TXPR closed at 547.53, up 0.58% on the day. Volume today was 748,240, second-lowest of the past 21 trading days.
CPD closed at 10.795, up 0.42% on the day. Volume was 85,560, second-lowest of the past 21 trading days.
ZPR closed at 9.02, down 0.22% on the day. Volume was 117,180, second-lowest of the past 21 trading days.
Five-year Canada yields were down to 3.33% today.
Equities were mostly boring:
Wall Street’s main indexes closed lower on the first trading day of 2023 with big drags from Tesla and Apple, while investors worried about the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate hiking path as they awaited minutes from its December meeting. The Canadian benchmark index ended the session with a modest gain, thanks partly to a rally in the gold sector.
…
The S&P/TSX Composite Index closed up 58.85 points, or 0.30%, to 19,443.77. Despite Wall Street’s losses, the Toronto market saw most sectors gain – with the notable exception of energy, which lost 5.8%. Oil prices settled 4.1% lower at US$76.93 a barrel, pressured by weak demand data from China, a gloomy economic outlook and a stronger U.S. dollar.
But there was one area of excitement:
Tesla Inc. TSLA-Q -12.24%decrease
shares kicked off 2023 with a thud, plunging more than 12 per cent on Tuesday on growing worries about weakening demand and logistical problems that have hampered deliveries for the world’s most valuable automaker.Once worth more than $1 trillion, Tesla lost more than 65 per cent in market value in a tumultuous 2022 that saw it increasingly challenged by other automakers and face production issues stemming from COVID lockdowns in China.
Tuesday’s slide knocked off nearly $50 billion in market value, roughly equal to the valuation of rival Ford Motor Co, which last year sold three times as many cars as Tesla.
The sell-off came after Tesla missed market expectations for fourth-quarter deliveries despite shipping a record number of vehicles.
…
At a value of about $341 billion, Tesla is still the world’s most valuable automaker, even though its production is a fraction of rivals such as Toyota Motor Corp.
Bill Gates’ $500 million Tesla short position is a bit awkward in terms of his own pledges to help with climate change. Tesla is a trillion-dollar company with a focus on accelerating the transition to sustainability. It’s also the only company that has had massive success beating the odds stacked against it while pushing electric vehicles and making them more commonplace. Tesla is essentially the loudest advocate for sustainability and has shaken up the automotive industry.
Yet, the author of How To Avoid A Climate Disaster put his money on the failure of a company that is aligned with that book’s message, according to screenshots of a message between Gates and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
The quoted argument is infantile, obviously. Whether or not you like a company’s products has very little to do with whether or not you own the stock – that decision is determined by whatever gap you might deduce between price and value. Tesla’s a great company and I hope it does well. Do I think it ever deserved to be worth half of the entire global auto industry? No.
German inflation news was indecisive:
German inflation eased for a second month in a row in December due to falling energy prices and the government’s one-off payment of household energy bills, coming in below expectations even as analysts warn that a continued slowdown is not a given.
German consumer prices, harmonised to compare with other European Union countries, rose by 9.6% on the year in December, preliminary data from the Federal Statistics Office showed on Tuesday. Analysts polled by Reuters predicted prices would rise by 10.7% year-on year in December.
October saw the highest reading since comparable data going back to 1996, with harmonized price index up 11.6% on the year. November saw a slight easing, with an increase of 11.3%.
A one-off payment for household energy bills in December, part of government efforts to shield consumers, had a downward effect on prices, according to the statistics office.
Compared with November, December prices fell by 1.2%. Analysts had expected a drop of 0.5% on the previous month.
But 2022 was good for pension plans!
Soaring interest rates helped push more pension plans into surplus in 2022, offsetting market losses as pensions brace for another volatile year in 2023, according to two reports that measure the funding status of Canadian plans.
Consulting company Mercer Canada Ltd. said its quarterly pension health pulse, which tracks the median solvency ratio of nearly 500 Canadian defined benefit (DB) pension plans that are Mercer clients, increased to 113 per cent as of Dec. 31, up from 103 per cent at the start of the year.
