Tag Archives: EVs

Will a cut-off in oil to China spark war?

2 Replies

Japan’s decision to attack the US on December 7, 1941 was made a year earlier, December 1940, largely because of the need for oil, but also because of a perceived need for an empire. An approriate nave was fitted out, and airmen were trained. Nine months later, September, 1941, we cut off oil to Japan following Japan’s invasion of Indonesia and their ceasing the Indonesian oil fields. Japan now had the choice of war with us or of moderating their economy and ambitions. The worry is that China may choose the same if Iran and/or Russia goes off-line. That was my worry at the start of this essay. I’m no longer that concerned.

Some background, as I see it: China’s economy is larger than the IMF gives it credit for, In my opinion. I’ve calculated that it is 11% lager than the US calculated here based on food purchasing parity They also have a larger army and navy, 754 ships vs 440 for the US, with military ambitions for Taiwan and new, man-made islands in the China sea. They continue to add aircraft carriers and submarines (we’re still ahead there), and like Japan in 1940, China fuels all this with oil. They use some 17 million barrels per day: 11.3 million imported by ship. They put another million bb/day into a reserve of 2.2 billion barrels, amounting to 6 months of current use. Japan did the same in 1940-41.

This shows how dependent Japan was on foreign oil, before and during WWII. The cut off of imports sues them to attack Pearl Harbor, source = Sarah Paine, military historian

As with Japan, China’s internal production is far below their consumption, 4.5million bbl/day, a big vulnerability. One of their main suppliers, Venezuela, just went off line, sending 800,000 bbl/day of oil to the US. That’s oil that would have gone to China. Two other of their major suppliers, Iran and Russia have had delivery issues too; a disruption in oil could cause a revolt in China. Perhaps this fear will drive China to war with us in a drive for stability and empire.

Currently, China buys most of its imported oil from four countries: Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq; two of these are under sanction. China used to get another 0.8 million barrels per day from Venezuela, another country under sanction, but that route was closed by Trump last week. Buying from sanctioned countries saves them significantly, and supports the BRICS alliance, an alliance specifically against the US and the EU. The money China pays for oil supports the war against Ukraine, plus ISIS’s, war against us, and the mullahs oppression in Iran.

Oil production worldwide, 2024. How much China buys from each varies month to month.

The problem for China is that Russian production is under attack from Ukraine. Ukraine sank or disabled several Russian tankers, and we took some more; they’ve blown up pumping stations, including three on the Caspian Sea, set fire, to a large liquid natural gas terminal and damaged the major off-load platform for Kazakh oil. According to the Foundation for Democracy report, here, by October 2025, China was down to getting only 800,000 bbl/day from Russia, a major blow, and Ukraine’s attacks continue.

Some dark fleet ships captured by the US navy off of Venezuela, on their way to China with sanctioned oil.

Iran too is under attack. Up until recently they provided nearly 2 million barrels of oil per day, 90% of Iran’s seaborne export. Much of that went indirectly, shipped to Indonesia, turkey, Iraq, and Kuwait where it was relabeled, blended or refined to avoid sanction penalties. Everyone makes a profit here. But Iran is in the midst of a revolution, and last week, Trump imposed an across-the board 25% additional tariff on counties that help Iran avoid the sanctions. My guess is that this tariff will be effective and that it will last until the revolution is over. His tariffs have been effective and profitable, it seems, for us. They’re harmful for China, but not exactly a cause for war.

One reason I don’t expect a war with China is that China has many other, non-sanctioned suppliers, something Japan didn’t have. They buy some 1.6 million barrels per day from Saudi Arabia, 1.2 million bbl/day, from Iraq, 1.3 million bbl per day from Malaysia, 700,000/ day from Brazil, and about 900,000/day from the USA. While it would cost more, they could make up any losses in Russian or Iranian supply by buying more on the open market. Trump could cut China off totally, and that would be a devastating cause for war, but I don’t expect it. Still, for all I know, Trump’s activities in Venezuela and Iran are meant to force a war decision on China before they are strong enough to defeat us militarily. It seems to have been part of FDR’s logic in cutting off Japan.

