By on May 18, 2022

Ford

Unless you’ve been living under a rock since 2019, you’ve probably realized that just about every major carmaker has plans to go “fully electric” at some point in the rapidly approaching future. That’s going to mean big changes in the way we buy and use cars, obviously— but change is hard, and not every company is going to be willing or able to make those changes.

That equally obvious fact begs the question: who’s not gonna make it?

In my other life as a podcaster and EV enthusiast, I have very different conversations with people than I do in this life as a “car guy” who wants to talk about drag racing and dirt ovals. During one of those conversations with a guy named Phil Gross, we talked about the approximately 15 million new cars sold in the US each year.

I already knew that 15 million number, so I wasn’t surprised when Phil brought it up. I was surprised, however, when Phil told me that there simply isn’t enough lithium on Earth to keep producing cars at anything like that rate and that North American carmakers would soon be facing, “an existential threat” (his words) as they transition to EVs.

Phil should know. He’s the CEO of Snow Lake Lithium, a hard-rock mining operation up in Snow Lake, Manitoba, Canada, and it is quite literally his job to know (or, at least, try to know) precisely how much lithium is out there … and he’s not terribly optimistic.

“Right now, I can tell you precisely how much lithium is being mined in North America, to the ounce,” he says. “Zero,” he makes an “O” with his hand, driving the point home.

We went on to talk about China and South America and how they didn’t want to export lithium to the US, and the relative merits of hard rock mining vs. extracting lithium from brine solutions, but that’s not what stuck with me.

What did stick was this: no matter how you slice it, or where you look for it, there’s not enough lithium to keep up. If the manufacturers and politicians stick to their EV-only plans, some brands will be muscled out of the market simply because they can’t get enough materials. Who will they be?

It’s impossible to know, of course. But here’s my shortlist of … let’s go with, “educated guesses.”

MAZDA

I want Mazda to succeed. I want the scrappy little maker of high-quality, Kaizen-infused sporty cars to make it into the electric future with lightweight, low-mid range EVs with compact batteries that charge up lickity-quick and fight range anxiety with a hushed, mildly creepy kid whispering, “Zoom zoom.”

That’s not going to happen, though. For one thing, relatively tiny Mazda doesn’t have the cash on hand to develop something like that on its own— and its most likely big-budget partners, Toyota, are the biggest EV holdouts as it is.

That’s not to say Mazda is doomed. In fact, Mazda’s strategy seems to be to redouble its efforts at perfecting the internal combustion engine and focus its marketing in Southeast Asian markets where an electric vehicle infrastructure is even further away than it might be here. You can see that in its latest, excellent diesel-engine hybrid and its 406 lb-ft. of torque.

3.3 LITER MAZDA SKYACTIV-D INLINE-SIX

Mazda

Will a diesel hybrid fly in the US? Despite all the very good environmental arguments for low-cost hybrids and biodiesels, there’s no way. The EV purists have won the information war, and Mazda will have to look elsewhere— maybe in countries where they’re already selling diesel pickup trucks?

MINI

If there was ever a brand that could make a compact, short-range EV that was so much fun to drive that you didn’t care about its range, it should have been Mazda. They didn’t, which brings us to our next great green hope: Mini.

To be clear, Mini already has an EV. A sort of good one, if you’re judging it from the driver’s seat instead of a spec sheet. It’s enough fun to make you overlook the short range most of the time (assuming you have a second car to take on longer trips), but in this world of chip shortages and supply chain blockages and a demand curve for lithium that outpaces the supply curve like Usain Bolt outpaces, well— me!— Mini’s parent company BMW simply won’t keep making Mini Coopers. Not when they could use that lithium in a more profitable BMW i7 or i4 M50 Gran Coupe, you know?

Especially not in a seller’s market that’s packed with buyers who are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars above sticker. The money is there, in other words, and the limiting factor is going to make sure that each battery built goes into the most profitable vehicle possible.

DODGE

I could take the low road here and say something about how the “Let’s Go Brandon” crowd will be the absolute last of the internal combustion holdouts, but there are two problems with that. The first is that I don’t actually think that’s true (Infiniti will be last, before they fold— more on them in a minute), and the second is that Dodge will die for the same cynical reason Mini will probably die: there are more profitable brands in Stellantis’ portfolio to funnel lithium into.

That is unless they build a proper electric Charger that is packed with all the go-fast goodies and can sell it for Hellcat money (that car starts at $74,900). Still, that’s one car— and a sedan, at that. Could really say that Dodge was surviving if its only model was a premium sedan?

No, Stellantis is smart. They’ll keep funneling Lithium to big electric Ram trucks, high-end Jeep Wagoneers, and special edition Wranglers … and maybe just enough Chrysler crossovers to delude themselves into thinking they’ve got a Model Y competitor.

Chrysler

Dodge? Like the Plymouth and Eagle brands the last time Chrysler did this, there just might not be a place for it anymore. And that’s too bad— a low-cost electric Neon with modern LED interior mood lighting would be killer!

INFINITI

Corey Lewis has already done a stellar job charting Infiniti’s downward trajectory in recent years, and I won’t do him (or you) the injustice of putting my own spin on it. Go read his piece, then come back here and try to imagine a world where the tenuous Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi, already under pressure from Renault’s plan to spin its EV operations off into a separate company, actually gets it right.

Infiniti could so easily get it right, too. A big, electric Q45 with semi-active suspension and torque vectoring could be the big sedan that puts Infiniti back on the map. Another slinky, sexy SUV coupe? The market is packed with them, but Infiniti was one of the innovators here, and their stylists just might be able to make some magic happen if they drop that goofy, Power Rangers-inspired grille.

Heck, dumping all the resources they can get their mitts on into their most expensive product line while letting their volume players waste away into irrelevance with nothing but minor cosmetic and trim updates for a decade and a half might actually be the smart move. For the first time in history, it seems, it’s the high-dollar enthusiast play that will win the day— and Infiniti could pull it off. Acura already blew it with their high-tech NSX hybrid monstrosity (Was a mid-engined Accord really too much to ask for?), but Infiniti?

Infiniti won’t get it right. They can’t. It’s in whatever’s left of their DNA, and Nissan doesn’t care enough to even try to save them.

[Images: Ford, Mazda, Chrysler/Stellantis]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

118 Comments on “Opinion: These Brands Won’t Make it in the US (as EVs)...”


  • avatar
    ajla

    For an “EV enthusiast” you are a bit underinformed on advancements in battery chemistry and recycling. Brands might go away during the switch but it won’t be due to a finite amount of lithium.