And professional services firm Aon PLC said the aggregate solvency of DB pension plans of companies in the S&P/TSX Composite Index, as measured by its pension risk tracker, increased to 100.8 per cent at the end of 2022, up from 96.9 per cent a year earlier.
…
At the end of the fourth quarter, 79 per cent of plans tracked by Mercer were estimated to be in surplus on a solvency basis, and another 12 per cent had ratios between 90 per cent and 100 per cent. Four per cent of plans had solvency ratios between 80 per cent and 90 per cent, and 5 per cent were below 80 per cent, according to Mercer’s data.
…
The main factor that helped boost solvency levels for many Canadian pension plans in 2022 was the rapid rise in interest rates as central banks tried to beat back surging inflation. The Bank of Canada raised its benchmark rate seven times in 2022, from 0.25 per cent to 4.25 per cent.
…
With more plans in surplus and continuing headwinds in markets, some pension fund managers could take steps to reduce risk in their portfolios, shifting more assets to fixed income – which now offers higher yields – or contracting with insurance companies to buy annuities to pay future benefits.
| HIMIPref™ Preferred Indices These values reflect the December 2008 revision of the HIMIPref™ Indices Values are provisional and are finalized monthly |
|||||||
| Index | Mean Current Yield (at bid) |
Median YTW |
Median Average Trading Value |
Median Mod Dur (YTW) |
Issues | Day’s Perf. | Index Value |
| Ratchet | 0.00 % | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.4715 % | 2,457.4 |
| FixedFloater | 0.00 % | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.4715 % | 4,713.2 |
| Floater | 8.83 % | 8.88 % | 66,317 | 10.53 | 2 | 0.4715 % | 2,716.3 |
| OpRet | 0.00 % | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.6408 % | 3,284.7 |
| SplitShare | 5.12 % | 7.55 % | 76,912 | 2.86 | 7 | 0.6408 % | 3,922.6 |
| Interest-Bearing | 0.00 % | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.6408 % | 3,060.6 |
| Perpetual-Premium | 0.00 % | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.5102 % | 2,652.1 |
| Perpetual-Discount | 6.42 % | 6.54 % | 100,615 | 13.15 | 35 | 0.5102 % | 2,892.0 |
| FixedReset Disc | 5.62 % | 7.92 % | 97,663 | 11.77 | 62 | -0.0709 % | 2,156.4 |
| Insurance Straight | 6.39 % | 6.52 % | 116,808 | 13.17 | 20 | 0.0078 % | 2,809.4 |
| FloatingReset | 10.13 % | 9.80 % | 34,896 | 9.73 | 2 | -0.2686 % | 2,410.6 |
| FixedReset Prem | 6.62 % | 6.70 % | 180,724 | 4.06 | 2 | -0.0596 % | 2,373.3 |
| FixedReset Bank Non | 0.00 % | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | -0.0709 % | 2,204.2 |
| FixedReset Ins Non | 5.70 % | 7.86 % | 60,562 | 11.98 | 14 | 0.1887 % | 2,262.4 |
| Performance Highlights | |||
| Issue | Index | Change | Notes |
| IFC.PR.C | FixedReset Disc | -8.54 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 15.00 Evaluated at bid price : 15.00 Bid-YTW : 8.95 % |
| IFC.PR.F | Insurance Straight | -5.86 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 19.77 Evaluated at bid price : 19.77 Bid-YTW : 6.76 % |
| BN.PF.H | FixedReset Disc | -2.78 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 22.28 Evaluated at bid price : 22.75 Bid-YTW : 7.77 % |
| BNS.PR.I | FixedReset Disc | -1.87 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 19.50 Evaluated at bid price : 19.50 Bid-YTW : 7.40 % |
| BIP.PR.E | FixedReset Disc | -1.60 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 19.65 Evaluated at bid price : 19.65 Bid-YTW : 8.21 % |