The main peaceful way China has addressed it oil vulnerability, as best I can tell, has been to push EVs development. They’ve financed some 500 new EV companies who now (late 2025) provide about 50% of new Chinese automobiles. Another 19% are hybrids, the rest ICs. In the US, only 8% of new cars are EVs, and 16% hybrids. Large-scale use of EVs lessens the pressure on Chinese leaders to find oil sources, some 40% of oil imports can be assumed to go to fuel automobiles; if China were to go 80% EV, it would save 5.5 million barrels/day, more than it gets from Russia and Iran combined. For now, China still has a big need for gasoline, and has a big excess in EV manufacturing. It’s turned to Canada as a customer for EVs and as a supplier for oil, a smart move.

Last week, Canadian PM, Mark Carney visited China and announced a “Strategic Partnership” on Agriculture, energy, finance, and Global governance.” There’s no specific mention of oil, but it’s implied. China gets most favored nation status sending goods, including EVs to Canada at rates lower than on US goods. China will export some 50,000 EVs in 2026, rising to 70,000 by 2030 with tariffs set to 6.1%. US-made cars are tariffed at 25%. Canadians will get visa-free, tourist visits), plus a loan of $1B to be used buying Chinese ships. In Davos last week, “We are in the midst of a Rupture” away from the US. He urged the EU and other “middle powers” to band together. He talks like China is a good, reliable friend to Canada, and like the US isn’t. I would worry more about his comments and the “global governance” phrase, if the EU seemed to be going along, but it is not. Nor do I see a real move in China for war. I see positive effects of increased EV sales for China, Canada, and the world. Even if the quality isn’t great, Go Canada, go peace.

Robert Buxbaum, January 25, 2026.

7% of new US vehicles were EVs in 2023. Expect slow growth in 2024.

Leave a reply

About 7% of new US car and truck sales in 2023 were electric, 1.2 million vehicles. Of these, about 55% were Teslas. These numbers make sense based on US manufacturing and driving habits, so I don’t expect fast sales growth in 2024.

Currently home owners are the only major group of private drivers that save on fuel cost from owning an EVs. Home owners pay relatively little for electricity, about 11¢ per kWh, and they can generally charge their EVs conveniently, at home, overnight. Charging is more expensive and inconvenient for apartment dwellers. As a result, in 2023, some 95% of US EV sales went to home owners. Over 2 to 3 years they could hope to recover in gasoline savings the $7000 more that their EVs cost compared to petrol-powered vehicles, but they still have to drive a fair amount. A full charge of 80kWh EV at home will cost about $8.80 at current rates. This will power about 250 miles at a cost of 3.5¢/mile = $8.80/250.

Home, level 2 Chargers will cost about $1500 including the electrician cost.

The cost of gasoline is about 16.5¢/mile = $3.80/gal/ 23mi/gal) suggesting that you save 13¢ per mile by owning an EV. In order to recover the extra $7000 cost of the car in two years, you’d have to drive 27,000 miles per year, or 74 miles per day. To recover the difference in three years, you must drive 50 miles per day or 18,000 miles per year. This is more than most people drive.

EVs also offer reduced maintenance, but customers can balance this against the inconvenience of long charge times and spotty availability of chargers. My sense is that the fraction of Americans who benefit and drive 50-75 miles per day is about 7%. This fraction will increase as EVs get cheaper, but families that can benefit already own an EV.

The average Tesla costs today about $3000 more than the equivalent petrol car, but that still makes it relatively expensive, and it seems that the price differential was intentionally set to match sales to Tesla’s production capacity. Tesla could make EVs cheaper than petrol cars and still make a profit on each, but if they did this, they would have too much demand. Other US auto makers are mostly lose money on EVs and are unmotivated to lower prices. Based on this, my sense is that it is unlikely that sales will be much higher in 2024 than the 1.2 million sold in 2023.

