GM is pulling back on EVs

[martinjlm]

The inflation reduction act is a side track and an expensive one. The inflation all around is a direct consequence of that and the wasteful covid spending. Lost more than pennies out of our pockets.

Economic experts the world over attributed the root cause of the global inflation increase to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As the chart below shows, there was already some inflation beginning to take hold. Then when the invasion happened inflation increased dramatically. And now inflation is starting to decline, largely due to the Inflation Reduction Act.

Sponsored

 

[martinjlm]

Not directly from the mandates, but we tax payers are subsidizing BEV cars.

I believe I already stipulated that. I also said I choose not to go down the rabbit hole of dumb$#1t that our tax dollars subsidize. And I said that if the impact of these subsidies results in automakers locating their auto and battery plants in the US instead of China, S. Korea, Japan, and Europe I can stand with that. Since the IRA has been in place, Ford has announced a $3.5 billion dollar investment in a battery plant that will bring 2,500 high paying jobs to Marshall, Michigan. And Hyundai has announced that they will now build a plant in Georgia to build EVs that they were originally going to import. More high paying jobs for the US. That‘s how incentives should work. You give something to get something. I’m good with that.

 

[sk47]

Economic experts the world over attribute the root cause of the global inflation increase to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As the chart below shows, there was already some inflation beginning to take hold. Then when the invasion happened inflation increased dramatically. And now inflation is starting to decline, largely due to the Inflation Reduction Act.

Hello; massive spending and the printing of money creates inflation. Some of the spending because of Ukraine, but the close to two trillion IRA on top of covid spending is a main cause. Yes, you are a true believer after all. Too bad.

EDIT - what about the Volvo study a few posts ago. The other true believers tend to ignore it also.

 

[martinjlm]

Hello; massive spending and the printing of money creates inflation. Some of the spending because of Ukraine, but the close to two trillion IRA on top of covid spending is a main cause. Yes, you are a true believer after all. Too bad.

EDIT - what about the Volvo study a few posts ago. The other true believers tend to ignore it also.

I don’t know what your definition of “true believer“ is but I have a feeling it is not complementary. If I am correct in that thinking then please keep it out of your mouth when discussing me and call me by my name (James) or my screenname (martinjlm) and I will give you the same courtesy. In my experience name calling and categorizing begins when the ability to build a rational argument ends.

If you want to know whether I believe that climate change is accelerated by the high levels of carbon based emissions from transportation and industry, the answer is yes. If you want to know whether I believe that transitioning to electric vehicles will have an impact on reducing carbon based emissions, the answer is yes. That’s probably pretty much you need to know about me.

As far as Volvo goes… Volvo is one of my clients. I choose not to comment nor to disclose what they are working on.

 

[sk47]

I don’t know what your definition of “true believer“ is but I have a feeling it is not complementary. If I am correct in that thinking then please keep it out of your mouth when discussing me and call me by my name (James) or my screenname (martinjlm) and I will give you the same courtesy. In my experience name calling and categorizing begins when the ability to build a rational argument ends.

If you want to know whether I believe that climate change is accelerated by the high levels of carbon based emissions from transportation and industry, the answer is yes. If you want to know whether I believe that transitioning to electric vehicles will have an impact on reducing carbon based emissions, the answer is yes. That’s probably pretty much you need to know about me.

As far as Volvo goes… Volvo is one of my clients. I choose not to comment nor to disclose what they are working on.

Hello; I posted two links. One an article about the volvo study. The other the Volvo study itself. Volvo published the study. It is out there and not a secret. The study shows some of the less than clean aspects of EV's.
Volvo is also a true believer company as you likely know. They have farmed out the production of ICE engines to a subsidiary company and plan to go all electric production.

As far as the rest of it goes you chimed into this discussion. And yes the above response pretty much indicates you are a true believer. Best i can recall you have already indicated favoring the anti ICE mandates in posts. You are part of a crowd wishing to change the fundamental structure of functioning societies for a maybe someday it might work solution.

 

[AZlb5.0]

The wise people are those who question everything and accept nothing as truth , truth is only pain disguised with a smile. -mark dunn

 

[martinjlm]

Hello; I posted two links. One an article about the volvo study. The other the Volvo study itself. Volvo published the study. It is out there and not a secret. The study shows some of the less than clean aspects of EV's.
Volvo is also a true believer company as you likely know. They have farmed out the production of ICE engines to a subsidiary company and plan to go all electric production.