    • 0 avatar

      So short lithium stocks.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      Sodium-ion is already headed to production. As sodium-ion batteries increase in density, they’ll displace lithium. Mainstream EVs in the second half of the decade. Initially sodium ion will be used in utility storage applications which will lessen demand on lithium.

      https://www.catl.com/en/news/665.html

      https://carnewschina.com/2022/01/13/catl-new-patent-allows-anode-free-sodium-ion-battery-density-to-go-above-200wh-kg/

      https://rhomotion.com/natron-energy-and-clarios-to-develop-sodium-ion-production-facility-in-the-us#:~:text=Natron%20Energy%20recently%20announced%20plans,begins%20commercial%20production%20in%202023.

      https://www.electrive.com/2022/03/28/blackstone-announces-plans-for-3d-printed-sodium-ion-batteries/

      https://wccftech.com/bluetti-unveils-worlds-first-sodium-ion-na-solar-generator-up-to-12-6kwh-capacity-size/

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      There are other materials besides lithium that will be in short supply. But that’s not the delimiter.

      Batteries have to be recharged, and there isn’t enough electrical generating capacity in the US to power all those electric vehicles. Even Elon Musk admitted the EV is a niche product for that reason.

      I live in California where the state government touts the 85% renewable electricity generation at the same time it’s warning of blackouts in the Summer. It also fails to mention that over 25% of California electricity usage is imported from other states.

      Shutting down nuclear, coal, oil, and even clean-burning natural gas will only make it worse. Intermittent sun and wind power doesn’t have a ghost of a chance to make up for it.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I wonder how the solid state battery technology is going in development for Toyota. If Toyota can pull the technology off it could be a game changer.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      GM & HONDA TO DEVELOP NEW EV PLATFORM
      We already knew that General Motors and Honda are collaborating on EVs using GM’s Ultium platform. But Reuters reports they are also going to develop another EV platform, for smaller, less expensive EVs. The two automakers have not decided if it will be on a GM or a Honda platform, but it will use the next generation of GM’s Ultium battery. Bloomberg reports that GM and Honda are also working together on solid state batteries. The new small EV will also use the same build process so that they can be built at either GM or Honda assembly plants. The build process refers to the steps in which a car is assembled. For example, you want the suspension, or the windshield, or the headlamps to go onto the car in the same sequence as the car goes down the line. As long as you have the same build sequence and common attachment points, you can run just about any vehicle down an assembly line.  Autoline Daily

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      WSJ had article about “battery breakthroughs” and they stated if you do a search you will find a million results – but the WSJ says they looked and found no actual breakthroughs

      meanwhile lithium has quadrupled in price and the country is still closing reliable power plants, meaning intermittent so-called “green” energy will drive electricity costs sky high

      Toyota, btw, is a ev denier – they don’t see it happening even w/ gov push

      as for ICE I found SIX refineries have been closed in the US since 2020 – there will be a shortage of US refined gas and diesel no matter the crude supply – JP Morgan predicts $6.20/gal gas ave for Aug 2020

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        “but the WSJ says they looked and found no actual breakthroughs”

        That’s total BS. There are breakthroughs already in production. Silicon anodes were a breakthrough as was lithium iron and the technology that enabled the development of sodium-ion batteries.

      • 0 avatar

        So we can look at Silicone andoes as an example. The concept seems to be about 19 years old. Lots of companies announced they were working on them in the 2012 to 2015 timeline. 2021 Sila actually shipped batteries in smart watches. In the mean times other battery makers used some of the tech to improve their own batteries as well. So it seems like there are improvements happening all the time. In this case Sila is claiming a 30% volume reduction for the same WH battery. Others are claiming 10-20% but that still a noticeable improvement.
        I think at some point you will see a decrease in improvements but hasn’t Tesla managed to increase the energy density of their battery 15 to 20 percent over the last 7 years or so.

    • 0 avatar
      Imagefont

      Solid state battery. I predict it’s coming along slowly and is more than 10 years away from regular production, and that it’s fabulously expensive.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      Toyota has the battery. Currently, they are working out mass production issues.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        If Toyota does bring that technology out and the price of batteries is lowered that would be a game changer. Might even consider that for my next vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Do you really have anything if you can’t produce it and put it in a vehicle? I mean a number of automakers to include Toyota “had” fuel cells but they never got that production bit worked out did they?

        • 0 avatar
          conundrum

          Never heard of the Toyota Mirai FCV?

          They’re on the Mk2 already for 2022 — the first one looked like a streamlined street cleaner.

          https://www.toyota.com/mirai/

  • avatar
    Good ole dayz

    Folks need not take my word for what follows; you are VERY encouraged to do your own research (but don’t use a Google or Microsoft browser because you’ll get manipulated search results):

    Starting in the early 1970’s (“The Club of Rome”) there’s been a powerful group of what could be called “new age Malthusians” who want global depopulation to “save the planet” from perceived ecological disaster;

    Today, those forces are manifested in the U.N.’s “Agenda 2030” and the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” (the “Green New Deal” is a derivative of those);

    To promote their agenda, they’ve fabricated “climate change” / “carbon pollution” and promoted as (existential) crises. For example, AOC’s “we only have twelve years” nonsense.

    For decades now, school students have been indoctrinated with this nonsense (recall Al Gore and his disappearing Arctic Ice schtick).

    The whole “sustainability” thing is a ruse to massively lower average living standards in the developed world. There’s a notorious video released by the WEF itself that by 2030 “you’ll own nothing and be happy” (query then who they envision will own everything). That same video even says that eating real meat will only be an occasional treat.

    The intent is to make if financially impossible for people to live in suburbs (single family homes), or have personal transportation. “Pack ’em and stack ’em” is a phrase used to describe how they want everyone living in large multifamily complexes, dependent upon public transportation.

    This is why they want to force only EV’s to be made, even as they reduce electric generating capacity. They care not if lithium isn’t and can’t be available at scale, for they intend that eventually only an elite will have access to personal transportation.

    Millions have been duped by the “climate change” fraud – this doesn’t mean that they’re not intelligent people. It does mean that they’ve been subjected to a massive propaganda campaign, one intended to fool them into going along with an agenda that will harm them and generations to come.