The Chinese have plenty of new EVs, and they are eager to export. Their car market is currently about 50% EV, with companies like BYD selling EVs for as little as $12,000. The Chinese government subsidizes production and powers their EVs with cheap electricity by burning coal. These cars do not seem very good, compared to Tesla, but at this price they would flood the market if allowed to compete. The US government has kept them out with tariffs and with complaints about slave labor. Trump has promised a yet higher tariff, 100% on Chinese cars, if elected. The intent is to preserve US jobs and manufacturing. This is one of those situations where tariffs are good, IMHO.

Toyota Prius, the most popular hybrid.

Hybrids are a third option, cheaper than EVs, high mpg than normal engines. Though they are sometimes touted as a transition to EVs, to me they’ seem to suit a completely different demographic: those who don’t own their own home and drive a lot. Toyota makes the most popular hybrids in the US. They cost about $4000 more than the equivalent petrol car, $30,000 for a Prius vs $26,000 for a Corolla. When using a Prius in the city, you’ll get about 50 mpg, spending 7.5¢ per mile ($3.80/gal / 50 mpg = 7.5¢). This implies a gas savings of about 9¢ per mile vs an ordinary Corolla. Based on this, you have to drive about 27,000 miles per year in the city to recover the cost difference in two years. That’s a lot, and your performance is typically worse with a hybrid: you have a heavier car with a small engine. Maintenance cost is also higher with a hybrid than with an EV: you still need oil changes, fluid changes, belts, etc. and the mpg advantage vanishes on the highway. A hard driving home owner is better off with an EV, IMHO, an apartment dweller with a hybrid. Hybrids also should make sense for taxis and local-haul trucks. I can imagine hybrid sales rising in 2024, perhaps as high as 15% of vehicle sales. What we’re all waiting for is more near-shore manufacturing (or mandates), and this is not likely in 2024.

Robert Buxbaum April 28, 2024

BYD is not first world competition for Tesla

3 Replies

In Q4 2023, BYD became the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer, passing Tesla in world wide sales. They mostly sell in China, and claim to make a profit while selling cars for about half the price of a Tesla. They also make robots, trucks, busses, smart phones, and batteries — including blade batteries that Tesla uses for a variant in its Berlin facility. They are a darling of the wall-street experts, in part because Warren Buffett is an investor. BYD cars look to be about as nice as Tesla’s at least from the outside and sell (In China) for a fraction of the price. The experts are convinced enough to write glowing articles, but I suspect that the experts have not invested, nor bought BYD products. — What do I know?

BYD truck. It looks good on the outside. Is it competition?

Part of the BYD charm is that it is considered socially progressive, while Tesla is seen as run by a dictatorial villain. A Delaware judge who concluded that Musk did non deserve the majority of his salary, and confiscated it. There are no such claims against BYD. BYD also has far more models than Tesla, 41 by my count, compared to Tesla’s 4. The experts seem to believe that all BYD has to do is bring their low-cost cars west, and they will own the market. My sense is that, if that was all they needed, they’d have done it already. I strongly suspect the low cost cars that are the majority of BYD’s sales are low quality versions — too low to sell in the US. Here are some numbers.

Total number of vehicles made 2023:
Tesla: ~1,800,000
BYD: ~3,020,000 (1,570,000 BEV)

Employees 2023: Vehicles / Employee 2023:
Tesla: ~140,000 Tesla: 12.86
BYD: ~631,500 BYD: 5.03

Gross Revenue 2023: Gross revenue per vehicle:
Tesla: ~$96.8B Tesla: $53,900
BYD: ~ $85B BYD: $28,100

Net Profit 2023: Profit per employee: Profit per vehicle:
Tesla: ~$9.5B (9.7%). Tesla: $67,857. Tesla: $5,280.
BYD: ~$3.5B (4.1%). BYD: $5,542. BYD: $1,160

Market share based on sales in western countries 2023:
Tesla: US: 4%, EU: 2.6%
BYD: US: 0%, EU: 0.1%

The most telling comparison, in my opinion, is BYD’s tiny market share in western countries. Their cars sell for 1/2 what Tesla’s sell for. If their low-cost cars were as good as Tesla’s, there is no way their market penetration would be so low. My sense is that the average BYD vehicle is lacking in something. Maybe they’re underpowered, or poorly constructed, unsafe, or unreliable: suitable only for China, India, or other poor markets. I suspect that the cars BYD sells in Europe are made on a separate line. Even so, customers say that BYD cars feel “cheap.” BYD charges more for these cars in Europe than Tesla charges for its top sellers, suggesting that these vehicles are of a different, better design. Even so, the low numbers suggest that BYD does not turn a profit on the sales. I suspect they do it for PR.

