Solar at Night - 24/7 Solar is Real

Bottled Sunlight: The Economics of Solar After Dark

Introduction

For decades, the primary critique of solar photovoltaic energy was basically a scheduling conflict. The sun, in its celestial stubbornness, insists on setting every evening and disappearing for hours. This intermittency meant that while solar panels were fantastic at generating electrons during lunch, they were useless for powering a late-night Netflix binge. Utilities had to keep natural gas peaker plants on standby to fill the gap, which spoiled the environmental party. But if you look at the data coming out of late 2025, that narrative is becoming as obsolete as a flip phone. Thanks to a plummeting price tag on storage technology, we are witnessing the birth of "dispatchable" solar. It's reliable, it's cheap, and it's ready to work the night shift.

The Battery Price Crash

The numbers here are frankly startling. The cost of utility-scale battery systems has taken a nosedive. In 2024 alone, equipment costs fell by 40%. By October 2025, the cost of a full battery system connected to the grid settled around $125 per kWh for projects outside of China and the US.

Core battery equipment from China is roughly $75 per kWh, with the balance of system, installation, and grid connection adding another $50. This isn't just a marginal improvement. It is a fundamental shift in the economics of energy infrastructure. Investors and developers are no longer looking at storage as a luxury add-on but as a standard component of a renewable power plant. The result is a Levelized Cost of Storage (LCOS) of just $65 per MWh. This figure accounts for everything from capital costs and financing to the lifespan of the hardware.

Low battery prices allow you to charge up when the sun shines and discharge overnight

Crunching the Numbers

To understand why this matters, we have to look at the total bill. Solar electricity on its own is already incredibly cheap, with a global average price of about $43 per MWh in 2024. But that is for power you have to use immediately. To turn that intermittent power into a 24/7 resource, you need to store some of it for later.

If you shift 50% of your daytime solar generation to the evening using these affordable batteries, the storage cost adds about $33 per MWh to the total. When you do the math, the combined cost for fully dispatchable solar electricity comes out to $76 per MWh.

Table 1: The New Math of Dispatchable Solar (2025)

Component	Cost (USD)	Notes
Solar Generation	$43 / MWh	Global average price for daytime generation
Storage Adder	$33 / MWh	Cost to shift 50% of energy to evening hours
Total Dispatchable Cost	$76 / MWh	Firm, reliable power available anytime
Battery System Cost	$125 / kWh	Total installed cost (grid-connected)
Core Equipment	$75 / kWh	Battery cells and modules (ex-China)

Global Ripples and Market Signals

This price point of $76 per MWh is significant because it competes directly with fossil fuel generation in many markets, without needing subsidies to tip the scales. We are already seeing the proof in the pudding, or rather, in the procurement. Auctions in Italy, Saudi Arabia, and India in late 2025 have validated these figures. Developers are bidding on projects that promise reliable power delivery, backed by massive battery arrays, at prices that make economic sense.

The economic shift is not theoretical; it is already rewriting grid operations globally. Across the Atlantic, Europe is experiencing an accelerated transition, with deployment expected to surge 45% year-over-year to 16 GW in 2025, positioning Germany as a rising star with massive utility-scale demand. Large projects, like the 1.6 GWh system in Germany, provide critical support for the region’s energy future. Similarly, the US market is overcoming policy challenges and continuing its growth trend. The US is focusing on grid-side applications like peak shaving and frequency regulation with hundreds of megawatt-hours of new capacity. This global investment wave directly displaces the need for expensive, legacy gas generators that once filled evening demand gaps. 

Batteries are causing a fossil fuel phase-out down under.

Australia, for instance, has demonstrated how quickly fossil fuels are phased out by superior technology. In the National Electricity Market (NEM), a historic milestone was reached in late 2025 when large batteries discharged more energy than traditional peaking gas generators for the first time. This transition shows batteries moving past a supplemental role and becoming the central tool for system security, firming, and ramping. Further accelerating this change is the rapid consumer adoption, with Australians installing 100,000 small battery systems in just 17 weeks. These residential units are often oversized, averaging 25 kWh, allowing them to soak up excess solar and send it back to the grid during the evening peak, pushing expensive, dirty gas out of the market entirely.

Kostantsa Rangelova, a global electricity analyst at Ember, noted that the industry is still trying to wrap its head around this new paradigm. The economics have changed so fast that yesterday's financial models are effectively trash. This is a game-changer for high-growth countries. Places with rapidly rising energy demand and strong solar resources no longer have to choose between cheap intermittent power and expensive, reliable power. They can now have cheap, reliable power (and it just happens to be renewable).

Bottled sunshine can power us overnight

Conclusion

We have moved past the era where renewables were a "nice to have" supplement to the grid. We are now entering an era where solar-plus-storage is simply the smart financial choice. The technological hurdles have fallen, the costs are collapsing, and the bottled sunshine is finally able to power our lives even when it is shining on the other side of the planet. While policy and infrastructure challenges remain, the economic barrier has been shattered. As these trends continue and battery efficiencies inch ever higher, we are steadily paving the road toward a future free from fossil fuels.

Lessons from Andy Grove: What Detroit Can Learn From Silicon Valley Retrospective

Detroit's Journey Toward Sustainable Automotive Innovation

In 2009, amid the global financial crisis and the brink of bankruptcy for General Motors and Chrysler, Andy Grove, the visionary former CEO of Intel, penned an article titled "What Detroit Can Learn From Silicon Valley." The article, published in the Wall Street Journal (you can read an excerpt below), urged the US auto industry to embrace radical transformation. Grove drew parallels to the computer sector's shift from mainframes to personal computers and warned that incumbents often fail at such pivots because senior leaders "rose to power in the old business environment" and struggle to adapt. 

Sixteen years later, in late 2025, Detroit's automakers remain stubbornly entrenched in outdated paradigms, making scant progress in electrification, software development, over-the-air (OTA) updates, and digital integration. The pace of innovation at legacy US automakers continues to crawl, now further stalled by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which repealed nearly all federal EV incentives effective October 1, 2025. This reflection assesses the enduring wisdom Grove offered, the negligible lessons absorbed, and the profound gaps still plaguing Detroit.