    • 0 avatar
      aja8888

      Great post. It’s the “plan”…like it or not.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      Maurice Strong – Canadian – invented AGW

      he destroyed Ontario’s power production – turning it from a low cost elec producer to a high cost one

      Strong was a grifter but got a good obit in grift central – the NYTimes

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      I’m sad to see this sort of conspiracy bull$hit on this site. And it’s not even coherent.

      If “they” (who?) want global depopulation, why would they be trying to change people’s lives instead of just end them?

      If “they” want everyone in multifamily living, why do “they” stubbornly keep it illegal to build multifamily housing in all but a few tiny pieces of America?

      You, not everyone else, are the one who has been duped by a propaganda campaign.

      • 0 avatar
        Good ole dayz

        >>If “they” (who?) want global depopulation, why would they be trying to change people’s lives instead of just end them?

        I named the entities; the names of most, if not all, of the parties and individuals involved with those are available to the public. For example, Justin Trudeau, Vladimir Putin, Gavin Newsom are all graduates of the WEF “Young Leaders” program.

        The reduction of average living standards and depopulation are not mutually exclusive. Many believe that the experimental mRNA shots are designed to sabotage peoples’ immune systems; and the growing food shortages (with perhaps famines coming) are by design, and intended to kill on mass scale. (IMHO neither premise if proven, but neither are they refuted at this point.) Dramatically reduced standards of living for survivors (except an elite) is not incompatible. Party officials in the Soviet Union lived high off the hog, while the workers of the “workers’ paradise” were miserable (those that didn’t die in Gulags).

        >>If “they” want everyone in multifamily living, why do “they” stubbornly keep it illegal to build multifamily housing in all but a few tiny pieces of America?

        Note the Obama-Biden “Affirmatively Fair Housing” agenda intended to federalize local zoning and, yes, ultimately prohibit construction of new single-family housing while injecting multi-family housing in areas once zoned single-family only.

        That the agenda hasn’t yet been fully accomplished doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, nor that it isn’t advancing.

        >>You, not everyone else, are the one who has been duped by a propaganda campaign.

        Ah, so you represent “everyone else.” It must be a glorious position. Were you elected or appointed to that position?

        As I said initially, I recommend that everyone do their own research using search engines that are not manipulated (which also means ignore Wikipedia, as it’s no longer unbiased). Search “Club of Rome.” Search “Agenda 2030.” Search “World Economic Forum” and “Great Reset.” Search for the WEF’s “you will own nothing” video (probably no longer on YouTube). Another commenter mentioned Maurice Strong – that is also a good subject.

        Some independent research and critical thinking skills applied will take one farther than mere acceptance and regurgitation of what the “mainstream media” and its corporate masters peddle.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “Some independent research and critical thinking skills applied”

          Damn funny statement for a conspiracy theory believer to make.

          Where do I mail the extra thick aluminum foil hats?

          If depopulation is the goal why develop COVID-19 vaccines in the first place?
          mRNA vaccines don’t weaken the immune system.
          Why battle cancer, heart and lung disease?
          Why actively cut back on cigarette sales?

          Where’s the clear evidence that climate change is a hoax?

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ Where’s the clear evidence that climate change is a hoax?”

            The fact that you libs have been wringing your hands about the climate since the 60s and 70s with wild claims about global cooling the global warming, and mass food shortages, oceans rising, worse and more intense storms, and the fact that since the 70s seven been on a perpetual “we only have 10 years left!!!” Kick.

            All of it complete bull$#!t

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            @Lou–I would add that why be opposed to abortions and birth control. Seems it would be easier and less expensive to control the population by limiting its growth especially if there is less need for labor. After having worked for the Government for over 30 years and now retired my experience is it is not so much conspiracy as it is incompetence. We as a species do some very irrational stupid things.

          • 0 avatar
            MrIcky

            “The fact that you libs have been wringing your hands about the climate since the 60s and 70s with wild claims about global cooling the global warming, and mass food shortages, oceans rising, worse and more intense storms, and the fact that since the 70s seven been on a perpetual “we only have 10 years left!!!” Kick”

            Im not a lib…at all…but let’s talk about some of this:

            First off, ocean levels are measurably rising. That’s just a fact. It’s not political. I work in the insurance industry and I see flood zoning maps made by the government and they are compared against loss info and survey work. It’s not my opinion, it’s not the government telling me so, it’s decision making concerns on where to put money and how to diversify risk. There have absolutely been some people who have overstated the speed at which this is happening which is too bad because it ruins credibility for the people who are keeping it real.

            2nd, more intense storms- again, this is a fact. It’s measurable and the group that is really measuring it is the insurance industry. There are more damaging wind and hail storms, they are more expensive (discounting for inflation), they are bigger in area covered. There is also more inland flooding in areas that have not traditionally been flood prone. And in areas prone to flooding, flood control devices designed to handle historical floods have been overwhelmed.

            3rd, global warming is also demonstrably real. You won’t believe it because you refuse to believe it. But straight forward empirical measurements demonstrate that the earth is on average warmer now than it was a hundred years ago.

            4th, lets talk about mass food shortages: a war in one moderate size country for 2 months is enough to stop between 10 and 20% of the world’s wheat supply and causing food shortages RIGHT NOW. War doesn’t equal global warming *but* it does illustrate that the food supply outside of America isn’t that robust.

            The world won’t end almost no matter what people do- that line is stupid, but it’s pretty easy to see how life could suck a lot more for people.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “I’m not a lib…at all…but let’s talk about some of this:”

            And then you go on to type a lengthy amount of complete nonsense. You drive through any ocean front city and you see buildings being built left and right. Shockingly expensive buildings right on the beach. That wouldn’t happen of this fairy tale “oceans are rising” trope had any basis in reality. Which leads into your next point of insurance costs being indicative of more severe storms. Of course it has nothing to do with larger and larger populations living on the coast, it has to be the mythical global warming.

            Never mind the fact that fairly recently we had the quietest period of hurricane activity for about 10 years. But we must ignore that fact.

          • 0 avatar
            Good ole dayz

            I told you where to look re: so-called “climate change.” The Heartland Institute is also a good source.

            As for the “vaccines” look at places like Dr. Robert Malone’s Substack, as well as Steve Kirsch’s there, and Dr. Pierre Kory and Doctor McCullough. And Naomi Wolf has been all over this.