Both cars look sporty. Why doesn’t the BYD sell?

Another observation is that BYD produces 5.03 vehicles per worker, per year. That’s half as many as Tesla workers produce per worker-year. It’s also about half of Ford’s Rouge plant (Detroit) worker production in the 1930s. That Ford plant was vertically integrated starting with raw materials and outputting finished cars. This low output per worker suggests that BYD is built on low wage, low skill production, or equally damning, that none of these models are really mass-produced.

A first world market favors a polished product that your mechanic is somewhat familiar with. That favors Tesla as it has significant market penetration, and a network of mechanics. Also, Tesla has built up a network of fast charge stations and reliable service providers. BYD has no particular charging infrastructure and virtually no service network. Charging price and experience is a key decider among first world customers. No American will tolerate slow charging in the snow at a high price — especially if they must travel to a charger without being sure the charger will be working when they get there. Tesla has figured out how to make charging less painful, and that’s worth a lot.

Tesla might fail, but if so I don’t think it will be because of BYD success. Months ago the experts assured us that cybertruck would be deadly a failure. I disagree, but it might be. I don’t think BYDs will be better. Government subsidies have ended in many states and countries (Germany, California…) putting a dent in Tesla sales, and they are having manufacturing difficulties, particularly with batteries. These seem fix-able, but might not be. I see relatively little first world competition in the US EV market from legacy auto companies. Maybe they know to avoid EVs. They currently make decent products, IC and EV, but lose money on every EV. They treat EVs as a passing fad. If they are right, Tesla and BYD will fail. If they are wrong, Tesla will do fine, and they may not be able to make up their lost place in the market. As for BYD, given their low production numbers, they will need some 3 million new workers and many new factories. I don’t think they can find them, nor raise the money for the factories.

Most of the data here was taken from @NicklasNilsso14. All of the opinions are mine.

Robert Buxbaum February 18, 2024.

Cybertruck an almost certain success

3 Replies

Leading up to the Cybertruck launch 4 weeks ago, the expert opinion was that it was a failure. Morgan Stanley, here dubbed it as one, as did Rolling Stone here. Without having driven the vehicle, the experts at Motor trend, here, declared it was worse than you thought, “a novelty” car. I’d like to differ. The experts point out that the design is fundamentally different from what we’ve made for years. They claim it’s ugly, undesirable, and hard to build. Ford’s F-150 trucks are the standard, the top selling vehicle in the US, and Cybertruck looks nothing like an F-150. I suspect that, because of the differences, the Cybertruck can hardly fail to be a success in both profit and market share.

Cybertruck pulls a flat-bed trailer at Starbase.

Start with profit. Profit is the main measure of company success. High profit is achieved by selling significant numbers at a significant profit margin. Any decent profit is a success. This vehicle could trail the F-150 sales forever and Musk could be the stupidest human on the planet, so long as Tesla sells at a profit, and does so legally, the company will succeed. Tesla already has some 2 million pre-orders, and so far they show no immediate sign of leaving despite the current price of about $80,000. Unless you think they are all lying or that Musk has horribly mispriced the product, he should make a very decent profit. My guess is he’s priced to make over $10,000 per vehicle, or $20B on 2 million vehicles. Meanwhile, no other eV company seems to be making a profit.

The largest competing electric pickup company is Rivian. They sold 16,000 electric trucks in Q3 2023, but the profit margin is -100%. This is to say, they lose $1 for every $1 worth of sales –and that’s unsustainable. Despite claims to the contrary, a money-losing business is a failure. The other main competitors are losing too. Ford is reported to lose about $50,00 per eV. According to Automotive News, here, last week, Ford decided to cut production of its electric F-150, the Lightning, by 50%. This makes sense, but provides Cybertruck a market fairly clear of US e-competition.

