GM is pulling back on EVs

[tripleyellowmustang]

We are thinking of doing solar. In AZ where I live, we can submit to be completely off the electrical grid, since we don’t live within city limits but it has to be approved. The house I’m going to get my wife down in Puerto Rico, for sure is going that direction, since it’s much easier down there to not be part of the electrical grid. We can also capture rain water down there with no repercussions either. I’m really thinking of just moving there for good. Leaving the property here to my mother in law and leave it at that.

Fresh food vegetables fresh fish fresh meats. Everything raised and produced there. From farm a couple of hours away directly to store shelves. From local oceans to store shelves also.

Relevant to Puerto Rico.

https://www.canarymedia.com/article...an-communities-are-all-in-on-solar-microgrids

Sponsored

 

[AZlb5.0]

Relevant to Puerto Rico.

https://www.canarymedia.com/article...an-communities-are-all-in-on-solar-microgrids

Thanks I’ll take a look at it. Just glancing at it I didn’t know there was that much investment on the island for solar.

 

[Burkey]

The Other EV Race That’s More Important Than Replicating Gas Cars (msn.com)

“Polestar is taking a different approach. The electric car maker, which spun off from Volvo, is not only working to make compelling EVs that can go toe-to-toe with ICE equivalents (with the Polestar 2 currently available and Polestar 3 SUV coming later this year), but it’s doing the important work of slashing emissions throughout its supply chain in order to make vehicles that are less harmful from the outset.”

“Today, Polestar published its Annual Sustainability Report for 2022, which found that the company was once again able to drastically decrease its emissions per car sold. “[Polestar] reduced relative CO2e-emissions per car sold by eight percent compared to 2021 levels, and this during a year of record global volume growth, as the company delivered nearly 51,500 cars in 2022, an increase of 80 percent since 2021,” they wrote in a press release. “While absolute emissions have increased as a result of the scale-up, relative emissions on a per-unit-basis have reduced by 13 percent since 2020. This is the second consecutive year the company combined rapid growth with carbon cuts. This puts Polestar on track towards its goals of halving relative emissions by 2030.”

“It’s not the sexiest slogan a marketing team could dream up, and the details even less so. The emission cuts here, they note, are due to a number of factors, some out of their control (like sales in markets that have a larger percentage of renewable energy in the grid), but some due to their deliberate action (like changing to an aluminum supplier which uses hydropower and running the Polestar 2 factory entirely on 100% renewable electricity). “



Hello; I will refer back to the per-capita discussion had here back many posts. Same sort of wording gymnastics. A casual read can make things seem better than they really are. It is the comment about absolute emissions which sours the deal somewhat.

An interpretation of this is simple enough. They are actually creating more emission overall. The per car sold bit sounds better I suppose.

That last bit is of interest to me . An aluminum supplier which uses hydropower. I wonder if that could be the ALCOA plant south of Knoxville TN which is part of the TVA system. We have a few hydro dams but also burn some coal.

Let’s follow your logic to its natural conclusion.
I start a car company tomorrow. My product can be manufactured at 1% of the normal CO2 emissions.
I sell one unIt in the first year. I double my total emissions the second year by selling two of them.
Eventually, every car on the road is manufactured by me and my company is emitting 10 billion percent more emissions than it did in year one.

But yeah sure, it’s a complete disaster. I’ve only reduced the total emissions for every car produced on the planet by about 99%
You couldn’t even make this shit up.

 

[sk47]

Let’s follow your logic to its natural conclusion.
I start a car company tomorrow. My product can be manufactured at 1% of the normal CO2 emissions.
I sell one unIt in the first year. I double my total emissions the second year by selling two of them.
Eventually, every car on the road is manufactured by me and my company is emitting 10 billion percent more emissions than it did in year one.

But yeah sure, it’s a complete disaster. I’ve only reduced the total emissions for every car produced on the planet by about 99%
You couldn’t even make this shit up.

Hello; No need for you to make incorrect guesses. I will explain it again using different terms. The notion among true believers is only solar/wind and similar energy production along with BEV's can save the world.

So, in the zeal to move things along new infrastructure is being planned or in currently being made as in the case of the Polestar company. Another leg is all the solar panel parts, wind turbine parts and EV battery parts being made in China.
In the process of building all new stuff including infrastructure even more extra emissions and pollution are currently being spewed out into the environment.