            There are the gullible that still lend credence to what they hear from the “mainstream media.” I’m sure there are millions that still believe that Trump colluded with the Russians, the 2016 election was stolen by the Russians, that 2020 was a free and fair election, that masks are effective against Covid, that it originated in a Wuhan wet market, that Hunter Biden’s laptop is disinformation …

            The followers of “mainstream media” don’t know what they don’t know. If they’re not willing to source alternative information, there’s no helping them.

          • 0 avatar
            MrIcky

            EBFlex- So sure, I’ll take your Sunday Drive over actuaries giving the standard deviation for storm energy using actual data. That makes sense.

            Ocean rise: 3 inches in 25 years. That’s not a theory. It just ‘is’. And reports that have made it sound like everyone will be swimming haven’t done the truth any favors. But this roughly translates into the highest point of a storm surge will now go approximately 30 to 40 feet further inland on average.

            Storms: Every year the reports get updated and home values and housing density gets taken into account. Then actuaries decide what the rate per dollar of property value is based on risk. It automatically accounts for inflation/home values etc. because it translates into: you will likely pay $X for every $Y you insure. So 1000 or 1MM- the rate normalizes for that. I was more referencing hail/wind though which are more clear than hurricanes because you need the law of large numbers to apply to get effective data. Most people are hung up on hurricanes and there are too few to get good statistical info. Again, the press doesn’t do anyone any favors with the way they handle hurricane reporting with global warming. Convective storm events are where the data is.

            You can build your shockingly expensive home anywhere you want. And if you can afford a shockingly expensive home, you can afford shockingly expensive insurance.

            It says alot about you that you think I can’t be conservative if I can do math. The people giving me information that I believe could care less about your coastal vacation, your politics, etc. It’s all just spreadsheets.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ EBFlex- So sure, I’ll take your Sunday Drive over actuaries giving the standard deviation for storm energy using actual data. That makes sense.”

            And what “data” do the use? The same manipulated data that is used to push the dangerous climate agenda?

            These people can’t even answer two basic questions which shows how full of it they are. Maybe your special spreadsheets can:

            1. What is the temperature supposed to be?

            2. At what point in history was the climate “correct”?

            If you can sit there and tell me the temperature is wrong (too hot) and that the current climate is so broken that we have to spend billions and trillions “fixing” it, then you can tell me what’s considered “right”

            We have had MUCH higher sea levels thousands and thousands of years ago. Before the wheel was invented so people like you can’t go blaming SUVs. Explain it. Explain the glaciers forming. Lots of final cooling there, why? Ope but then glaciers melted, was it because cave men were driving around in SUVs again? That’s a lot of warming to melt glaciers.

          • 0 avatar
            MrIcky

            @EBFlex-this is the last of my commentary on the subject.

            Right, wrong, whatever I don’t know what the “correct” temperature is, nor do I come to TTAC to fix anything. My vehicles are both v8s so I’m probably part of the problem. And I don’t care what you drive.

            We aren’t looking at manipulated data like hockey stick graphs. We look at storm losses and how much they cost. It’s not rocket science.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          Amazing. Seems that the USA is now split into two populations. Some like ‘good ole dayz’ who disregard science, and expertise and rely on conspiracy theories. And those like Mr Icky who use fact, statistics and science.

          The insurance industry has tracked flooding and fires for over a century. They have demonstrable statistics demonstrating that these have increased dramatically. They have demonstrable evidence that the climate has changed with more severe weather/storms.

          Meteorologists have centuries of data. They confirm that weather patterns have changed dramatically.

          Is this all man-made? Again evidence demonstrates that the ‘killer fogs’ in southern England/London were man-made. Changes in pollution controls for autos have eliminated the brown ‘smog’ that often covered many North American cities. Acid rain has similarly been eliminated. And our buildings are no longer covered in soot. It has been proven that human actions can influence the weather. Just as natural activities such as a volcanic eruption can change the weather for a period of time.

          But conspiracy theorists do not want to accept facts. Much like pre-historic man, they would rather create myths about who and what controls their universe.

          And they are aided and abetted by trolls paid by the Kremlin, and their ‘useful idiots’. The right wingers have solidified around their leader in the Kremlin and his friends/supporters, and those who ‘want to do business with him’.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            @Arthur–So true. There are still some who believe the original Moon landing was a Government conspiracy and a fake landing was staged out in the desert. There are also those who believe the Earth is not spherical and that if one goes too far that they can fall off the end. There are also those who still believe Elvis is still alive and living in seclusion. The Government is conspiring to make all our lives miserable and keep us enslaved and broke. Again having worked for the Government the Government is not that competent. Not saying Government is totally incompetent but we as a species are unpredictable and getting most us in today’s World to agree on anything is akin to herding cats.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Oh good…I have the Canadian Take on US politics so I can sleep well.

            Just like Canadians that seem to loathe are system can knowing that if big bad Vlad kicks off World War III we will keep them safe like always. We appreciate the contributions of your six ship Navy or whatever though

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            @MrIcky–Calling people who don’t agree with them liberals is a way of deflecting any meaningful discussion and pushing a political agenda. Can’t even go on a car site without blaming certain politicians and the Government for everything that is wrong. If a tornado hits a certain place then it is those liberals that cause it. Climate change is a liberal agenda and so is a pandemic.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @ArtV: Much like the USA appreciated that the Canadian Navy protected American shipping in the Atlantic during WWII and showed the American Navy how to conduct anti-submarine operations. Much like the Americans appreciated that Canada took the lead in the most volatile areas of Afghanistan. Much like the Americans appreciated that Canada saved the American Embassy staff during the revolution in Iran. There are of course many other examples.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Art Vandelay – in this thread please point out exactly where I presented a take on USA politics?
            I responded to a conspiracy theorist. BTW TTAC is owned by a Canadian company.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Yeah Arthur…where would we have been without you. Hey, I did like that Tim Hortons in Kandahar ..until the Canadians bailed anyway

            STFU chump

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Arthur Dailey – we are seeing a similar phenomenon in Canada. Jason Kenny is as conservative as it gets but the antivaxxer/antimasker freedumb types felt that he sold them out. He’s out.
            We saw it with the Attawa siege and border crossing blockades. They felt that all Canadians would support them.

            They don’t have the benefit of an electoral college or politically determined electoral boundaries but aren’t bright enough to know the difference between US and Canadian law.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          As it happens, I know more than a little bit about AFFH, and your description of it bears absolutely no relation to reality. There is not a thing in it or in any policy that would reasonably follow from it that would prohibit construction of single-family housing.

