Peter Zeihan

We would need every scrap of lithium and copper and molybdenum and tantalum and graphite and all the rest from the entire planet and no one else could have any at all.

Just to do EVs just here.

So no, it was always fucking moronic.

That, and the cost that's attached to it, is onerous.

So of course, if you have to pay for it all yourself, sales are basically dropping to zero.

Tesla, Musk, talked a good game.

Not viable economically, not viable geopolitically, and we don't have the processing materials here in the United States to do it anyway.

For Tesla at this moment, as we understand physical chemistry, yes.

There's nothing viable at Tesla.

There's very little that's viable at EV writ large anyway.

even before you consider the cost of the supporting infrastructure build-out, which is a couple of trillion dollars on top of everything else.

Just the vehicles don't do what they have been advertised to do.

They're also net dirtier than gasoline because of the production cycle on the front end.

Now, if you change the electrical system in a way that I don't understand today,

I reserve the right to change my mind.

If you move away from lithium as the core component of battery storage into something that is less environmentally damaging its production and more energy dense and can take the vibrations better, I reserve the right to change my mind.

But in the last five years, I haven't even seen a prototype system suggested for any of this.

The closest I would say would be the slow motion move from lithium cobalt batteries to lithium iron batteries.

That might help with energy storage at the grid level.

It might really make a difference.