2024 BYD, Chinese pickup truck

Perhaps the most serious competitor is BYD, a Chinese company backed by the communist government, and Warren Buffet. They are entering the US market this month with a new pickup. It might be profitable, but BYD is relatively immune to profitability. The Chinese want dominance of the eV market and are willing to lose money for years until they get it. Fortunately for Tesla, the BYD truck looks like Rivian’s. Tesla’s trucks should exceed them in range, towing, and safety. BYD, it seems, is aiming for a lower price point and a different market, Rivian’s.

A video, here, shows the skin of a Cybertruck is bulletproof to 9mm, shotgun, and 45 caliber machine gun fire. Experts scoff at the significance of bulletproof skin — good for folks working among Mexican drug lords, or politicians, or Israelis. Tesla is aiming currently for a more upscale customer, someone who might buy a Hummer or an F-250. This is more usable and cheaper.

Don’t try this with other trucks.

Another way Cybertruck could fail is through criminal activity. Musk could be caught paying off politicians or cheating on taxes or if the trucks fail their safety tests. So far, Cybertruck seems to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards by a good margin. In a video comparison, here, it appears to take front end collisions as well as an F-150, and appears better in side collisions.

This leaves production difficulty. This could prevent the cybertruck from being a big success, and the experts have all harped on this. The vehicle body is a proprietary stainless steel, 0.07″ thick. Admittedly it’s is hard to form, but Tesla seems to manage it. VIN number records indicate that Tesla had delivered 448 cybertrucks as Friday last week, many of them to showrooms, but some to customers. Drone surveys of the Gigafactory lot show that about 19 are made per day. That’s a lot more than you’d see if assembly was by hand. Assuming a typical learning curve, it’s reasonable to expect some 600 will be delivered by December 31, and that production should reach 6000 per month in mid 2024. At that rate, they’ll be making and selling at the same rate as Rivian or Ford, and making real money doing it. The stainless body might even be a plus, deterring copycat competition. Other pluses are the add-ons, like the base-camp tent option, a battery extension, a ramp, and (it’s claimed) some degree of sea worthiness. Add-ons add profit and deter direct copying (for a time).

Basecamp, tent option.

So why do I think the experts are so wrong? My sense is that these people are experts because of long experience at other companies — the competitors. They know what was tried, and that innovation failed. They know that their companies chose not to make anything like a Cybertruck, and not to provide the add-ons. They know that the big boys avoid “novelty cars” and add-ons. There is an affinity among experts for consensus and sure success, the success that comes from Chinese companies, government support and international banking. If the Cybertruck success is an insult to them and their expertise. Nonetheless, if Cybertruck succeeds, they will push their companies towards a more angular design plus add-ons. And they will claim cybertruck is no way novel, but that government support is needed to copy it.

Robert Buxbaum, December 25, 2023.

A clever range extender for EVs

1 Reply

Electric vehicles work well for short trips between places where you can charge with cheap electricity. Typically that’s trips from home to a nearby place of work, and to local shopping malls and theaters with low-cost charge spots. If you drive this way, you’ll pay about 3.2¢/mile for home electricity, instead of about 17¢/mile for gasoline transport (e.g. 24 mpg with $4/gallon gas). Using an EV also saves on oil changes, transmission, air filters, belts, etc., and a lot of general complexity. Battery prices are still high, but much lower than they were even a few years ago.

The 10 kW Aquarius Engine is remarkably small and light, about 10kg (22 lb).

EVs are less attractive for long trips, especially in the cold. Your battery must provide the heat, as there is no waste heat from the engine. Expect to have to recharge every 200 -250 miles, or perhaps twice in the middle of a long trip. Each charge will take a half-hour or more, and fast charging on the road isn’t low cost. Expect to pay about 15¢/mile, nearly as much as for gasoline. See my full comparison of the economics here.