As far as the rest of it goes you chimed into this discussion. And yes the above response pretty much indicates you are a true believer. Best i can recall you have already indicated favoring the anti ICE mandates in posts. You are part of a crowd wishing to change the fundamental structure of functioning societies for a maybe someday it might work solution.

I stand by what I said with respect to Volvo. Things that I would say could violate non disclosure agreements and I ain’t gonna do that for an Internet forum skirmish.

As far as the mandates in place by the various states, in my opinion they are unnecessary over-reach and have enough loopholes in them that the states will find them problematic.

I look at Electric Vehicles as a product, not a political statement or the tool of a conspiracy theory. In my garage I have a modified muscle car, a modified sports car and a range extended EV that will soon be replaced by a battery electric vehicle. A tool for every job. At the end of the day, most things that an ICE car can do, EVs can do better. There aren’t any EV track cars. Yet. There aren’t any EVs that are designed to tow. Yet. ICE cars do cross country trips better than EVs for now. That will likely change within 10-15 years. EVs are more efficient, accelerate quicker, can package occupants better (no transmission tunnel), can package cargo better (frunk) and have a lower lifetime cost of operation. So unless you are consistently towing and hauling or you are deep into motorsports, beyond just weekend show and shine, and you don’t drive more than 300 miles in a day on a frequent basis, EVs can pretty much do everything better than an equivalent ICE.

 

[tripleyellowmustang]

Are you now getting forgetful as well? You raised this many pages back and all the data was provided to prove that EV's DO NOT catch fire more than ICE vehicles, in fact they catch fire LESS.

It appears some disagree, as there is not enough data; only time will tell I suppose.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwi...ut-more-data-required-for-definitive-verdict/

“Any firm conclusions on fire risks generally are not yet possible because there is not enough data to decide that pure electric cars are more prone to spontaneous fire than internal combustion engine (ICE) ones, or more likely to burst into flames after an accident.”

“Recent data whipped up a storm on both sides of the argument. Electric car enthusiasts liked the idea that National Transportation Safety Board (NSTB) data, analysed by AutoinsuranceEZ, showed BEVs were far safer than hybrids and ICE cars. AutoinsuranceEZ said the numbers showed electric cars were less prone to fire than other vehicles, with hybrids the most dangerous, followed by gasoline vehicles.

Hang on a minute said the doubters, the data shows no such thing.

‘It is still too early to make any conclusions about EVs and spontaneity of fires. I just don’t think we have the sample size of data or the reporting structure for fires to say with any certainty. What is clear is that the fire is more difficult to deal with, the energy release during the exotherm of the electrolyte takes a lot of cooling to extinguish,‘ Conway said the data didn’t allow for solid conclusions.

‘The NTSB data said that after 41 fatal collisions involving BEVs, 1 caught on fire (2.44%). The NTSB data said that after 20,315 fatal collisions involving gasoline vehicles, 644 caught on fire (3.17%). The NTSB data said that after 543 fatal collisions involving gasoline hybrid vehicles, 12 caught on fire (2.21%),‘ Conway said.

‘But 41 crashes vs 20,315 crashes vs 543 crashes make it statistically irresponsible to compare these numbers. For example, if there was a 42nd crash with an EV and it caught on fire then it would be 4.76% of EVs or double the rate of hybrids. Until the sample size is the same and significant we just can’t say which will be worse or not,‘ Conway said.”

 

[martinjlm]

….

EDIT - what about the Volvo study a few posts ago. The other true believers tend to ignore it also.

I guess I can refer to Polestar to put the Volvo thing in perspective. Polestar used to be the performance sub-brand for Volvo. Basically Volvo’s spin on AMG or M-series. Now it’s a full brand in Volvo’s portfolio. All electrified vehicles, still leaning towards performance.

Polestar

 

[sk47]

I stand by what I said with respect to Volvo. Things that I would say could violate non disclosure agreements and I ain’t gonna do that for an Internet forum skirmish.

As far as the mandates in place by the various states, in my opinion they are unnecessary over-reach and have enough loopholes in them that the states will find them problematic.