If the plan goes well without the ordinary unexpected problems and setbacks, then someday in the future the EV's and green energy production may be some cleaner than what we already have. Problem overlooked is this rush to do it all soonest is actually increasing current emissions.

I have used the cash for clunkers from the past as an example. Destroying existing vehicles that did not get great MPG's in order to push people to buy newer vehicle which got only some better MPG's ignored the environmental impact of the manufacture of those new vehicles.

Any new EV vehicle, solar panel, wind turbine has an associated amount of emissions & pollution from the making of the product before the key is turned on for the first time. Or the solar panel gets it first rays of light, or the wind turbine makes the first spin.

Making EV and green energy stuff in China by burning coal would make a very good Far Side cartoon. Some of us get it. A few posts ago a school building was mentioned which needs the outside surface replaced. They will use solar panels. That is the win-win way to go about it. I figure the true believers likely want a new building.

last effort to make the point in this post. Do not need to force ICE off the roads in seven to twelve years. Make the BEV desirable and folks needing a replacement vehicle will buy one. That would make sense. Problem has been we already know if the BEV will work for us or not. For many it will not. A hybrid yes. A BEV not for very many.

 

[Burkey]

No need for you to make incorrect guesses. I will explain it again using different terms. The notion among true believers is only solar/wind and similar energy production along with BEV's can save the world.

Is that what the “true believers” believe or is that what you THINK they believe?
At absolutely no point in this entire thread have you directly asked one of the “true believers” for their personal opinions.
Seems strange that you can so accurately predict their thoughts.

Can I now tell you what I think you believe or do you think that might infuriate you somewhat?

 

[sk47]

Is that what the “true believers” believe or is that what you THINK they believe?
At absolutely no point in this entire thread have you directly asked one of the “true believers” for their personal opinions.
Seems strange that you can so accurately predict their thoughts.

Can I now tell you what I think you believe or do you think that might infuriate you somewhat?

Hello; A small chuckle. I and others have been reading what you and other EV champions post for years now. Even the new guy who joined in a few weeks ago wound up writing essentially the same things. I do owe him some consideration after he came out against the mandates.

What is of interest is how you went directly to a side track reply about my recent post. I must have made my points well.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; A small chuckle. I and others have been reading what you and other EV champions post for years now. Even the new guy who joined in a few weeks ago wound up writing essentially the same things. I do owe him some consideration after he came out against the mandates.

What is of interest is how you went directly to a side track reply about my recent post. I must have made my points well.

You might be chuckling but I find you hilarious.

Allow me to check my notes…..

Pretty sure that I’ve made it clear to everyone on this forum that I own a SUPERCHARGED Mustang and a Ducati (that drinks fuel at about the same rate at the Mustang thanks very much) and that I have no intention of selling either of them at any point in the near, or even distant future.

I also mentioned that my wife is buying a new car, and that it won’t be an EV or a hybrid.

Now tell me more about my ”championing” of EV’s?
Is it possible, just possible, that a person can appreciate new technologies and what they’re trying to achieve without fully embracing and ”championing” them?

I’ve mentioned that people who have solar power at home might want to look at EV’s more favourably. Not because it’s good for the planet (which you’ve clearly shown it to be, courtesy of the study you cited) but because it’s good for your back pocket. I’ve also mentioned that I might buy one at some point in the future. Again, for financial reasons.

If the argument has reached a point where people can’t even make good financial decisions without being labelled a “champion” I have no words for you.

Can I call you a ”fossil fuel industry shill” every time you make a comment that is even vaguely pro fossil fuels?
is that how this works?

Are there only two boxes that a person can fit into?
Can I just invent labels for you, based on how I perceive your argument, regardless of whether it’s an accurate assessment or not?

I didn’t think so.

 

[K4fxd]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/energy-dept-ban-sale-light-100351213.html

Last chance to get decent light bulbs.

 

[Burkey]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/energy-dept-ban-sale-light-100351213.html

Last chance to get decent light bulbs.

We did that in Australia about ten years ago. The doomsayers lost their minds, as they always do. Net result? People still have lights, they’re just more efficient now.