One obvious solution is to have two cars: a short commuter and an EV. Another solution is a hybrid. The Toyota’s Prius and the Chevy Volt were cutting edge in their day, but people don’t seem to want them. These older hybrids provided quick fill-ups, essentially infinite range, and about double the gas milage of a standard automobile, 30-45 mpg. The problem is you have even more complexity and maintenance than with even a gas automobile.

Aquarius liner engine as a range extender

I recently saw a small, simple, super-efficient (they say) gas engine called Aquarius. It provides 9.5 kW electric output and weighs only 22 lbs (10 kg), see picture above. A Tesla S uses about 16 kW during highway driving, implying that this engine will more than double the highway range of a Tesla S at minimal extra weight and complexity. It also removes the fear of being stranded on the highway, far from the nearest charge-station.

The energy efficiency is 34%, far higher than that for normal automobile engines, but fairly typical of floating piston linear engines. The high efficiency of these engines is partly due to the lack of tapper valves, risers, crank-shaft, and partially due to the fact that the engine always runs at its maximum power. This is very close to the maximum efficiency point. Most car engines are over sized (200 hp or so) and thus must run at a small fraction of their maximum power. This hurts the efficiency, as I discuss here. The Aquarius Engine makes electricity by the back-forth motion of its aligner rods moving past magnetic stator coils. Slots in the piston rod and in the side of the cylinder operate as sliding valves, like in a steam engine. First versions of the Aquarius Engine ran on hydrogen, but the inventors claim it can also run on gasoline, and presumably hythane, my favorite fuel, a mix of hydrogen and natural gas.

At the moment shown, slit valves in the piston rod are open to both cylinder chambers. The explosion at left will vent to the exhaust at left and out the manifold at top. The sliding valve is currently sending fresh air into the cylinder at right, but will soon send it into both cylinders to help scavenge exhaust and provide for the next cycle; engine speed and impression are determined by the mass of the piston.

A video is available to show the basic operation (see it here). The drawing at right is from that video, modified by me. Air is drawn into the engine through a sliding valve at the middle of the cylinder. The valve opens and closes depending on where the piston is. At the instant shown in the picture, the valve is open to the right. Air enters that chambered is likely exiting through slits in the hollow piston rod. It leaves through the manifold t the top, pushing exhaust along with it. When the piston will have moved enough, both the slits and the intake will close. The continued piston motion (inertially driven) will compress the air for firing. After firing, the piston will move left, generating electricity, and eventually opening the slit-valve in the piston to allow the exhaust to leave. When it moves a little further the intake will open.

The use of side-opening exhaust valves is a novelty of the “Skinner UniFlow” double-acting, piston steam engines, seen on the Badger steamship on Lake Michigan. It’s one of my favorite steam engine designs. Normally you want a piston that is much thicker than the one in the drawing. This option is mentioned in the patent, but not shown in the drawing.

Aquarius is not the only company with a free-piston range extender. Toyota built a free-piston extender of similar power and weight; it was more complex but got higher efficiency. It has variable compression though, and looks like a polluter. (the same problems might affect the Aquarius) They dropped the project in 2014. Deutsch Aerospace has a two headed version that’s more powerful, but long and heavier: 56kg and 35kW. Lotus has a crank-piston engine, also 56kg, 35kW; it’s more complex and may have service life issues, but it’s compact and relatively light, and it probably won’t pollute. Finally, Mazda is thinking of bringing back its Wankel rotary engine as a range extender. Any of these might win in the marketplace, but I like the Aquarius engine for its combination of light weight, compact size, and simplicity.

This is not to say that Aquarius motors is a good investment. Aquarius automotive went public on the Toronto exchange in December, 2021, AQUA.TA. The company has no profits to date, and the only chance of them making a profit resides in them getting a good licensing deal from an established company. The major car companies have shown no interest so far, though they clearly need something like this. Their plug in hybrids currently use standard-size, 4 stroke engines: 110-150 kW, 100-150 kg, complex, and low efficiency. Consumers have not been impressed. Tesla autos could benefit from this engine, but Musk shows no interest either.

Robert Buxbaum May 5, 2022. I have no stock in Aquarius motors, nor have I received any benefits from them, or any auto company.