I look at Electric Vehicles as a product, not a political statement or the tool of a conspiracy theory. In my garage I have a modified muscle car, a modified sports car and a range extended EV that will soon be replaced by a battery electric vehicle. A tool for every job. At the end of the day, most things that an ICE car can do, EVs can do better. There aren’t any EV track cars. Yet. There aren’t any EVs that are designed to tow. Yet. ICE cars do cross country trips better than EVs for now. That will likely change within 10-15 years. EVs are more efficient, accelerate quicker, can package occupants better (no transmission tunnel), can package cargo better (frunk) and have a lower lifetime cost of operation. So unless you are consistently towing and hauling or you are deep into motorsports, beyond just weekend show and shine, and you don’t drive more than 300 miles in a day on a frequent basis, EVs can pretty much everything better than an equivalent ICE.

Hello; Volvo is a client explains a lot. The study lays things out well enough. Too bad an insider cannot enlighten us, but so be it.

I also figure the mandates will be problematic for states which have them. Too much of a power grab for one thing, but other problems as well.

The EV as a tool is what several of us have also stated. If an EV fits a lifestyle I and others have said that is just fine. But it is become something other than each gets to pick the vehicle that suits. It is a change being pushed onto us by mandates and also incentives we have to pitch in for. It is not clean competition and let the better vehicle win.
Hybrids were around in 2001 when i bought my car new. I rejected then then as have most folks for the intervening 22 years. Some few years later the EV's came along and were largely ignored. So, the EV for sure is not better than an ICE else it would not need the incentives and mandates for purchase. The auto companies are being forced into the EV market in a similar way. Not exactly by choice.
Hybrids would be the ideal solution if not for the cost of initial purchase and the looming budget bursting cost of a replacement battery.
A ten-year-old hybrid or EV with a funky battery will be a toss away. How will that add up in the environmental calculations of saving the earth?

You are new to this thread so I do not know if you have been keeping up all along or just dropped in. You say an EV will beat an ICE in every aspect except to tow, haul, make trips or drive 300 miles. ( seems a lot). What about apartment or other renters who cannot have at home charging? We have posted lots of links about how it costs more to charge an EV at commercial chargers. Only cost less to run an EV if you can home charge it seems.

You are fitting in well with the others who champion EV's. That being the someday problems will be fixed stuff.
"Yet. ICE cars do cross country trips better than EVs for now. That will likely change within 10-15 years."
We have gotten so many of these someday EV's will be fixed lines when current EV issues are pointed out. When the problems are fixed then let us make a choice. Choice is not in the plan tho is it?

 

[sk47]

I guess I can refer to Polestar to put the Volvo thing in perspective. Polestar used to be the performance sub-brand for Volvo. Basically Volvo’s spin on AMG or M-series. Now it’s a full brand in Volvo’s portfolio. All electrified vehicles, still leaning towards performance.

Polestar

Hello; I read the study by Volvo comparing two similar Volvo models. One ICE and the other EV. What came away with is the EV must be driven around 68,000 miles. (study used kilometers) before it begins to do better environmentally than an ICE.
Not clear in my memory but do not think a battery replacement nor battery recycling/ lack of recycling was included.
By the way battery recycling is another "someday" thing to be fixed. Some early startups supposedly in the works but not yet mature.

Fossil fuel electricity and transportation are mature technologies. Proven to feed us, keep us warm and transport all the things needed to stay alive.

 

[AZlb5.0]

It appears some disagree, as there is not enough data; only time will tell I suppose.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwi...ut-more-data-required-for-definitive-verdict/

“Any firm conclusions on fire risks generally are not yet possible because there is not enough data to decide that pure electric cars are more prone to spontaneous fire than internal combustion engine (ICE) ones, or more likely to burst into flames after an accident.”

“Recent data whipped up a storm on both sides of the argument. Electric car enthusiasts liked the idea that National Transportation Safety Board (NSTB) data, analysed by AutoinsuranceEZ, showed BEVs were far safer than hybrids and ICE cars. AutoinsuranceEZ said the numbers showed electric cars were less prone to fire than other vehicles, with hybrids the most dangerous, followed by gasoline vehicles.

Hang on a minute said the doubters, the data shows no such thing.

‘It is still too early to make any conclusions about EVs and spontaneity of fires. I just don’t think we have the sample size of data or the reporting structure for fires to say with any certainty. What is clear is that the fire is more difficult to deal with, the energy release during the exotherm of the electrolyte takes a lot of cooling to extinguish,‘ Conway said the data didn’t allow for solid conclusions.