Progress Is Embracing Structural Change

Detroit has heeded few, if any, of Grove's core lessons. Hampered by structural ossification, they fight to maintain the inertia of the status quo. They make enough EVs to avoid buying carbon credits from the likes of Tesla, and often fall short of these meager goals. Detroit is not leading. The legacy auto industry is acting like Blockbuster in a Netflix world. They superficially acknowledge the signals of industry structural change (a convergence Grove emphasized accelerates transformation) as the market pivots toward electric vehicles (EVs). But real progress has been tepid at best, and with recent policy changes, now grinds to a near halt. Federal incentives like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) spurred a surge, with US EV sales reaching a record Q3 before the OBBBA's September 30 deadline, but year-to-date sales through November 2025 total just 1.25 million units (a meager 4% increase over 2024) before plummeting, with November's market share dipping to 5.1%.¹ General Motors and Ford offer EVs like the Chevrolet Bolt and F-150 Lightning, which gesture toward Grove's plea for the "rapidly rising technology curve" in batteries and EV control systems, yet these models suffer from persistent production delays, limited availability, high prices, and underwhelming range, and things have only worsened post-incentive.² 

Efforts to court Silicon Valley talent for software expertise, echoing Grove's call for horizontal structures, have yielded hires like Doug Field moving from Tesla to Ford, but the infusion has barely scratched the surface of needed connectivity features, leaving ecosystems fragmented and far from the dynamic smartphone experience that modern drivers expect or Grove's example of innovations from the likes of Compaq in the PC-era.^3,4 Michigan's bid to become a "future-forward mobility" hub blends legacy manufacturing with half-hearted electrification, a necessity given transportation's 29% share of US greenhouse gas emissions.⁵ Legacy automakers have isolated systems provided by various suppliers, making fluid system integration a near impossibility.

Partnerships with Google for basic advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) pay lip service to Grove's vision of the Internet as a "key marketing medium for automobiles," but legacy systems remain riddled with glitches, lacking the seamless OTA updates that define modern rivals (capabilities that Detroit shows no urgency to match even as policy tailwinds turn to headwinds).

Persistent Challenges and Environmental Risks

Detroit lags perilously behind in fully internalizing Grove's warnings about distinguishing competitive erosion from profound shifts, jeopardizing environmental sustainability and global competitiveness. He cautioned that governments propping up old models, as in his hypothetical Reagan-era bailout of mainframes, would "put the brakes on transformation." The 2009 auto bailout, while preserving jobs, deferred aggressive EV investments, enabling China to seize 77% of global battery production capacity by 2024 (a dominance that has only deepened into 2025).⁶ Today, US automakers are mired in a "capacity trap," unable to scale affordable EVs under $30,000, while Chinese rivals like BYD deliver models at half the price and claim 60% of the global EV market.^7,8 This disparity is stark in electrification enthusiasm is jarring.

The OBBBA's repeal of IRA EV tax credits, coupled with greatly relaxed federal fuel economy standards, has handed Detroit an excuse to shift EV plans into neutral.¹³ November 2025 sales data reveals the fallout: EV market share cratered to 5.1%, with major players like Ford and Hyundai reporting sharp drops in EV volumes as consumers and fleets pause amid the incentive void.^11,12 Beyond hardware, the software chasm widens: Unlike Tesla's fluid OTA updates that refine everything from infotainment to autonomous driving in real time, Detroit's vehicles rely on cumbersome dealer interventions, leaving owners with outdated interfaces.¹⁴ This lag extends to digital integration, with clunky infotainment far from app-centric norms. Recent policy whiplash (from EV mandates to gas-guzzler leniency) deepens the divide, as detailed in analyses of how these reversals entrench fossil fuel dependencies.¹⁵ Stalled sales through December 2025 underscore complacency amid threats like further rollbacks.^9,10 The vertical integration Grove decried endures, stifling agility. Without horizontal collaboration, Detroit risks irrelevance (ceding the software-defined vehicle revolution to nimbler foes).

While the US shifts EV plans into neutral, China is not letting off the accelerator. China has taken Andy Grove's lessons to heart, viewing this US policy retreat as a pivotal moment in history (a "transition," as Grove called it) and positioning itself to lead when the dust settles. In November 2025 alone, new energy vehicles (NEVs) captured 59% of China's passenger car sales, with year-to-date penetration hitting 62% in early December.^16,17 While US EV growth sputters at single digits, China's market surges 21% globally, driven by bold bets on batteries, software ecosystems, and horizontal partnerships that Grove championed. This contrast amplifies climate risks: Slower US penetration prolongs fossil fuel reliance, ceding low-carbon leadership to Beijing.

Pearls of Wisdom for Detroit's CEOs

For Detroit's CEOs, Grove's article distills timeless pearls, especially resonant in an era demanding eco-conscious reinvention and digital fluency (pearls that China is aggressively applying while the US dithers). 

First, confront transformation head-on: "History shows that most companies do not deal well with transformation," he wrote, urging leaders to shed legacy biases. This demands prioritizing R&D in sustainable tech and software over short-term profits (allocating at least 10% of budgets to battery innovation, OTA infrastructure, and AI integration, as China has done to lock in foundational edges). 

Second, foster horizontal ecosystems: Grove advocated shifting from vertical silos to partnerships where "some companies specialize in building components while others integrate them." CEOs must amplify this by forging deeper ties with startups for solid-state batteries (promising 50% greater range and faster charging) and software firms specializing in OTA ecosystems, thereby accelerating emissions reductions and user experiences that evolve post-purchase. 

Third, bet boldly on the future, not the past. Contrasting US job-saving tactics with China's battery dominance, Grove noted, "China is putting a great deal of effort into developing and manufacturing batteries. Essentially, it is betting that it can take the lead." In this pivotal transition, Detroit leaders must match such gambles (through public-private ventures in electrification and software stacks) to reclaim primacy in a low-carbon, connected world, where OTA updates and autonomous features will define market winners, not regulatory crutches.

Toward a Sustainable Horizon

Sixteen years on, Detroit's actions have shown that Grove's lessons on viability and talent infusion have fallen on deaf ears (in the US). The OBBBA's incentive purge and relaxed standards have removed any forcing function to push legacy automakers onto the right track. There is a huge chasm between their electrification ambition and what's required to be a relevant player in 2035. This leaves legacy automakers light-years behind disruptors. As China accelerates through this historic transition (embracing Grove's call for radical adaptation), US firms must urgently champion horizontal agility, voracious digital investments, and unflinching bets on the future. By embracing these pearls, CEOs can pilot the industry toward a sustainable horizon, transforming the auto sector from a laggard into a vanguard of planetary stewardship. Grove's foresight endures: true leadership thrives in reinvention, not relic preservation.

Grove warned that incumbents can fall during technology pivots. Despite this warning, the US automakers of tomorrow are more likely to be Tesla and Rivian than General Motors and Ford.

References

1. November 2025 New-Vehicle Sales Decline, CBT News.
2. Grove, A. (2009). "What Detroit Can Learn From Silicon Valley."
3. Silicon Valley Talent Migration to Auto Industry, Automotive News.
4. Doug Field Profile, Ford Motor Company.
5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report, EPA 2024.
6. Global Battery Production Statistics, IEA 2024.
7. EV Market Analysis, BloombergNEF.
8. BYD Market Share Report, Reuters.
9. EV Sales Trends 2024, Cox Automotive.
10. Policy Impact on EVs, Brookings Institution.
11. Tesla OTA Dominance vs. Legacy Lag, The Verge.
12. From EV Mandate to Gas Guzzler: Policy Shifts and Detroit's Dilemma, Cars with Cords.
13. Trump's OBBBA Reshapes US Energy Policy, Battery Tech Online.
14. Record EV Sales Pre-Repeal, Benchmark Minerals.
15. Ford US Sales Down in November, Reuters.
16. China's Car Sales November 2025, Reuters.
17. China NEV Retail Sales Early December, CnEVPost.

