build next-generation passenger electric vehicles in 2025.

Then the target date of 2025 becomes 2027.

And now, in July 2024, reality strikes: Ford confirmed that the Oakville plant would no longer produce electric three-row SUVs but would instead turn out larger, gasoline-powered versions of its flagship F-Series pickup truck.

The reason: a global slowdown in electric vehicle demand, with hesitant customers delaying plans to buy EVs, and many opting instead for hybrid-electric vehicles.

Ford, for one, said it will step up hybrid offerings and that by 2030 it expects to offer hybrid powertrains across its lineup of gas-powered vehicles. Ford has also delayed production of electric pickup trucks in Tennessee.

Ford now says its electric vehicle unit lost $1.3 billion USD in the first quarter alone. It sold 10,000 vehicles in that period, and thus lost about $132,000 US for every EV it sold.

General Motors also announced it would cut production of EVs, citing slowing demand.

As far as we know, Honda Canada is proceeding with a $15 billion plan to create Canada’s first comprehensive electric-vehicle supply chain, comprising four plants in Ontario. It includes Honda’s first EV assembly plant in Alliston, ON, which Honda said will produce up to 240,000 vehicles per year.

Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association, said the Ford decision is “not good news,” and he fears there will be similar announcements from other car companies.

And automotive industry analyst Robert Karwel says: “I would definitely not be surprised to see announcements from other companies.”

“People are getting payment fatigue right now generally, and EVs are more expensive,” said Karwel, a senior manager of J.D. Power’s Power Information Network. “The average car payment hit $900 a month in January.”

In the first quarter of this year, 46,744 light and medium-duty EVs were registered across Canada, 11.2% of the market share.

B.C. has long led Canada in the uptake of electric vehicles, and in May they made up 10.7% of light-duty vehicle sales.

But another factor weighing on consumers is B.C.’s recent reduction in rebates for electric vehicles.

B.C. reduced rebates to $3,000 for battery, fuel-cell and longer-range plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and $1,500 for shorter-range plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The previous incentives ranged from $2,500 to $6,000, depending on the kind of car.

And now, only vehicles sold for under $55,000 qualify for the rebates. Previously, the maximum price was $77,000 to qualify. The federal rebate of $5,000 for qualifying vehicles, introduced on May 1, is still available.

If the slowdown in demand continues, it will only help power producers such as B.C. Hydro, which face staggering demand for power, for EVs and for industrial and clean-energy use.

The federal government requires at least 20% of new vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2026, at least 60% by 2030, and 100% by 2035. (ZEVs include battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.)

Prime Minister Trudeau: “As a great Canadian once said, that is where the puck is going and that is where we’re going to be.”

B.C. is even more ambitious: It has set targets requiring 90% of all light-duty new vehicle sales to be zero-emission by 2030 and 100% by 2035.

That means B.C. needs substantially more power to cope with EVs — and will require even more than that to handle expected population growth and the province’s plans to electrify BC’s economy and push clean energy.

Now the Energy Futures Institute (EFI) calls in a new report for “a dramatic increase in domestic electricity production” in B.C., and cancellation of current plans to wind down some existing power-generation facilities.

EFI chair Barry Penner: “After years without new generation coming online, the long-awaited Site C dam is expected to start producing power by next year. Even if Site C was available last year or this year, it wouldn’t be enough to avoid having to import electricity from the United States and Alberta to keep our lights on.”

As for the federal target, the Public Policy Forum says Canada must build more electricity generation in the next 25 years than it has over the last century in order to support a net-zero emissions economy by 2050.

All in all, Canada’s electric vehicle transition could cost more than $300 billion by 2040 as the installation of charging infrastructure expands, upgrades to the electrical grid are made, and other changes take place, according to a report  released by Natural Resources Canada.

Among other things, it says Canada needs to add 40,000 public charging ports per year on average between now and 2040. There now are around 32,000 public ports across the country, and roughly 11,000 were installed in 2023.

The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association says lack of charging infrastructure is already deterring some would-be EV buyers. A lack of charging station availability was cited as a top concern by 72% of consumers, according to an Autotrader Canada survey conducted in March.

  1. Cornelius van Kooten, an economics professor and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Studies and Climate Change at the University of Victoria, said the federal timeline for electric vehicles “isn’t realistic or feasible.”