          We can assume that the rest of your rant has the same relationship to reality.

      • 0 avatar
        CaddyDaddy

        CaddyDaddy is always looking for new “Conspiracy Theories”, because all the old ones CaddyDaddy believed in came true!

      • 0 avatar
        C5 is Alive

        “If “they” (who?) want global depopulation, why would they be trying to change people’s lives instead of just end them?”

        Because outright eliminationism doesn’t poll very well, particularly among those societal elements most in need of it.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          I’m comforted by the words of Billy Zane in “Titanic” where upon being informed that half the people on the ship were going to die he replied:

          “Not the better half”

          Best of luck to all of you enlightened ones that are so much smarter than the rest of us, but always seem to need us to pay for something

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “If “they” (who?) want global depopulation”

        I suspect you interacted with some of them during your time in Genève.

        “why would they be trying to change people’s lives instead of just end them?”

        Probably because the world is akin to a behemoth ship, making a turn must be done slowly and expectedly as opposed to “oops we missed the turn, hard to port and increase speed”. The stated goal may be 2030, 2050 etc. but these are likely what we call in my industry “soft dates”. Sure meeting all tyrannical goals by 2030 would be great but realistically meeting one while others are still in progress would be a victory. These people play the long game and they seem to be winning, just look at one major generation to the next and how less sane/coherent life and beliefs are between them.

        “If “they” want everyone in multifamily living, why do “they” stubbornly keep it illegal to build multifamily housing in all but a few tiny pieces of America?”

        This is a good point though as you already know the sand is slowly starting to shift in the multifamily direction. I’ve read the same about Agenda 2030 and while attributing zoning changes to it may not be accurate I’d say due to several factors an expansion in density in most areas of the US west is in the cards. If I were in your shoes I would get in on the ground floor of these density changes at they occur (from a real estate point of view).

      • 0 avatar
        zerofoo

        If “they” (who?)

        I’ll tell you who “they” are. They are the ones that tell us sea level rise will destroy coastlines and then buy large homes right on those very coastlines.

        They are the ones flying private planes to conferences to tell us that human emitted carbon will raise the planet average temperature 2 degrees centigrade in 100 years.

        They are the ones telling us that modern farms and farming methods destroy the planet, while they amass real-estate portfolios of farms and agricultural land.

        I don’t know about the depopulation theories – they sound like a distraction from the real problem – “they” want to impose a new feudal system where “they” are the lords and you are the serf.

        These so-called leaders should be forced to live the lives they want to impose on the rest of us.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Amazing lost Good Ole Dayz. 110% spot on. Thank you for sharing that.

      “ For example, AOC’s “we only have twelve years” nonsense.”

      We’ve been hearing since the 70s that we have 10 years left. And weird here we are 50 years later doing just fine. Seas are not rising, there is no food shortages (well except for Xiden’s formula shortage but democrats like killing babies inside and outside the womb).

      It’s all been lies by our political leaders to control us. And it’s so obvious but, lucky for them, there are some very stupid and easily manipulated people out there that will believe anything their dear government tells them (like masks work, the vaccines stop Covid, lockdowns save life’s, global warming, etc.).

    • 0 avatar
      Goatshadow

      Can always count on this site for the delusional whackjobs to show up in the comments. Disappointed there are no lizard people mentioned though.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Cue MCS to tell us about all the wonderful new battery technologies that don’t use lithium.

    None of these are in production by the way. Solid-state batteries, for example, have been a pipe dream for over 25 years.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      If the battery revolution doesn’t happen then the EV revolution won’t happen either.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      Master Baiter, the non-lithium batteries are reality and production facilities are under construction now. Read all of the articles or have someone read them to you if it’s an issue.

      Solid-state isn’t a pipe dream. They are here and are in limited production. Now, mass-production might be a problem and is the gating issue now. Toyota has their battery and has been road testing it for a year, so it’s not a pipedream. They’re working on the mass-production issues and if anyone can pull it off, Toyota can.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        @mcs

        Building a production facility and “testing for over a year” doesn’t mean squat. I’ll believe it when I can go buy a car with a solid state battery.

        “Mass production issues” are more than half the battle in bringing a new battery technology to market.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          “Building a production facility and “testing for over a year”…

          Actually, it does mean something. They’re getting close. You know absolutely nothing about the technology involved and probably don’t even know what a solid-state battery is. Again, they have the battery. It’s being roadtested. They are now at the phase where they are designing the equipment to produce it. Not a pipedream.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            I think we can all agree that Elon Musk is an idiot, because he’s not building gigafactories to produce these new batteries that are just around the corner instead of the soon to be obsolete li-on batteries. And we can all agree that Toyota are a bunch of Luddites, who are bitterly clinging to their ICE and hybrid vehicles because they are too timid or incompetent to bring out new technologies, and since they are supposedly pushing the development of these just around the corner solid state batteries, they are too short sighted to begin construction of a plant to build them, and instead will let their competitors get a huge jump on them while they dawdle around.

            Yep, they’re the idiots.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Club Car. No reason other than the course I play regularly just got Yamahas to replace their fleet.

  • avatar

    I would not worry about small Japanese makers like Subaru or Mazda, Japanese Government will force Toyota’s hand to provide EV scateboards for them to put on their customized bodies.

    But regarding big picture – Chinese makers and Tesla will dominate world market.

  • avatar
    Imagefont

    A Mercedes EQS (didn’t catch the model) passed me in my neighborhood today as I was walking my dog. I could hear it coming behind me because I could only hear tire sounds. Tesla’s make an electric whine, this car was utterly silent and I knew it was something different and as it drove by (I did not turn around to look) I could see what it was. Very impressive. But then for $100,000+ it damn well should be.

  • avatar
    tane94

    Infiniti could fold tomorrow and few would notice. It’s too bad about Mini; if there is only so much lithium and neodymium to go around, BMW will put into into its highest profit vehicles. Buick should be on this list, as it is in the middle morass between Chevy and Cadillac. Keep it alive in China in you must but it has no role to play here.

  • avatar
    MKizzy

    Unless or until government regulations and/or ICE infrastructure loss makes it too impractical to purchase/own a ICE vehicle, there will be a floor to consumer demand for ICE vehicles, and the remaining models will compete for the largest slice of a smaller but still profitable pie. There’s no reason to believe that decades from now, there won’t continue to be a small number of cash-cow ICE vehicle models sold by those companies willing and able to to keep them alive and up to date with minimal investment.