What Detroit Can Learn From Silicon Valley - WSJ.com

By 

Andrew S. Grove

Updated July 13, 2009

Electric cars have become viable and will likely only become more capable in the future. Components critical to their performance -- batteries and electronic control systems -- are on a rapidly rising technology curve. These technologies are new and therefore capable of improving quickly with incremental investments. By contrast, technologies that have been around a long time, such as the internal combustion engine and the fuel and drive systems built around it, have enjoyed the benefits of decades of development and have limited potential for further improvement.

The result is that there are several factors aligning to bring about a change in the structure of the automobile industry. Electric cars may match the needs of our time better and become more desirable than cars relying on the internal combustion engine. The car industry today is as vertical as the computer industry was before the PC. However, the simplicity of the electric car combined with the standardization of certain components may cause the automobile industry to shift to a horizontal structure. The Internet is already emerging as a key marketing medium for automobiles and is easily adaptable to a horizontal structure. 

...

The Death of Diesel And Gas Isn't Far Behind

The Great Switcheroo: How Batteries Outpaced Diesel

The automotive world is currently navigating a transition so sharp it could practically cause whiplash. Only a decade ago, diesel engines were the darling of the European commute, heavily subsidized and praised for their efficiency. Diesel was the "sensible" choice for the frugal driver. Fast forward to today, and the script has flipped entirely. We are witnessing the demise of diesel dominance and the electric ascent, a shift driven by policy, pricing, and performance.

Diesel's Death: The European Exodus

Nowhere is this diesel death drama more palpable than in Europe. For years, the continent was practically synonymous with diesel cars. In 2015, over 50% of new cars sold in the EU drank from the black pump. It was a simpler time, before "Dieselgate" became a household term and before city planners realized that nitrogen oxides were perhaps not the best additive for urban air.

The collapse that followed was nothing short of catastrophic for the compression-ignition engine. As the chart below shows, diesel's market share went into freefall, dropping from that 52% peak in 2015 to a meager 13.6% in 2023. Conversely, electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids began their climb. They started as niche curiosities for the eco-conscious wealthy but rapidly morphed into mainstream staples.

The "Plug-in/Diesel Crossover" occurred right around December 2021. That was the month the batteries finally beat the diesel burners, and there's been no looking back. In 2025, EVs almost outsold gasoline, and next year, it will certainly be the case in the EU. This is not just a statistical blip; it's a changing of the guard. By 2030, projections suggest diesel sales will be less than 1%, rendered obsolete by strict low-emission zones and the looming 2035 EU ban on internal combustion engines. The clatter of the diesel engine is being replaced by the futuristic hum of electric motors, and the market has spoken clearly: the future is plugged in.

Worldwide Wattage

When we zoom out to the global stage, the picture changes slightly in composition but remains identical in trajectory. The worldwide data below tells a story of two massive markets, China and the United States; neither of which really fell in love with diesel passenger cars in the first place.

In the US, diesel was largely relegated to heavy-duty trucks and the occasional German luxury sedan. In China, the government leaped directly from gasoline dominance to an aggressive electric mandate, effectively skipping the diesel phase of industrialization for passenger transport. Consequently, the global market share for diesel passenger vehicles never reached the dizzying heights seen in Europe.

Despite this lower starting point, the global crossover moment arrived around the same time as in Europe, late 2021. The incredible surge of EV adoption in China has pulled the global EV average upward. As we look toward 2035 and 2040, the global forecast is on a different timeline, but the trend mirrors Europe's. The EV crossover is coming for petrol. Petrol will hang on longer than diesel due to its prevalence in the US and our recent regressive policies, but its days are numbered. The path leads inexorably toward electricity.

The Economics of Electrons

Why is this happening? While environmental sentiment plays a role, cold hard cash is the real driver. The total cost of ownership (TCO) for EVs has been plummeting. When you combine tax incentives (in some regions/states), lower "fuel" costs, and significantly reduced maintenance (no oil changes, fewer moving parts), the math starts to favor the battery.

Furthermore, battery prices have dropped roughly 90% since 2008. We are rapidly approaching, and in some segments have already achieved, price parity between internal combustion engines and EVs. When the day-1 cost of an electric car is the same as a gas guzzler to drive off the lot, the choice becomes almost automatic for the average consumer. Why buy a vehicle that relies on volatile global oil markets when you can refuel at home for a fraction of the price?

From Diesels to D-Cells: The Silent Road Ahead

The data is undeniable; the trends are clear. What we are seeing is not a temporary fad but a fundamental restructuring of how humanity moves. The diesel engine, once a workhorse of the global economy, is being put out to pasture. It served its purpose, hauling us through the 20th century, but it cannot compete with the efficiency and performance of modern electric drivetrains.

Electric semi trucks from Tesla, Daimler (Freightliner), Volvo Trucks (VNR Electric), Kenworth/Peterbilt, and BYD are coming. They will follow the same trend as passenger cars, just a decade or two slower.  

As auto and big rig manufacturers pivot their massive R&D toward electrification, the improvements in range and charging speed will only accelerate. The holdouts will dwindle, and the infrastructure will expand. We are driving, quite rapidly, toward a future free from fossil fuels.

From EV Mandate to Gas-Guzzler Renaissance: The Fastest Way to Fall Behind China

Why $1000 for CAFE Rollback Is Pure Fantasy

Introduction

The Trump administration just slashed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to a glacial 0.5% annual improvement, effectively freezing the US fleet average at roughly 34 mpg through 2031. The official line, delivered with CEOs grinning in the background, is that this will slash new-vehicle prices by $1,000 or more and spare American families from “Biden’s EV mandate.” Sure, and monkeys might fly out of my tailpipe. Too bad the whole premise collapses faster than a cheap lawn chair once you look at the actual numbers and history.

Myth #1: Cars Will Suddenly Cost Less

Legacy US automakers have spent the last decade begging for exactly this kind of relief. They got a similar rollback in 2020, and new-vehicle transaction prices still rocketed from $38,000 in 2020 to over $48,000 today. When regulators stop forcing efficiency, manufacturers happily pocket the savings. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation claims the Biden rules added $3,000 per vehicle in compliance costs. Sure, and monkeys might fly out of my tailpipe. Ford’s average transaction price on an F-150 just hit $65,000 last quarter, up 30% since the last rollback. Clearly, those “savings” are going straight into shareholder dividends, not your wallet.

Myth #2: You’ll Pay Less at the Pump

The Hidden $9,500 Price Tag of Relaxing Fuel Economy Standards  

Let’s run the math on the “gas guzzler renaissance” the administration is celebrating.