| MFC.PR.L | FixedReset Ins Non | -1.40 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 16.17 Evaluated at bid price : 16.17 Bid-YTW : 8.39 % |
| MFC.PR.N | FixedReset Ins Non | -1.38 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 16.42 Evaluated at bid price : 16.42 Bid-YTW : 8.26 % |
| PWF.PR.P | FixedReset Disc | -1.12 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 12.37 Evaluated at bid price : 12.37 Bid-YTW : 8.81 % |
| RY.PR.Z | FixedReset Disc | -1.09 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 17.17 Evaluated at bid price : 17.17 Bid-YTW : 8.01 % |
| RY.PR.S | FixedReset Disc | 1.02 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 19.85 Evaluated at bid price : 19.85 Bid-YTW : 7.29 % |
| BMO.PR.F | FixedReset Disc | 1.02 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 23.30 Evaluated at bid price : 23.75 Bid-YTW : 7.17 % |
| BIP.PR.F | FixedReset Disc | 1.06 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 19.10 Evaluated at bid price : 19.10 Bid-YTW : 8.24 % |
| PVS.PR.H | SplitShare | 1.14 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Hard Maturity Maturity Date : 2027-02-28 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 22.25 Bid-YTW : 8.01 % |
| MFC.PR.Q | FixedReset Ins Non | 1.16 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 19.17 Evaluated at bid price : 19.17 Bid-YTW : 7.80 % |
| IFC.PR.A | FixedReset Ins Non | 1.16 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 17.40 Evaluated at bid price : 17.40 Bid-YTW : 7.28 % |
| BN.PF.B | FixedReset Disc | 1.18 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 16.30 Evaluated at bid price : 16.30 Bid-YTW : 9.11 % |
| RY.PR.N | Perpetual-Discount | 1.19 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 21.18 Evaluated at bid price : 21.18 Bid-YTW : 5.87 % |
| FTS.PR.J | Perpetual-Discount | 1.23 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 19.00 Evaluated at bid price : 19.00 Bid-YTW : 6.34 % |
| PWF.PR.F | Perpetual-Discount | 1.23 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 20.60 Evaluated at bid price : 20.60 Bid-YTW : 6.51 % |
| PVS.PR.K | SplitShare | 1.24 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Hard Maturity Maturity Date : 2029-05-31 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 21.26 Bid-YTW : 7.55 % |
| POW.PR.D | Perpetual-Discount | 1.31 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 19.30 Evaluated at bid price : 19.30 Bid-YTW : 6.51 % |
| RY.PR.O | Perpetual-Discount | 1.43 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 21.31 Evaluated at bid price : 21.31 Bid-YTW : 5.83 % |
| SLF.PR.E | Insurance Straight | 1.49 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 18.39 Evaluated at bid price : 18.39 Bid-YTW : 6.17 % |
| PVS.PR.I | SplitShare | 1.50 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Hard Maturity Maturity Date : 2025-10-31 Maturity Price : 25.00 Evaluated at bid price : 23.75 Bid-YTW : 6.91 % |
| MFC.PR.B | Insurance Straight | 1.56 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 18.90 Evaluated at bid price : 18.90 Bid-YTW : 6.22 % |
| BN.PF.F | FixedReset Disc | 2.13 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 16.75 Evaluated at bid price : 16.75 Bid-YTW : 8.98 % |
| MFC.PR.J | FixedReset Ins Non | 2.37 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 20.30 Evaluated at bid price : 20.30 Bid-YTW : 7.47 % |
| MFC.PR.C | Insurance Straight | 2.70 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 18.23 Evaluated at bid price : 18.23 Bid-YTW : 6.24 % |
| BN.PR.X | FixedReset Disc | 3.28 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 15.75 Evaluated at bid price : 15.75 Bid-YTW : 8.02 % |