    And why not? This is happening today in a sense. Minivans have been passe for nearly a generation, yet Toyota/Honda/Chrysler still sells tons of them to the public. It will be the same with mid-size sedans where only Toyota/Honda/Nissan will soon be left (the Sonata is rumored dead and will probably take the K5 with it an anyone whose seen photos of the 2023 Legacy can assume Subaru’s preparing to throw in the towel).

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      Agree we will have ICE for at least a few more decades and even if manufacturers stop making ICE eventually there will still be plenty of them around. In more rural farm areas you see older trucks and tractors being used and I doubt they will go all EV for a long time. Might see more refineries being phased out and less oil exploration and drilling but they will still exist most likely we will import more petroleum products because of environmental regulations and cost. With proper maintenance you can keep most ICE vehicles running for decades and with higher residual values and higher prices of new vehicles it makes more sense to keep a vehicle longer.

    • 0 avatar
      Good ole dayz

      Except that governments, under the false-flag of “sustainability,” are passing laws outlawing the sale of new ICE vehicles (typically around 2030).

      After that, they’ll ban registration of, and operation of, on public roads.

      They intend to force most into expensive, impractical (and with limited electrical generating capacity) unrechargeable EV’s. In other words, force the little people into mass transit … which will only be available in urban areas.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        @Good ole dayz–Do you know of any current federal legislation banning the sale of new ICE vehicles? Have you heard of any legislation forcing people into mass transit? Have you ever ridden mass transit? Until I read proposed legislation banning the sale of ICE vehicles and read of requirements that people have to take mass transit I am not going to worry. I took mass transit to work for almost 30 years and my employer paid for it. I was not forced to take it. Taking the park and ride to work saved my a lot of money and extended the life of my vehicles enough to pay for a new car. Mass transit is not convenient for many but if you work in a downtown area of a major city it is a real cost saver. No one is going to force anyone to take a bus or a train. No one is forcing you to give up your ICE vehicle or to ride a bus.

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “ Do you know of any current federal legislation banning the sale of new ICE vehicles?”

          What an incredibly stupid question but yet so typical for a liberal to ignore context and reduce everything to black and white.

          You don’t accomplish things in one fell swoop. You take small bites at the apple. Your side of the aisle wants to ban ICE vehicles but they k ow they can’t just outright ban them. So they do little, baby steps to continue towards reaching their goal.

          Plus, when you have such an ineffective, Alzheimer’s riddled empty suit of an installed president who isn’t doing ANYTHING to lower gas prices, there’s no need for legislation. Not doing anything about gas prices is by design. They want high prices as then people will demand the planet killing EVs (that cost just as much to fill up) solving their problem.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            @EBFlex–Those damn liberals came up with personal computers eliminating millions of jobs that could otherwise be done with ledgers, journals, and adding machines. A Communist, liberal, socialist agenda that was put together for years to conspire against mankind. Getting people addicted to their Smart and Apple phones and forcing them to buy new ones every few years. Those truly evil liberal forces that make you use the internet and read and comment on articles on the internet. You could avoid all this liberalism and join the Amish who for the most part don’t use electricity or fuel and not dependent on those evil liberal politicians.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ Those damn liberals came up with personal computers eliminating millions of jobs that could otherwise be done with ledgers, journals, and adding machines. A Communist, liberal, socialist agenda that was put together for years to conspire against mankind. Getting people addicted to their Smart and Apple phones and forcing them to buy new ones every few years. Those truly evil liberal forces that make you use the internet and read and comment on articles on the internet. You could avoid all this liberalism and join the Amish who for the most part don’t use electricity or fuel and not dependent on those evil liberal politicians.”

            Are you ok?

        • 0 avatar
          Good ole dayz

          >>Do you know of any current federal legislation banning the sale of new ICE vehicles?

          Cute play limiting your comment to federal legislation (though it’s coming). The template is in play. The EU and Washington State for example:

          https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/eu-proposes-effective-ban-new-fossil-fuel-car-sales-2035-2021-07-14/

          https://www.reuters.com/world/us/washington-state-passes-bill-with-goal-phase-out-gasoline-cars-2021-04-15/

          >>Have you heard of any legislation forcing people into mass transit?

          Have you heard of Cass Sunstein and his book “Nudge” with its “choice architecture.” If you place people in a position where personal transportation in economically unviable (no ICE’s for sale; EV’s too expensive and impractical) you “nudge” them into the desired outcome.

          >>Have you ever ridden mass transit?

          Yes. Inconvenient. Horrible at rush hours. Unsafe (lots of dicey people / criminals). Dirty.

          >>Mass transit is not convenient for many but if you work in a downtown area of a major city it is a real cost saver. No one is going to force anyone to take a bus or a train. No one is forcing you to give up your ICE vehicle or to ride a bus.

          And the Climate Cultists openly stated goal is to congregate people into dense housing in urban areas (see the U.N. “Agenda 2030” and WEF “Great Reset” web sites). EV’s with long charging times and limited range fit this. See “Nudge” reference above: if for the vast majority the cost of having an ICE (or EV) and parking for same in an urban core is prohibitive, then legislative force isn’t required.

          Outlawing the sale of ICE vehicles is not market-based choice, but legislative coercion while still maintaining an illusion of “choice.” “You can buy any vehicle you want, so long as it’s an EV.”

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Funny enough, ANY brand that commits to EVs any further than play toys will not make it.

    We don’t have enough electricity. We are actively working to reduce the amount of electricity we produce while simultaneously pushing for these awful EVs.

    In my state alone we are closing down those super duper bad coal plants and replacing them with wind and solar that is resulting in a net loss of total electricity (because wind and solar are neither green nor efficient).

    It amazes me how stupid our democratic leaders are for pushing this garbage.