Scenario (2031 light-duty fleet average)	Annual fuel cost per vehicle (15,000 miles)	Extra lifetime cost vs. Biden standard (150,000 miles)
Biden rule (~50 mpg)	$1,350	Baseline
Trump rollback (~34 mpg)	$1,985	+$9,525 per vehicle

That $9,500 hole in your pocket dwarfs the $1,000 “savings” the White House keeps touting. Trucks and SUVs, which already make up 82% of US sales, will stay thirsty, and dealers’ lots will remain packed with 18-mpg behemoths. Enjoy those pump prices, patriots.

Meanwhile, China Is Eating Everyone’s Lunch

While Detroit celebrates the return of the V8, China is quietly becoming the world’s auto superpower. Chinese brands now hold over 60% of the global EV market. They are flooding Europe, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and even Mexico with $12,000 to $25,000 electrics that are profitable, decently built, and improving every model year. By clinging to the internal combustion engine like it’s a life raft, legacy US automakers are actually tying a cast-iron anchor around their own necks. Come 2035, when Europe and many emerging markets effectively ban new gasoline car sales, the same companies that cheered this rollback will be desperately trying to sell yesterday’s technology into tomorrow’s showrooms. They'll be the Blockbuster in a Netflix world.

The Yo-Yo Effect Nobody Talks About

Rapid policy whiplash is the real silent killer here. Automakers plan powertrains seven to ten years out. The Obama administration tightened CAFE, Trump I loosened it, Biden cranked it back up, and Trump II just slammed the brakes on efficiency again. This regulatory rollercoaster forces companies to hedge every bet: build EV platforms, keep ICE lines warm, stockpile credits, and pray the next election doesn’t torch the roadmap. Toyota and Hyundai, operating under steady, strict rules in their home markets, can commit billions to product roadmaps with confidence. Detroit, meanwhile, is stuck in perpetual panic mode, burning cash on parallel development paths. Long-term planning? It’s more like long-term paralysis.

Bonus Round: Export Markets Don’t Care About MAGA

Europe hits 57 mpg equivalent in 2030 with €95/g penalties for every excess gram of CO₂. China demands 73 mpg equivalent and showers domestic EV makers with subsidies. Japan is marching toward 60 mpg. US brands that want to sell abroad must engineer completely different vehicle lines: inefficient cash cows for the home market and hyper-efficient models for everyone else. That duplication is expensive, and guess who pays? Exactly, the same American buyer who was promised lower prices.

Conclusion

Pump Pain, Profit Gain, and Policy Ping-Pong 

The CAFE rollback is sold as pro-consumer populism, but it’s really a multibillion-dollar gift to Detroit’s profit margins and the oil industry, wrapped in patriotic bunting. Vehicle prices won’t drop in any meaningful way, fuel bills will balloon, and our automakers will keep lurching from one presidential policy spasm to the next while China laps the field. If we want affordable, efficient, domestically built cars anytime soon, we need steady, ambitious standards that reward innovation rather than status quo inertia. Only then can we steer toward a future free from fossil fuels, rather than chaining ourselves to the pump for another lost decade.

500 Hoover Dams of Energy

The political slogan from Herbert Hoover’s 1928 presidential campaign was, “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” It painted a vision of self-sufficiency and economic stability while promising widespread prosperity and security for American households. One hundred years later, a 2028 campaign slogan might be, "Solar panels on every roof and an electric vehicle in every garage." This slogan also embodies the abundance; the abundance of solar energy that shines down daily. Families can harness solar power to fuel both their homes and vehicles, achieving financial and environmental benefits. Solar has the collective potential to vastly outscale even monumental projects such as the Hoover Dam.

Solar Panels: Prosperity Through Energy Independence

Installing solar panels on your roof is a powerful step toward financial insulation and sustainability. Electricity bills have been climbing steadily, driven by increasing demand and volatile energy markets. Solar panels allow homeowners to generate their own electricity, reducing reliance on utility companies and shielding wallets from unpredictable rate hikes. By capturing sunlight, a free and abundant resource, households can make hay while the sun shines, producing energy during peak daylight hours. Excess power can be stored in batteries or fed back into the grid for credits, further enhancing savings. Since we started with Hoover’s campaign slogan, let’s look at the Hoover Dam. That dam produces an impressive 4.2 TWh of energy annually. As impressive as that is, globally, solar already produces more than 500 times more energy. And multiple Hoover Dams worth are being added every year. Over time, the initial investment in solar panels pays off, creating a sense of prosperity akin to the promise of a chicken in every pot, where basic needs are met through self-reliance.

EVs: Prosperity Through Fuel Cost Stability

An EV in the garage, particularly one with a Solar Charging feature, complements rooftop solar panels to maximize financial benefits. Gasoline prices are notoriously volatile, subject to global market swings and geopolitical events. EVs eliminate this uncertainty by running on electricity. Electricity prices are generally regulated by a utility board, and these increases must be justified and approved. This makes electricity prices far more stable than prices at the pump. Additionally, electricity can be sourced directly from your own solar panels. Solar Charging EV features direct surplus solar to the EV battery rather than the grid. This allows owners to seamlessly charge their vehicles using energy generated at home. This reduces or even eliminates fuel costs, mirroring the economic security Hoover’s slogan envisioned with a car in every garage. By charging during the day when solar production peaks, EV owners make hay while the sun shines, ensuring efficient use of renewable energy and further insulating themselves from price fluctuations at the pump.

A Modern Vision of Prosperity

The combination of solar panels and an EV redefines prosperity in the 21st century. Hoover’s slogan promised a baseline of economic comfort through access to food and transportation. Today, solar panels and EVs deliver a similar promise but with a forward-looking twist: sustainable prosperity. By generating your own electricity and powering your home and vehicle with it, you create a closed loop of energy independence. Scaled across communities, this leverages solar’s massive output, already dwarfing the Hoover Dam’s contribution, while adding significant capacity annually. This not only saves money but also reduces environmental impact, aligning with modern values of sustainability. Home batteries ensure that every ray of sunlight is maximized for both home and travel.

Conclusion

Having solar panels on your roof and an EV in your garage is a contemporary echo of Hoover’s “chicken in every pot and car in every garage” vision. It represents prosperity through energy and financial independence, shielding households from rising electricity and fuel costs. Families can harness solar power to fuel their homes and vehicles. With global solar production already exceeding 500 Hoover Dams' worth of annual energy production and growing rapidly, this modern setup fulfills a modern spirit of Hoover’s promise, adapting it to a world where sustainability and cost stability are paramount, offering a prosperous future powered by the sun.