| IFC.PR.I | Perpetual-Discount | 4.63 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 21.45 Evaluated at bid price : 21.45 Bid-YTW : 6.35 % |
| BN.PF.E | FixedReset Disc | 4.69 % | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 15.19 Evaluated at bid price : 15.19 Bid-YTW : 9.19 % |
| Volume Highlights | |||
| Issue | Index | Shares Traded |
Notes |
| BMO.PR.T | FixedReset Disc | 44,239 | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 17.27 Evaluated at bid price : 17.27 Bid-YTW : 7.93 % |
| RY.PR.H | FixedReset Disc | 41,225 | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 17.40 Evaluated at bid price : 17.40 Bid-YTW : 7.90 % |
| IFC.PR.A | FixedReset Ins Non | 37,901 | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 17.40 Evaluated at bid price : 17.40 Bid-YTW : 7.28 % |
| MFC.PR.J | FixedReset Ins Non | 23,067 | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 20.30 Evaluated at bid price : 20.30 Bid-YTW : 7.47 % |
| IFC.PR.C | FixedReset Disc | 15,320 | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 15.00 Evaluated at bid price : 15.00 Bid-YTW : 8.95 % |
| SLF.PR.D | Insurance Straight | 14,907 | YTW SCENARIO Maturity Type : Limit Maturity Maturity Date : 2053-01-03 Maturity Price : 18.09 Evaluated at bid price : 18.09 Bid-YTW : 6.20 % |
| There were 4 other index-included issues trading in excess of 10,000 shares. | |||
| Wide Spread Highlights | ||
| Issue | Index | Quote Data and Yield Notes |
| TRP.PR.G | FixedReset Disc | Quote: 16.10 – 24.62 Spot Rate : 8.5200 Average : 4.8652 YTW SCENARIO |
| CU.PR.E | Perpetual-Discount | Quote: 19.21 – 22.00 Spot Rate : 2.7900 Average : 1.5221 YTW SCENARIO |
| BN.PR.X | FixedReset Disc | Quote: 15.75 – 20.00 Spot Rate : 4.2500 Average : 2.9831 YTW SCENARIO |
| CU.PR.D | Perpetual-Discount | Quote: 19.32 – 22.00 Spot Rate : 2.6800 Average : 1.5166 YTW SCENARIO |
| TRP.PR.C | FixedReset Disc | Quote: 11.30 – 13.70 Spot Rate : 2.4000 Average : 1.5152 YTW SCENARIO |
| CU.PR.H | Perpetual-Discount | Quote: 20.60 – 22.60 Spot Rate : 2.0000 Average : 1.2401 YTW SCENARIO |
TSLA has been massively overvalued. it’s still worth about 2X Toyota. if valued by the same metrics as other car companies, then the stock is worth somewhere in the $8-15 range. Given that it’s not a tech company, but a cyclical car company with the same constraints, that’s probably about right. but it has the additional problem that Musk is insane and has pledged a massive amount of stock as guarantees for his Twitter purchase. and money is no longer free. there is absolutely zero chance it’s going to grow 50% pa for the next decade.
California is forcing them to drop the autonomous driving claims.
Korea is suing them for failure to inform owners of the 50% drop in cold weather performance .
Their lithium provider can’t provide them with lithium.
I would be shocked if Musk isn’t going to be sued for pumping Dogecoin.
i can see why Gates shorted the stock
yes. these are my views only. not investment recommendations. do your own research. consult an investment professional. etc etc
nestor , then there is this note from bloomberg ………U.S. Eastern electric grid narrowly dodged collapse during December storm – Bloomberg. The unprecedented strain on the electrical grid during December’s frigid storm was threatening to trigger cascading blackouts across the Eastern U.S. when Duke Energy Corp. called for rolling outages in North Carolina to stabilize the system, company officials said Tuesday……….. okay lets have everyone plug in the electric cars . , the green insanity is just , insane .