    • 0 avatar
      redapple

      EB>
      – Elect generating capy will need to grow by 60-65% by 2030. (closing coal plants 25% elec gen gone) BEV on road ~40 million. ( each 1 million bev requires 1% more elect gen.) If you think that we will able to expand elect gen by 65% in 8 years – you are crazy. Bird chopper and solar cells with battery saving will yield us elec at $0.50 kWh. Ha ha idiots. (True cost without govt freebies and power company offsets. You lll pay this – one way or the other)
      – Most of the rare earth elements needed for BEV come from 3rd world counties. Rape the earth countries. Rape the little kids doing the work in the mines.
      – 1st world already at record low pollution. Burning coal here is 98% clean. We will buy all the rare earths from countries that burn a lot of coal. and will burn more as we stop using it and prices fall making their elec at $0.05 /kWh. They ll burn coal 100 % dirty. No pollution controls.
      – Since we need these countries for the rare earths, we ll have ZERO leverage in telling them to go green and/or Clean up their plants.
      – I 75 south GA. Georgia Power or whoever cleared ~ 3000 acres of forest FOREST next to the expressway. Guess what s going in -in that newly created field? Yeah. Solar cell farm. Now did any big brain do a study on how much carbon that forest captured VS how much carbon a coal plant or natural gas plant was generating -kWh vs kWh generated. An unbiased report would be very interesting i suspect.
      – Countries that rely on low EROI energies will decline. Countries that use high EROI sources will flourish. By Doing what we are doing, we will greatly speed up our already speedy decline. Thank you Demoncats.

      This FORCED conversion to BEV is going to be a disaster on many levels. If it made sense, it would not have to be compulsory and mandated by our central committee/supreme soviet. Lib freakout below / . With certified facts from lib sites.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “ cleared ~ 3000 acres of forest FOREST next to the expressway. Guess what s going in -in that newly created field? Yeah. Solar cell farm.”

        Imagine being so virtuous and committed to the planet that you would clear cut 3,000 acres. All in the name of being green.

        Liberals and democrats are the dumbest bunch of window licking filth that has ever called this planet home. Nothing they do makes sense, they are incredibly racist, and they want to do everything in their power to destroy life on this planet.

        • 0 avatar
          Good ole dayz

          Trees eat “carbon pollution” (a/k/a carbon dioxide, which is plant food, not a pollutant).

          So eliminating 3000 acres of “carbon scrubbers” would only make sense to cognitive dissonant progressives.

          If they were really concerned about “carbon” (CO2 plant food) then they’d be promoting nuclear, which requires neither the real estate of solar farms, nor of wind farms (bird execution fields).

          “Carbon pollution” is a pretext for the global feudalism contemplated by the World Economic Forum and its “Build Back Better” / Green New Deal sham.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @redapple – interesting.
        “An acre of mature trees can capture 2.6 tonnes of CO2 per year.” 3,000 acres = 7, 800 tons CO2 per year.

        “As a general rule, 1 acre of solar panels produces about 351 MWh of electrical energy per year

        One source I looked at estimated solar: “10,000kWh X 0.846 = 8,460 lbs of CO2”
        That translates to 1 MW = 846 lbs. CO2

        Assuming 2,000 acres are covered in panels, that yields 702,000 MWh per year yielding 296,946 ton of CO2 reduction per year.

        Feel free to check my math. Insomnia math can be off. LOL

        Solar wins out.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      True Tesla has committed themselves to those EV play toys and is making millions off them. As for wind energy there are some of us so full of wind that we could produce our own electricity.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “ True Tesla has committed themselves to those EV play toys and is making millions off them. As for wind energy there are some of us so full of wind that we could produce our own electricity.”

        Once again, the concept of “context” seems to allude you.

        Tesla is a niche manufacturer that makes niche products. There will always be a market for that.

        Typically though, a niche manufacturer makes money off their products, not selling carbon credits but Tesla is truly an anomaly.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      @EBFlex–What’s your agenda if you are coming on a car site and discussing politics? You don’t seem to like cars. You can go on political sites and discuss politics all day long instead of disrupt a meaningful discussion about cars. Some of us are interested in all types of vehicles whether they be ICE or EV. Nice to find out what other manufacturers are planning to build in the future whether it is something that I am interested in or not. I have always had an interest in cars from the time of my childhood assembling AMT 3 in 1 model cars, to drawing cars, and my father taking me to car dealers to see the latest cars when they were introduced. I remember how excited I was the first time I saw a 64 1/2 Mustang a 63 Rivera, and 63 Grand Prix. Had a neighbor growing up that got a new Chevy Impala SS every few years in the 60s especially remember and lusted after his gold 62 Impala SS with bucket seats, console, and the venerable 409. Cars as a kid excited me and I could not wait to get my driver’s license. The last thing on my mind growing up was liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans even though my parents for the most part voted Republican. I would rather revel in the smell of a new car or truck than fret over what a politician might or might not do.

  • avatar
    randy in rocklin

    I just rented a 2022 Mustang convertible. The seat back doesn’t recline far enough, the passenger side air vents don’t cool when it’s all the way down. I could feel warm air coming out the passenger side when it is set at lowest temp. The rear windows don’t roll all the way tight when top is put in place. Some kind of humming noise coming out as I drive at lower speeds. And rust on seat belt harness bracket at the seat back. The quality is NOT job one.

  • avatar
    Tstag

    A shortage of Lithium just means that ICE cars will go for longer and that many of the brands listed above will just continue to make them. The reality is that solid state batteries are nearly hear and so this whole article is void

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      that’s not reality – there is a global stampede for lithium and building lithium extraction – because there are no breakthroughs w/ solid state

    • 0 avatar
      SPPPP

      I hate to break it to you, but solid-state batteries will probably use lithium as well. The primary difference between solid-state and “normal” EV batteries is that the solid-state battery has a solid electrolyte instead of a liquid one. It doesn’t address whether lithium is in that battery or not. We may see the development of solid-state batteries that don’t use much, if any, lithium … just as we are currently seeing the development of liquid-state batteries that don’t use much, if any, lithium.

  • avatar
    Mike Beranek

    The article is based on a false premise. There is no reason to believe that batteries that don’t use lithium, or other rare minerals, cannot be developed.
    We’re still very early in this process. We’re using laptop computer battery technology to run electric cars, but that won’t be the case for long.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      Why All Those EV-Battery ‘Breakthroughs’ You Hear About Aren’t Breaking Through
      In the superheated market for batteries, promising lab developments often get overhyped by startups. ‘Liar, liar, battery supplier.’
      How Lithium Became a Hot Commodity
      How Lithium Became a Hot Commodity
      How Lithium Became a Hot Commodity
      Play video: How Lithium Became a Hot Commodity
      Demand for lithium is expected to outpace global supply as consumers switch to battery-powered vehicles. With China currently leading in processing of the vital raw material, the U.S. government is looking to boost domestic production. Photo illustration: Carlos Waters/WSJ
      By Christopher Mims
      Updated Feb. 26, 2022 12:01 am ET

      140
      Type the words “battery” and “breakthrough” into your search engine of choice, and you’ll encounter page after page of links. They include breathless news articles and lofty pronouncements from battery startups.