From Denial to Duty: How Men Can Lead in Climate Protection

Real Masculine Strength: Protecting People and the Planet

Introduction

In the manosphere is a network of online communities focused on traditional masculinity. Figures such as Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan, and Jordan Peterson are prominent and often portray masculinity as being dominating, lacking empathy, or even being cruel. These same figures will dismiss environmentalism as weak or feminine. However, true masculine strength lies in using your power to protect people in need and the environment. This dominance narrative, pushed through podcasts and other channels, can align with pro-fossil fuel agendas by framing environmental activism as unmasculine and not something that "real" men should participate in. This article explores how authentic masculinity involves safeguarding others and the planet, countering toxic narratives, and addressing the fossil fuel industry’s influence on climate denial.

Redefining Masculine Strength

True masculine strength is about protection and care, not domination. Courage, resilience, and responsibility, these are traits of masculinity. Mascility is in acts of defending vulnerable communities or ensuring a sustainable future. In contrast to toxic masculinity, which emphasizes domination and ignores environmental issues, genuine strength focuses on caring for and protecting both people and the planet. This contrasts with manosphere rhetoric that mocks environmentalism, as seen in Andrew Tate’s boasts about his carbon footprint or Joe Rogan’s podcast discussions downplaying climate science. Protecting the environment requires foresight and leadership, qualities central to a redefined masculinity.

Environmentalism as a Masculine Duty

Research highlights an all-too-common perception that environmentalism is feminine, deterring men from eco-friendly actions. A 2017 Scientific American study found that both men and women associate reusable bags with femininity, and many men avoid green behaviors when their masculinity feels threatened, such as choosing non-eco products after receiving a pink gift card. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as petro-masculinity (Daggett 2018).

Yet, the concept of ecological masculinities as outlined in Martin Hultman and Paul M. Pulé’s 2019 book Ecological Masculinities redefines strength as caring for the global and local commons. This approach challenges stereotypes, encouraging men to see environmental protection as a powerful, masculine act of safeguarding future generations.

The Manosphere’s Role in Climate Denial

The manosphere often promotes climate denial. Figures like Andrew Tate, who bragged about his massive carbon footprint in a 2023 exchange with Greta Thunberg, and Jordan Peterson, who labeled climate science a conspiracy in a 2024 Guardian article, frame environmentalism as weak. The Joe Rogan Experience has been cited in a 2025 Sentient Media report for spreading climate misinformation, such as dismissing the environmental impact of meat production. These messages, targeting young male audiences, align with pro-fossil fuel narratives by undermining climate action.

The 2025 podcast series Carbon Bros, produced by Amy Westervelt and Daniel Penny, explores this trend. Episode 1, The Testosterone Pipeline, details how manosphere influencers spread climate denial, shaping young men’s views and influencing political outcomes, like the 2024 US election. The fossil fuel industry has been aware since the 1990s that certain men are susceptible to climate disinformation than the general population. And they have funded denial campaigns through groups like the American Petroleum Institute, as noted in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate Deception Dossiers. While direct funding of manosphere podcasts lacks clear evidence, this history suggests at least an indirect influence.

Impact and Call to Action

The manosphere’s rejection of environmentalism as unmasculine harms both society and the environment, delaying climate action and exacerbating impacts on marginalized groups, as highlighted in a 2019 Reuters article. True masculine strength counters this by embracing stewardship for the planet. Men have a duty to lead by adopting sustainable practices, challenging denialist narratives, and supporting policies that protect vulnerable communities. This shift reframes environmentalism as a powerful act of leadership, aligning with the protective essence of masculinity.

Conclusion

True masculine strength lies in protecting people and the environment, not in dominance or denial. The manosphere’s climate skepticism, amplified by figures like Tate, Rogan, and Peterson, often serves fossil fuel interests by discouraging action. However, embracing ecological masculinities offers a path forward, where men use their strength to safeguard the planet. As Amy Westervelt and Daniel Penny’s work shows, countering these narratives is crucial for climate progress. By redefining masculinity as protective, men can become leaders in the fight for a future free from fossil fuels, benefiting all.

Cashing Out: How the Oil Industry Maximizes Profits by Ignoring Its Future (and Ours)

Key Points

• An episode of the "Thinking the Unthinkable" podcast hosted by Nik Gowing featured Mark Campanale from the Carbon Tracker Initiative.  
• The shift from fossil fuels to renewables, electric vehicle (EV) growth, and the oil and gas sector contraction.
• Research suggests EV sales are rising rapidly, with China at over 50% and the UK at 34% of car sales recently, driven by lower costs (around $15,000 USD in China, below $20,000 USD in Europe).
• Oil demand will likely decrease by about 5 million barrels per day by 2030, with major companies like Shell, Chevron, and BP having under 10 years of reserves left.
• The evidence leans toward renewables becoming cheaper, led by China's advancements, the markets clearly see it withh oil companies valued at 4 to 6 times earnings compared to tech firms at 30 to 50x earnings.

Introduction

Mark Campanale, founder of the Carbon Tracker Initiative, discusses the global energy transition with Nik Gowing on the Thinking the Unthinkable podcast. The discussion explores the rapid rise of electric vehicles (EVs), the decline of the oil and gas sector, and the growing competitiveness of renewables. It provides insights into current trends and future projections, offering valuable information for investors, policymakers, and the public.

Key Statistics

The following table summarizes the key numerical data from the podcast:

Category	Details
EV Sales in China	>50% of car sales in recent months
EV Sales in the UK	34% of all car sales last month
Oil Reserves Life	Shell, Chevron, BP: under 10 years
Future Oil Demand Loss	~5 million barrels per day by 2030
EV Impact on Oil Demand	20 million EVs ~ 1 million barrels/day
EV Price in China	around $15,000
EV Price in Europe	below $20,000 (target)
Market Valuation	Oil: 4-6x earnings; Tech: 30-50x future earnings

Detailed Analysis

The podcast highlights the rapid adoption of EVs, with China seeing over 50% of car sales in 2025, up from just a few percent a few years ago. In the UK, EVs accounted for 34% of car sales last month, with projections suggesting this could pass 50% in 3-4 years. This growth is driven by falling prices, with EVs in China available for around $15,000 USD and efforts in Europe to bring prices below $20,000 USD. Campanale notes EVs are simpler and more efficient, potentially accelerating their adoption, especially given that 70% of UK cars are now sold via leases, which could lead to a rapid switch.

The discussion also addresses the decline of the oil and gas sector, with major companies like Shell, Chevron, and BP having less than 10 years of reserves left and not investing significantly in new exploration. This reflects a strategic shift, with the sector focusing on extracting value from existing assets rather than growth. The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts a significant reduction in oil demand by 2030, projecting a loss of around 5 million barrels per day, partly due to EVs, with every 20 million EVs on the road reducing demand by about 1 million barrels per day.

Renewable energy costs are dropping, driven by China's advancements in solar and EV technologies, making renewables increasingly competitive. This cost advantage is accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy, as renewables become more attractive to consumers and investors. Market valuations reflect this shift, with oil companies valued at 4-5-6 times next year's earnings, compared to tech firms like Nvidia, valued at 30-40-50 times future earnings, indicating investor confidence in technology and renewables.