re: performance dec 2022 , HELLO JAMES , you say “Very specific and rather extreme assumptions about market expectations for bond market yields have to be made in order to reconcile those two indicators! ” , i do not think it is about assumptions and market expectations , i think it has to do with the vast majority of people , can not handle loosing $1 of net worth , so they go into what they think is the safety of bonds , and ignore the benefits of dividends from the pref stocks ( because everyone knows stocks are risky ) . i have found my net worth has gone down but my income is up as dividends have increased and the price of the pref have come down so i can buy more and get more divs for less money . lots of people sell out when their net worth starts dropping .
i agree. unless nations “fix” their grids, making fully electric cars is a waste of time. (imo, nuclear is the only solution for stable baseload power). California had a similar problem a few months ago. electricity prices skyrocketed in the evening with AC demand, and there was no sun/wind. they were begging people not to plug in their cars. its a joke. anyway. i’m not in charge.
“unless nations “fix” their grids, making fully electric cars is a waste of time.”
Why shouldn’t this happen in parallel? Efficient allocation of capital requires something closer to real time adaptation of grids as EVs become increasingly prevalent.
“my net worth has gone down but my income is up as dividends have increased”
Perhaps another way to frame this is “the liquidation value of my net worth has gone down”. Unless an investor plans to die or get divorced (or pledge his/her/their assets as collateral), liquidation value matters very little.
stusclues says: , you are right it should happen in parallel , but the lead time to get an up grades and expansion is much longer than building the electric cars . the up grade and expansion needed to start 10 years ago .
stusclues says: i agree , with your thoughts on liquidation value , but the vast majority of “investors” , sell out at the first drop in liquidation value , and that is what gives us the low prices on the good div payers .
“that is what gives us the low prices on the good div payers .”
I agree. I’d frame this as a mis-construing of volatility as the enemy rather than as a source of alpha.
“the lead time to get an up grades and expansion is much longer than building the electric cars . the up grade and expansion needed to start 10 years ago”
I don’t agree. Grid improvements in Europe and North America have been continuous and generally commensurate with the changes. Problems? Yes, of course. Especially during extreme conditions.
In the the long term, EVs will help stabilize the grid through bi-directional and off-peak charging.
stusclues says: , i think you are a bit off on your thinking about electrical grid expansion . this from page a6 of todays national post ….. A December report from the Independent Electricity System Operator put some figures on the cost of expanding and greening Ontario’s power system. The biggest one is $400 billion to build new infrastructure between now and 2050. That doesn’t include the cost of land. The report estimates that all the new power plants and transmission equipment will occupy about 14 times as much land as Toronto. It will also require a six-fold increase in the skilled workforce required to build power plants and transmission lines. Oh, and the province will also have to count on advances in power storage and hydrogen technology.
baffled … no question that massive grid investments are required everywhere to support the energy transition. My point was regarding timing. Do we really need to spend $400B first? I think not. Grid improvements ought to happen more or less in real time. In practice, they are bound to lag EV adoption and the changing mix of supply since crises tend to be required to spur political action. It would be neat and clean to have it all organized anywhere but the energy transition is intensely political so that is a dream.
Lasty, the NP is hardly the best place to get a balanced thought on this matter.
the reason they need to commit to spending $400 B first is they are incompetent and otherwise will not do it. had they committed 20 years ago, it would probably have been done for $100B. had they committed 10 years ago, maybe $200B. if they don’t commit now, in 10 years it’s going to be $800B. or more.
the other thing is that full EV adoption is a pipe dream that will never happen. California, NY etc, have mandated 100% EV by 2035. Not going to happen. EV cars will grow as a share, but full EV for everyone just isn’t possible. probably ever. let alone 15 years from now.
there isn’t enough raw materials to do any of this. not enough copper, lithium, cobalt or any of it. and especially not at these prices. copper would have to go to $10/lb and lithium prices triple from here, and so on. good luck, even if you could find enough of it.
and the only way we’re going to generate enough clean power for everyone is through nuclear power plants. forget wind and solar. it’s pretty useless as baseload power. see, UK, Germany, California.
so, i’m with baffled on this one.
disclaimer: these are my views only. not investment recommendations. do your own research. consult an investment professional. yada yada yada
At the beginning of the 20th Century, there was a gasoline power car produced by Carl Benz (1886) and dreams of a transportation revolution. Ford came along in 1908 with mass production and things started to happen fast. Virtually the entire infrastructure of roads and liquid fuels production/refining/distribution was developed in parallel with the adoption of the vehicle.