Probably the WORST thing to ever hit the market from an efficiency standpoint was 12v dichroic downlights.
Consumers heard the 12 volt part and figured they were more efficient than a 240v light… never mind that you now needed 200w to do what 100w used to do (60* beam angle matters).

Anyways, then we ran around cutting massive (and multiple) holes in peoples ceilings, installing a fitting that was unsealed (allowing air to pass easily from ceiling to living area) and removed large amounts of insulation from the vicinity of each downlight to prevent them catching fire.

Since then, we now fit a 9w, sealed, 110* beam, LED and leave the insulation intact. It’s cheaper to buy, cheaper to install, costs less to run and outlasts the dichroic by about 10:1

Oh, and your house is less likely to catch fire.

 

[AZlb5.0]

Some of the issues that ICE manufacturers are dealing with and only Ford is talking about when transferring to EV manufacturing/production. Learn as you go.

 

[martinjlm]

Plus smart chargers can actually use the car battery back into the grid when required. You set a departure time and the charger will ensure the car is 'full' at that time but may actually charge or reverse that into the grid from time to time. Pretty sure @Burkey is involved in grid infrastructure so could help more here

Go to about 4 minutes into this video for a real world example.

Autoline discusses bi-directional charging

 

[K4fxd]

Go to about 4 minutes into this video for a real world example.

No way in hell would I allow that. I'd hate to have an emergency and find out the utility drained my battery.

We did that in Australia about ten years ago. The doomsayers lost their minds, as they always do. Net result? People still have lights, they’re just more efficient now.

I still like the light that comes off incandescent. So I use them is some areas, LED light is harsh. I also like the heat produced usually one 60W incandescent can keep the well house warm enough to not freeze. Lots cheaper than space heaters.

Again taking away a perfectly good tool in the name of saving the planet.

 

[GT 550]

FWIW:

https://www.drive.com.au/news/electric-vehicles-worse-for-environment-than-petrol-cars-report/

 

[Burkey]

FWIW:

https://www.drive.com.au/news/electric-vehicles-worse-for-environment-than-petrol-cars-report/

For the life of me I can’t work out how they decided that Australia is worse than Japan, given that in 2021, Japan was 20% renewable vs >30% in Australia.
The European Union is currently at 22%

I wonder if this is perhaps an old study that someone’s pulled out of their drawer?

Edit: I found a more balanced article. In any case, it seems that none of them want to link us to the original material from Mitsubishi.

https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/mitsubishi-no-big-evs-until-battery-costs-energy-density-improve

 

[sk47]

You might be chuckling but I find you hilarious.

Allow me to check my notes…..

Pretty sure that I’ve made it clear to everyone on this forum that I own a SUPERCHARGED Mustang and a Ducati (that drinks fuel at about the same rate at the Mustang thanks very much) and that I have no intention of selling either of them at any point in the near, or even distant future.

I also mentioned that my wife is buying a new car, and that it won’t be an EV or a hybrid.

Now tell me more about my ”championing” of EV’s?
Is it possible, just possible, that a person can appreciate new technologies and what they’re trying to achieve without fully embracing and ”championing” them?

I’ve mentioned that people who have solar power at home might want to look at EV’s more favourably. Not because it’s good for the planet (which you’ve clearly shown it to be, courtesy of the study you cited) but because it’s good for your back pocket. I’ve also mentioned that I might buy one at some point in the future. Again, for financial reasons.

If the argument has reached a point where people can’t even make good financial decisions without being labelled a “champion” I have no words for you.

Can I call you a ”fossil fuel industry shill” every time you make a comment that is even vaguely pro fossil fuels?
is that how this works?

Are there only two boxes that a person can fit into?
Can I just invent labels for you, based on how I perceive your argument, regardless of whether it’s an accurate assessment or not?

I didn’t think so.

Hello; You are correct in a respect. I need to add a modifier. What to call someone who proclaims the virtues of something yet when it comes to real action does the opposite? I should the modifier a _________ champion.

A thing is I have been called much worse names by a few of the champions than a fossil fuel shill. Thing is I thought a shill got paid to support a thing. But if my favoring a commonsense approach to something critical for human life (a working energy & transport system) applies, then feel free.

Sponsored