The podcast also touches on broader implications, such as the potential decommissioning of oil rigs and coal-fired power stations, and the optimism for a clean energy transition, supported by data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance and Carbon Tracker. It suggests a new energy system where energy can be made at the point of use, eliminating complex oil logistics.

Conclusion

They paint a detailed picture of our energy transition, emphasizing the rapid adoption of EVs, the challenges facing the oil and gas industry, and the growing competitiveness of renewables. The oil sector is maximizing today's profits by forgoing exploration. Ceding the future (intentionally or not) to renewables. It's important for investors, policymakers, and the general public to understand these shifts and the need for strategic foresight and adaptation. The insights provided by Mark Campanale, supported by specific statistics and projections, offer a robust foundation for navigating the complexities of a changing energy landscape.

Supporting Information

The transcript is available on the podcast website, alongside contact details for further engagement: Podcast Transcript. You can check out more of their stuff via www.thinkunthink.org.

IEA's Flawed Premise - Electrified Transportation is Here, Like It Or Not

The future of oil demand; only one of these is realistic

The End of Oil's Growth: Peak Oil is Behind Us

The conventional wisdom regarding future oil demand, as offered by the International Energy Agency (IEA), is structurally flawed and fundamentally misaligned with market realities. While the IEA’s high-end projections (which shows demand sustained at 113 million barrels per day through 2050) may serve certain political or economic interests, they fail to account for the exponential rate of technological adoption. We here at carswithcords assert that peak global oil demand is already in the rearview mirror, and the accelerating adoption of EVs, including heavy-duty transport, guarantees a trajectory of irreversible decline far steeper than official forecasts suggest.

Institutional Inertia and Flawed Assumptions

The IEA's continued reliance on scenarios that imply sustained or rising oil demand is not a reflection of objective market analysis but rather a symptom of institutional inertia. Large forecasting bodies often face pressures, both internal and external, to avoid radical disruption in their outlooks. Specifically, the IEA is funded by 32 member countries, many of which export oil, which do not want to see projections of oil demand decline.

There are compelling reasons to believe the IEA methodologies are seriously flawed:

• Linear Modeling: High-end models often rely on linear extrapolations of historical growth rather than accounting for S-curve adoption, which characterizes every major technological transition from the internet to smartphones. Globally, EVs have passed the tipping point and are currently exhibiting this rapid, non-linear growth.
• Understated Policy Impact: The Stated Policies Scenario assumes governments will only fulfill their minimum obligations, ignoring the tendency for climate policy and regulation to accelerate once clean technology reaches (or surpasses) price parity.
• Opaque Economic Ties: The IEA forecasting body has a clear history of underestimating renewables growth while overstating fossil fuel resilience. This latest report appears to be no different from previous reports that were far from accurate pronostications.

By failing to model the full impact of the deflationary cost of clean technology, the IEA risks providing a misleading sense of security regarding future oil demand and prices. Essentially, the member nations are paying for reports that tell them what they want to hear, rather than an accurate projection.

The Evidence Confirming That Peak Oil Has Already Occurred 

We are not merely approaching peak oil; there's compelling evidence that suggests the moment of peak demand has already passed; even if minor fluctuations occur year-to-year, the trend is downward. This peak is not due to a shortage of supply, but a structural erosion of demand in the world's most developed markets. As the saying goes, "We didn't leave the Stone Age because we ran out of rocks." Similarly, we must transition away from oil while there are still supplies, or the transition will be devastating.

Key evidence supporting the claim of demand erosion includes:

Evidence Point	Impact on Oil Demand	Implication
China's Peak Fuel Use	China, the world's largest oil importer, has seen internal projections indicating its gasoline and diesel demand will peak this decade, driven by massive (internally supplied) EV adoption.	The largest engine of global oil demand growth is stalling.
OECD Demand Collapse	Oil consumption across advanced economies (OECD nations, including the US and Europe) has been either stagnant or in decline for years, a trend that is accelerating.	The transition is complete in early adopters and is moving to the early majority consumer base.
EV Displacement Rate	According to the IEA's own data, EVs displaced over 1.3 mb/d of oil demand in 2024. This number is not speculation; it is a measurable loss that will be higher in 2025.	Every new EV sale directly removes years of future oil demand.
Electrification of Heavy Transport	As electric semi-trucks begin to deploy, they target the massive diesel consumption of the commercial freight sector, ensuring the demand erosion extends beyond passenger cars.	The second-largest transport segment is now structurally exposed. Fleet managers want to move to vehicles with lower running costs.

The S-Curve of Light-Duty Vehicle Disruption

The passenger car market has decisively entered the exponential growth phase of the Sigmoid-curve, a hockey stick pattern where slow initial uptake gives way to a rapid surge in adoption. EVs are now entering the early majority mainstream, driven by technological improvements, falling battery costs, decades of infrastructure development, and (in most of the world) supportive government policies. This accelerated adoption rate confirms the market has reached a tipping point, backed by accelerated production and battery advancements. This shift is already having a material impact on fuel consumption. In 2024, the IEA itself estimated that the global EV fleet was already displacing over 1.3 million barrels of oil per day (mb/d).

This displacement is set to increase dramatically. In the IEA’s Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS), which only accounts for announced government targets, electric cars alone are expected to displace over 5 mb/d of oil demand globally by 2030. If adoption accelerates further due to price parity and more robust charging infrastructure, that displacement figure could rise even higher. Critically, every barrel of oil displaced by an EV represents a permanent, structural loss of demand for the oil market. This erosion of the largest single source of oil consumption (light-duty transport typically accounts for around a quarter of global oil demand) cannot be easily offset by demand in other sectors.

Electrifying Heavy Transport: The Next Frontier

While passenger cars dominate the current conversation, the next major wave of oil demand destruction is coming from heavy transport, specifically semi trucks. Commercial trucking has long been considered one of the most difficult sectors to decarbonize due to the high energy requirements for long-haul routes and heavy loads. However, rapid advancements in battery technology, supported by major investment in electric truck platforms from manufacturers, are making heavy-duty electrification a commercial reality.

The IEA anticipates that electric trucks and buses could displace nearly 1 mb/d of oil demand by 2030 in the STEPS scenario. If infrastructure investments in cross-continent electric charging corridors are made, this displacement will become far more pronounced. Further battery advancement, such as solid-state cells, will continue to challenge oil’s supremacy in hard-to-abate areas. This dual pressure, from passenger cars and heavy vehicles, compresses the timeline for oil demand erosion.

Scenario Comparison and Residual Demand

To understand the long-term consequences of accelerated electrification, it helps to compare the primary long-term oil demand of the three scenarios published by the IEA. Our market-driven accelerated electrification view pushes the market trajectory toward the low-demand end of the spectrum.