In a study for the free-enterprise Fraser Institute, he said that to meet the goal, Canada would need the equivalent of 10 big new hydro dams (or 13 large natural-gas power plants).

Quebec, for one, has already had to start limiting industrial expansion because it can’t fill all the power needs.

So you can but sigh when you hear of Quebec’s latest plan for electric vehicles: it is moving ahead with regulations that not only mandate EV sales but actually prohibit sales of any internal combustion engines — including plug-in hybrids, from January 1, 2035.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Break The Needle / 1 hour ago

Why psychedelic therapy is stuck in the waiting room

Automotive / 1 hour ago

Trump Must Act to Halt the Tesla Terror Campaign

Crime / 9 hours ago

First Good Battlefield News From Trump’s Global War on Fentanyl

Automotive

Trump Must Act to Halt the Tesla Terror Campaign

Published on April 2, 2025

By

Christopher F. Rufo

The Left’s splintering violence threatens a veto over democratic power.

Elon Musk finds himself at the fulcrum of American life. His companies are leading the field across the automotive, space, robotics, and AI industries. His ownership of the social platform X gives him significant influence over political discourse. And his DOGE initiative represents the single greatest threat to the permanent administrative state. Musk is arguably the most powerful man in the United States, including President Trump.

The Left has taken notice. Left-wing activists have long practiced a tactic called “power mapping,” which entails diagramming the opposing political movement and identifying “chokepoints.” They have designated Musk as one such chokepoint. This month, activists claimed to have organized 500 protests against Elon Musk’s Tesla—dubbed the “Tesla Takedown”—with demonstrations outside sales lots and a series of incidents of vandalism, property destruction, and fire bombings. A pattern has also emerged of individuals scratching or spray-painting parked Teslas, looking to intimidate owners and potential owners or just to express hatred of Musk.

Precedents exist for this kind of escalation. In the 1970s, following the frustrations of the civil rights era, left-wing splinter groups launched targeted terror campaigns and symbolic acts of violence. They bombed the U.S. Capitol, assassinated police officers, and even self-immolated in imitation of Buddhist monks. We may be entering a similar phase today, as the collapse of the Black Lives Matter movement gives rise to radicalized left-wing factions willing to embrace violence. If so, Musk’s Tesla may be the Number One target.

What, exactly, motivates this campaign? At its core, the Left appears to be shifting from an “antiracist” narrative to an anti-wealth one—from a racial frame to an economic one. The sentiment driving the Tesla Takedown is rooted in economic resentment and a desire for leveling. Musk has become a symbol of everything progressives oppose: oligarchy, capitalism, wealth, and innovation. These, in their view, are marks of the oppressor. They scorn the futuristic Cybertruck, SpaceX rockets, and Optimus robots, believing that such creations should be dismantled and repurposed into chassis for public buses or I-beams for public housing.

A certain element of left-wing Luddism is at work here, but the greater part of these activists’ motives is resentment. Musk represents the triumph of the great man of industry, something the Left believes should not exist.

Unfortunately, the Tesla Takedown may succeed. The Left has likely identified Tesla as a chokepoint because it’s easier to dissuade consumers from buying a car they associate with a malevolent political cause—or fear might be vandalized—than it is to persuade them to buy one in support of Musk and DOGE. When it comes to purchasing a Tesla, fear among the average American is a more powerful motivator than enthusiasm among the MAGA base.

Some evidence suggests that the campaign has made an economic impact. Tesla stock peaked around the time of President Trump’s inauguration and since then has lost approximately 40 percent of its value. Musk has accumulated more power than any other American, but that means that he has more points of vulnerability. His wealth and power are tied to his companies—most importantly, his consumer car company, which depends on individual purchases rather than institutional contracts (like SpaceX).

Trump has signaled that he understands this dilemma. He appeared at the White House in a Tesla and has voiced support for Musk’s firms. Justice Department prosecutors—and their allies in state government—must translate this support into policy by identifying and punishing those who destroy property as a means of political intimidation.

The administration needs to make clear that radical left-wing factions cannot use violence to wield a veto over democratic governance. If the partnership between Trump and Musk is to produce meaningful results, it must be backed by the full protection of the law.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.

We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?

And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.

The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.

In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.

But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.

Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.

Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.

These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.

Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.

Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.

Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Trending

X