Modern commercial air travel is just as impressive.
What we are looking at with EVs pales in comparison.
The argument against raw material availability is tired. All of the incremental new metals required for EVs (remember metals are used in liquid fuels autos) will need to be mined once (enough to complete the fleet). After that. metals will be recycled as cars are replaced (lead acid batteries are nearly 100% recycled for example as is auto steel). Mining will only be required for global fleet growth and losses of metals (those not recycled).
Liquid fuels will need to be mined forever, so by comparison the existing fleet is a bigger problem.
Will we have 100% EVs in a decade or two. Probably not. Without the aspiration though we won’t even come close.
Nestor, you have great insight. All those with engineering / mining/ manufacturing backgrounds instinctively understand the physical realities and limitations of the EV pipe dream mantra.
For example, electric vehicles require 6 times the copper of a conventional ICE vehicle. Any substantial increase in the percentage of EVs on the road will require upgrades to the grid (more copper). Where will that copper be sourced? It is becoming more and more difficult and time consuming to obtain mining permits in most countries. And inflation is jacking up the CAPEX required to build new mines. Similar supply issues apply to the battery metals; that could change if manufacturers develop other battery technologies but such innovation will further stretch out the migration timeline.
“All those with engineering / mining/ manufacturing backgrounds instinctively understand the physical realities and limitations of the EV pipe dream mantra.”
Pure BS literary device.
For example. I am a (recently retired) professional engineer with deep experience in this space. Many tens of thousands of engineers work in all along the value chain of getting juice to EVs (from mines to the socket in our homes).
This is just plain wrong.
ya. call me a skeptic. but world annual production of copper has been sitting in the 20 M metric tons for the last 7-8 years. in order to “green” the economy, the US needs to consume ALL OF IT … every year going forward. what about Europe, China? etc? we’re not all of a sudden start producing 40 M metric tons. apparently, wind mills use a bunch of copper. look it up. i don’t mean a little.. windmills use A LOT !! now, do that for all the raw materials needed. not only that, whats the energy needed to dig this stuff out? we don’t have zero emission trucks and massive excavating machines, they all run on diesel.
that’s why i dont’ find any of this possible.
Full electric vehicles are another scam imo. Look at 1 Tesla. the amount of battery material needed can be split up to make 5 Prius plug in hybrids.
you can build 1 tesla and take 100% of emissions off the road, or build Prius that will take 90% of emissions off the road for 5 vehicles.
the typical battery for a prius will run for 40km? then you use gas. Most people don’t drive 40km in a day. (my wife does less than 8 to work and back, my brother is more typical at 25 km return daily) so, go home plug it in. and you’re good. when you do have to use gas, your consumption is minimum. a typical plug in prius will do 1100km on a full battery and tank of gas. (my civic gets close to 600km on hwy, and probably 500 city). Lets not get into battery range in the winter drops down to half in the cold for these types of vehicles
the last think i’m going to say, is that we’ve outsourced all the DIRTIEST jobs to China (and elsewhere), because we don’t want to do them here. I suggest, we move all the manufacturing and processing of all the green technologies back to the US. batteries, solar panels, windmills. all of it. and source it here. i want to see how many lithium mines we open up here in North America? the protests will be WILD. “Green” doesn’t want it in it’s back yard. and the costs would absolutely skyrocket.
“that’s why i dont’ find any of this possible.”
Good post. Owning an opinion is perfectly fine. I don’t agree. Fine too.
All the points are fine. They are challenges. I think they are surmountable and I think the history of technology backs this up.
Another implausibles:
– Netflix and video-streaming was supposed to blow up the internet. The “pipes” would never accommodate all the video.
Every roll-out of new technology faces “insurmountable” obstacles.