IEA Scenario Name	Primary Policy Assumption	Projected Global Oil Demand 2050 (Approx.)	Peak Year
Current Policies Scenario (CPS)	Only currently enacted policies.	113 million barrels per day	No peak before 2050
Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS)	All government targets and pledges.	Declining after peak	~2030
Net Zero Emissions (NZE)	A pathway to limit warming to 1.5°C.	24 million barrels per day	Already peaked

The name of the final scenario is misleading; even if all transportation were electrified, some oil demand would remain. The primary residual demand will come from petrochemical feedstocks, which are oil-based products used for plastics and other industrial purposes. This feedstock remains the most resilient source of demand; however, its growth is insufficient to offset the decline in transportation fuels. The total size of the petrochemical market cannot absorb the vast volumes of gasoline and diesel being eliminated by electric mobility.

In a scenario defined by technological acceleration, global oil demand is guaranteed to fall dramatically, validating the premise of a rapid transition. The future lies far closer to the IEA's low-end Net Zero Emissions projection with demand reduced to approximately 24 mb/d by 2050, rather than the inflated figures of their other models. To proceed with investment or policy based on the assumption of rising demand is to ignore the clear market signal of an industry already in structural, irreversible decline.

Closing the Cobalt Loop: What Every EV Driver Should Know

The Elephant in the Room: Cobalt

We've covered the plethora of battery benefits many times here on CarWithCords. So let's talk about the elephant in the room, Cobalt.

This shimmering, silvery-blue metal powers many lithium-ion batteries, which keep our EVs humming, our phones buzzing, and our grid-scale storage systems standing strong. Cobalt is not used in all lithium-ion battery types, but the highest energy variants depend on it. Cobalt is necessary for our transition away from fossil fuels because it stabilizes cathodes, prevents overheating, and delivers the high energy density needed for long-range electric cars and reliable storage for renewable energy. Without cobalt, many battery chemistries would underperform. Yet cobalt carries serious baggage: concentrated supply chains, ethical nightmare history, and a mining footprint we'd all rather reduce.

What Cobalt Actually Does

About 75% of refined cobalt now goes straight into batteries, mostly Nickel, Manganese, Cobalt (NMC) and Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA) cathodes. The rest feeds superalloys for jet engines, catalysts for oil refineries, magnets, and even vitamin B12 (yes, really). Over the last decade, battery demand has exploded: global consumption topped 200,000 metric tons in 2024, and demand is climbing.

Where the Stuff Comes From

One country dominates like a video-game final boss: the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) produced roughly three-quarters of the world's mined cobalt in 2024. Indonesia follows with 10-15% from nickel laterite projects, then Russia, Australia, Canada, and a handful of others round out the remainder. Almost none is mined in the US.

Country	Approximate Share (2024–2025)	Notes
DRC	75%	Mostly copper by-product, a mix of industrial and artisanal mines
Indonesia	10-15%	Rapidly rising HPAL projects
Russia	3-4%	Primary Miner: Norilsk Nickel
Australia	1-2%	Miner: Glencore's Murrin Murrin
Canada	2%	Miners: Glencore and Vale operations

The Ethical Nightmare
(and the Groups Trying to Fix It)

Let's not sugar-coat it. A huge chunk of DRC cobalt still comes from artisanal mines where children as young as seven dig with hand tools, earning a pittance while breathing toxic dust and risking their lives. Industrial mines have improved traceability, and some are certified "responsible," but forced evictions, water pollution, and corruption remain rampant. Australian and Canadian cobalt is far cleaner, yet the sheer volume from the DRC means almost every battery has at least a trace of Congolese material unless the manufacturer explicitly sources otherwise.

Thankfully, several multi-stakeholder initiatives are pushing for real change. The Cobalt Institute represents producers and users worldwide, funding projects for safer mining and better data transparency. The Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI) runs the Cobalt Refiner Supply Chain Due Diligence Standard and audits refiners from mine to battery cell. The Fair Cobalt Alliance pools companies like Glencore, Tesla, and NGOs to formalize artisanal sites, build schools, and pay living wages. The Global Battery Alliance (with over 100 members, including automakers, miners, and recyclers) created the "Cobalt Action Partnership" to scale responsible practices across the entire value chain. Progress is slow and uneven, but these groups have helped certify sites, reduce child labor, and give miners actual bargaining power. The uncomfortable truth is that without them, things would be far worse.

Recycling: Finally Getting Serious

Cobalt has enjoyed one of the highest recycling rates of any metal because superalloy scraps were easy money. Battery recycling, however, is newer and trickier. Globally, recycled cobalt supplies ~5% of total demand currently in 2025, but most of that still comes from old jet-engine parts, not (yet) dead EV packs. End-of-life battery recycling is ramping quickly. Note that EV retirement will generally lag EV production volumes by 12 to 15 years, so the recycled content in new batteries is still modest.

In the US, things look much brighter. Thanks to the IRA tax credits that treat North American recycled minerals the same as if they were freshly mined here. Recycled cobalt now makes up roughly 15-20% of the cobalt in US-made battery cells in late 2025. Some suppliers already hit 50-100% recycled cobalt in certain cathode runs for Panasonic and others. The European Union's Battery Regulation mandates a material recovery target of 90% for cobalt (as well as copper, lead, and nickel) from recycled batteries, to be achieved by December 31, 2027.

The Recycling Heroes Actually Doing the Work

The company Redwood Materials (founded by JB Straubel from Tesla) dominates the modern battery recycling scene. Redwood processes enough materials to provide batteries for 250,000-300,000 EV packs per year. They recover greater than 95% of the nickel, cobalt, lithium, and copper, and ship battery-grade material straight back to cell manufacturers, often with higher purity grades than virgin materials. They currently handle ~90% of US lithium-ion recycling volume. Li-Cycle, Ascend Elements, Cirba Solutions, and Retriev Technologies handle the remainder. Redwood is the 800-pound gorilla turning scrap into black mass at scale.

Why This Matters More Than Virtue Signaling

Every metric ton of recycled cobalt means one less metric ton dug by hand in the DRC. It slashes energy use by ~46%, water use by ~40%, and avoids the human-rights horrors entirely. Plus, in the US, it counts as domestic supply under IRA rules, which is why Ford, GM, Toyota, and Panasonic have signed massive offtake deals faster than you can say "closed-loop." This is one part of the IRA that survived shredding by the BBBA.

The recycling numbers will only improve from here. By 2030, recycled content is expected to reach 30-40% in the US as more packs reach end-of-life and additional recycling plants come online. Battery chemistries are also advancing toward lower- or zero-cobalt compositions, with Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP), sodium-ion, and Lithium Manganese Iron Phosphate (LMFP) among the notable types. However, cobalt will remain important for high-performance cells for a long time.

Bottom line: cobalt remains the problematic poster child of the battery world, but industry alliances and recycling are turning a dirty linear supply chain into something that increasingly resembles a circle. This is something crude oil could never do. The US leads the recycling charge, proving batteries can be built more responsibly. The path forward is to keep pushing recycled content, support the initiatives cleaning up mining, and toward a future free from fossil fuels without leaving a trail of exploited kids and ruined landscapes in the wake.

Lead’s Lethal Legacy: Lithium’s Lifesaving Leap - Ending the Global Lead Poisoning Cycle

Zapping the Lead Legacy: Why Lithium-Ion Batteries Deserve the Driver's Seat

The good ol' 12-Volt car starter batteries rank among the most recycled items on the planet. On their recycling journey, billions of lead-acid batteries end up in countries like Nigeria, where environmental controls are almost nonexistent. Lead is a potent neurotoxin. Informal smelters break open batteries, melt the lead in backyard furnaces, and release dust that poisons workers, children, and entire villages. The same recycled lead then flows back into new batteries sold worldwide. This hidden cycle keeps costs low for battery makers and devastation high for communities that never chose to bear our waste.

Picture this: a world where your car battery does not turn recycling yards into toxic sludge pits. Sounds like a decent upgrade, right? Lead-acid batteries have powered vehicles since the 1800s. With 1.6 billion vehicles on the road worldwide in 2025 and billions more lead-acid units in forklifts and golf carts, the sheer volume is staggering. It is time to swap these heavy, poisonous packs for lithium-ion batteries that perform better and do not poison people.

The Toxic Titans Still Ruling the Road

Roughly 3 billion lead-acid batteries are manufactured every year. Nearly every internal-combustion vehicle uses a lead-acid starter battery. Major battery producers include Clarios (supplying one in three cars globally), Exide Technologies, East Penn Manufacturing, GS Yuasa, and EnerSys. Together, they keep a $56 billion industry humming.

The problem is not the battery when it sits neatly under your hood. The problem is when it reaches the end of life. Informal recycling in places like Nigeria, India, and Bangladesh routinely contaminates entire communities. In Ogijo, Nigeria, soil lead levels hit 186 times the safe limit, and 70% of tested residents (many of them children) have blood-lead levels above the WHO lead poisoning threshold. The New York Times and The Examination documented how recycled lead from these operations flows back into new batteries sold around the world. The circle is vicious, profitable, and lethal.

Lithium-Ion: Non-Toxic and Ready to Drop In

Lithium batteries are ready now and outperform lead-acid. Lead-acid operates roughly -15°C to 50°C (suffers in extremes). Lithium batteries reliably work from -20°C to 60°C. Lithium-Ion delivers 3000-6000 full cycles vs lead-acid’s 200-500, so you replace it far less often and enjoy 10 to 15 years of rock-solid service. Drop-in 12V Lithium batteries are plug-and-play ready today.

Lithium-ion batteries contain no lead and no free-flowing sulfuric acid. Modern Li-ion packs are sealed, non-toxic units that pose minimal risk even if cracked open. Recycling them is far cleaner and already reaches 95% material recovery in regulated facilities. And some types of lithium batteries (like lithium iron phosphate) are cobalt-free. (More coming here about Cobalt tomorrow.)

For direct lead-acid replacement, the standout chemistry is lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4, often branded LFP). It offers flat voltage curves that mimics lead-acid, extreme safety (no thermal runaway), and 10 times the lifespan of lead-acid. Weight drops by about 70%, charge time collapses from 10 hours to under 2, and usable capacity jumps because you can safely discharge LFP to 100% instead of the 50% limit typical for lead-acid.

Here is the tale of the tape:

Feature	Lead-Acid	LiFePO4
Contains lead	Yes	No
Toxicity risk	Extreme	Negligible
Weight for 100 Ah	28-32 kg	10-12 kg
Full cycles (100% DOD)	200-500	3000-6000
Charge time (0-100%)	8-16 hours	1-3 hours
Usable capacity	~50%	~98%
Full Accounting Cost per cycle (2025)	$0.14-$0.20	$0.04-$0.06
Recycling pollution	Severe	Low

Major Automakers and Their 12V Starter Battery Choices (in 2025)

Automaker	Current 12V Starter Battery Strategy
Tesla	Fully adopted Li-ion 12V batteries since 2021 across all models; matches main pack life.
Ford	Sticks to AGM lead-acid for 12V starters; aftermarket Li-ion available but not OEM-integrated
GM/Chevrolet	Uses Li-ion 12V in select hybrids/EVs like Corvette E-Ray; lead-acid common elsewhere with no broad shift announced
Toyota	Relies on AGM lead-acid 12V; no OEM Li-ion starter option
Volkswagen	Transitioned to Li-ion 12V in EVs since 2022; gasoline and diesel cars still use lead-acid starter batteries
Hyundai	Integrates Li-ion 12V into EVs and hybrids (e.g., Ioniq, Sonata Hybrid) since 2017; saves weight
Stellantis	No confirmed Li-ion 12V use; exclusively lead-acid starters.
Honda	No confirmed Li-ion 12V use; exclusively lead-acid starters.
Nissan	Uses lead-acid 12V in all vehicles (even the all-electric Leaf).
BMW	Offers Li-ion 12V as option in M models (e.g., M3/M4) since 2014; requires specialized hardware.

Golf Carts Lead The Transition

The golf cart industry is rapidly adopting lithium-ion batteries primarily because the technology directly solves operational deficiencies of lead-acid. Lithium batteries weigh less, dramatically improving cart speed, acceleration, and component wear. Furthermore, lithium requires virtually zero maintenance: this eliminates the need for water checks and corrosion cleaning, and lithium charges four times faster. For commercial fleet operators on golf courses, this translates to drastically reduced labor costs, less downtime, and a lower total cost of ownership over the battery's 5 to 10 year lifespan, making the premium price easily justifiable. In 2015, nearly all golf carts were lead-acid; as of last year, most golf carts made are lithium-powered, and, as our chart shows, the trend will continue. 

The automotive industry's transition to lithium starter batteries is slow due to established supply chains and cost. Lead-acid is cheap, reliable enough, and suited for the high-power, short-burst needs of starting an engine. To automakers, the upfront expense of lithium is hard to justify, even if it works better for consumers and the planet in the long run. However, lithium's superior cycle life, lighter weight, and integration with electric vehicle systems will eventually force the switch. As manufacturing costs drop and vehicle electrification increases demand for high-efficiency components, the total cost of ownership will shift, making lithium the new standard (see chart below).

Time to Retire the Lead Weight

The technology is ready, the price gap is closing (12V 100Ah LFP drop-in batteries now sell for $250-$350 versus $150 for premium AGM lead-acid). The additional cost is more than made up for by the extended life, and the moral case is overwhelming. Every year we delay, another few hundred thousand tons of lead get smeared across villages that never asked for it.

Switching car starter batteries, golf-cart packs, and other lead-acid batteries to LiFePO4 lithium-ion would slash mining demand for new lead, gut the toxic recycling trade, and deliver better performance at lower lifetime cost. Automakers have zero excuses left.

Let us finally build a future free from preventable lead poisoning. The batteries are waiting. All we have to do is plug them in.