‘The NTSB data said that after 41 fatal collisions involving BEVs, 1 caught on fire (2.44%). The NTSB data said that after 20,315 fatal collisions involving gasoline vehicles, 644 caught on fire (3.17%). The NTSB data said that after 543 fatal collisions involving gasoline hybrid vehicles, 12 caught on fire (2.21%),‘ Conway said.

‘But 41 crashes vs 20,315 crashes vs 543 crashes make it statistically irresponsible to compare these numbers. For example, if there was a 42nd crash with an EV and it caught on fire then it would be 4.76% of EVs or double the rate of hybrids. Until the sample size is the same and significant we just can’t say which will be worse or not,‘ Conway said.”

You need to stop math is racist.

 

[Burkey]

Water vapor as a warming heat trapping gas is easily proved.

The only proof of Co2 being a heat trapping gas is through computer models. Computer models can be made to say anything. Probably some of the best climate computer models cannot accurately predict a hurricane path.

Erm…..computers were pretty thin on the ground in 1896….you know, when Svante Arrhenius first published his discovery. You’re trying to argue against something that has been known for more than a century.
Best of luck with that. You’re talking about disputing something that is accepted FACT.

LMFAO. You’re obviously trolling now. Nobody is this impervious to knowledge.
The fact that they can even quote the specific frequency ranges that CO2 operates in, is fairly telling.

Again, still waiting for your peer-reviewed research in this area. Would you like to begin by disputing the wavelengths that CO2 operates on? Maybe you could overturn entire fields of study.

Or, you could just stick to trolling forums.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; I read the study by Volvo comparing two similar Volvo models. One ICE and the other EV. What came away with is the EV must be driven around 68,000 miles. (study used kilometers) before it begins to do better environmentally than an ICE.
Not clear in my memory but do not think a battery replacement nor battery recycling/ lack of recycling was included.
By the way battery recycling is another "someday" thing to be fixed. Some early startups supposedly in the works but not yet mature.

Fossil fuel electricity and transportation are mature technologies. Proven to feed us, keep us warm and transport all the things needed to stay alive.

Do you happen to recall what percentage of the electricity for recharging came from renewables?
Seems a decent question dose it not? Clearly the source of the power is going to make a HUGE difference to the break even point.

EDIT: I did the research for you. The answer is here:

“First, the calculus used by Volvo says the results depend in large measure on the source of electricity its customers use to charge their vehicles. If they drive in Poland, where 90% of the electricity comes from burning coal, then yes, it will take 100,000 kilometers or more to reach parity with a conventional gasoline-powered car. On the other hand, if the electricity comes from renewable sources such as wind or solar, the crossover point is closer to 50,000 kilometers. The middle scenario, based on the currentEU energy mix, is 77,000 kilometers.”

50,000 km’s is 31,000 miles.
So yes, if you use coal and gas to power the nation (and your charger) it’ll take basically twice as long for the EV to become superior to the ICE.
The key point being that’s it’s STILL superior, regardless of the power source.

We both agreed earlier that facts matter. Perhaps we should continue to use them?

Also from the same article:

“All this talk about carbon emissions overlooks one important point. In addition to the carbon dioxide that pours out of the tailpipes of conventional cars, they also spew a cloud of fine particulate matter into the atmosphere. Whether its coal, oil, gasoline, or diesel, fossil fuels create FPM pollution when they are burned. Fine particulates are so small they pass directly into the bloodstream in the lungs and travel to every part of our bodies, from our brains to our livers to our toes. They are found in breast milk and human placentas. They impair cognitive function, make us ill, and make us die sooner than we should. And for this the fossil fuel advocates want to bash electric cars? What is wrong with you people?

The EV revolution has many pieces. It involves better battery technology, more efficient manufacturing, and an expansion of the supply of renewable energy. People who seize on one sentence of a 50-page report to flog their agenda are dishonest idiots. Ignore them. They will soon be irrelevant.”

 

[Gregs24]

Fun fact
Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared. Most water vapor is also cause by the sun evaporating the oceans so what’s next holding the sun financially accountable for this?

Fun fact source? Oh of course, you never provide sources just random opinions

Odd as the link from NASA posted above clearly says:

Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.

So who is right? You (with your mystery source) or NASA? Err let me think for a moment

Do you even believe yourself?

So as usual @AZlb5.0 completely ignores this. Which is it? You right or NASA - can't both be right. Maybe if you had a little courtesy in your bones you could actually let us all know?

Sponsored