      And yet, according to scientists, engineers, startup founders and analysts, the use of the word “breakthrough” in the context of battery technology is misleading at best. Claims that the latest research finding or startup launch will bear fruit in the near future are almost always nonsense, they say….
      – WSJ

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      >>The article is based on a false premise. There is no reason to believe that batteries that don’t use lithium, or other rare minerals, cannot be developed.
      We’re still very early in this process. We’re using laptop computer battery technology to run electric cars, but that won’t be the case for long.<<

      "Gasoline engines will soon be rendered obsolete."
      Thomas A. Edison, 1910

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Agreed on most of these, but I disagree on Dodge – that brand has a path forward. I think it’s Chrysler that won’t make it.

    How could Dodge survive as an electric brand? The key is performance: EVs are known for go-fast, and so is Dodge. I’m no marketing savant, but my impression is that consumers are well-versed with Dodge’s performance image. Stellantis should pivot it to being their EV performance brand. Sell all-American innovation and lots of smoky burnouts. Yes, it’s a niche, but the brand’s basically niche as it is.

    Chrysler is the brand that won’t survive. It’s a nothingburger as it stands, and selling an electric crossover won’t make a dent. Chrysler has never sold an electric vehicle, and it hasn’t sold a crossover for over a decade (remember the Pacifica?).

    As nice looking as the Airflow is, it’s a bomb in the making. No one’s going to care about it because no one cares about Chrysler. Restyle it into a Jeep and sell it that way. If Stellantis wants to sell electric Chryslers, it should try a 300 redux.

    • 0 avatar

      Fiat should die in the US. Regular cars could be sold as Chrysler (think pacifica some fullsize sedan and a few CUVs (CRV size and highlander size) Dodge gets performance stuff. That seems to be the only way it would work. For Dodge I see Challenger Charger, some kind of performance CUV SUV, and maybe a full size SUV based on ram (if you don’t want it to be a ram. ) In general I still say making Ram it’s own thing instead of Dodge was dumb.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        It will be interesting to see which companies survive. If someone would have told me that GM would declare bankruptcy before 2008 and that they would be forced to eliminate Pontiac, Oldsmobile (yes I know that was 2004), Saturn, Saab, and Hummer I would have said no way but look what happened. Just when I thought Fiat and Cerberus would eliminate the Chrysler and Dodge brands it hasn’t happened. Also I never thought the Challenger and Charger would last as long as they have but it shows there are still some enthusiasts out there willing to buy them and even though they are not as large a sellers as Jeeps and Rams they are still profitable. I do believe the Chinese will make inroads into the US car market with more affordable EVs.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Fiat IS dead, for all intents and purposes.

    • 0 avatar
      ehaase

      Dodge appeals to people who wish it were still 1970 when they could purchase 340’s, 426 Hemis, and 440 Six Packs. I doubt the demographic purchasing Dodges has any interest in EV’s. I think Stellantis’ offerings will be limited to Jeep and Ram within 10 years.

    • 0 avatar
      A Scientist

      “I’m no marketing savant….”

      Me either, but I like your take. I mean, I have to think that someone who *is* a marketing savant would be able to do something for an EV with the name Dodge CHARGER

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    The lead photo of the F-150 Lightning reminds me of clickbait, like those ads in news stories screaming, “These shows have been cancelled”, accompanied by screengrab from “Yellowstone”.

  • avatar

    The CEO of Snow Lake Lithium should know that lithium has been mined in Nevada for several decades.
    https://www.albemarle.com/businesses/lithium/locations/north-america/nevada-silver-peak

    There are also other lithium projects in the state under consideration, like Thacker Pass, which may increase North American lithium production over time as well.

  • avatar
    MrIcky

    Whatever anyone here thinks, we’re about to find out the hard way. Up until just recently it’s been a political exercise. Now we have a major block of relatively rich countries who have decided that the way they currently get oil, gas, etc. is unacceptable and there is no good alternative.

    Since necessity is the mother of invention- we will be finding out if these ‘breakthroughs’ are real or not in the next year. One Asian country just ran out of gas, another is supposed to be out by next week and several African countries definitely won’t make it through June. You could argue this is short term, but who knows how long of a term it is really. Europe is definitely going to be less gasoline/LNG dependent within 12-24 months NO MATTER WHAT. That’s a security decision that will hurt them economically and they seem to be willing to accept to some degree.

    The US is in a unique position because we have relatively healthy industry and can make more than enough oil for ourselves.

    I know Russia was only about 10-12% of the world’s oil, but it does seem to have many countries reassessing their oil dependency based on who they are dependent on.

  • avatar
    sckid213

    Neon really would make a perfect name for an EV model. Given the way they whored out the name to Dodge, Plymouth and Chrysler (in intl markets), either Dodge or Chrysler could take a Neon EV now. Or it could start with one brand and move to the other if the first brand dies (like Voyager and Prowler).

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    It seems to me that “Phil” is being facetious and pulling your leg; from what I understand, there are several pumped salt water operations in the desert southwest, plus an unknown amount of lithium accessible in the area of the Bonneville Salt Flats and the Salton Sea. I also understand that Bolivia has one of the world’s largest lithium outcrops, which has yet to be touched. Now, if I’m wrong about this, I’d like to know, because I read this data several years ago when somebody else tried to claim there would be a “Lithium Cliff.”

    That said, numerous more recent articles are already reporting that battery technology is moving away from lithium and towards iron and other much more common materials. So even if there is a “Lithium Cliff”, by the time we hit it, we won’t need it any more.

    What we do need, however, is an organized manner to collect and recycle used household batteries such as Alkaline and yes, lithium and other rechargeables.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Jeff S: @jhefner–The Rambler American was introduced in 1958 and its success led to Ford, GM, and Chevy...
  • Nick: I’d still love an Edsel Bermuda wagon.
  • dal20402: The average CUV puts the driver, particularly a shorter driver, at close to standing height. In a sedan the...
  • DenverMike: Hell yeah they’re awesome. In a Perfect World I’d have a vehicle from every, OK multiple segments, except...
  • THX1136: Had a good friend, Brian, in high school whose dad had been a Pontiac dealer in their very small town....

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber