GM is pulling back on EVs

[sk47]

We've been through that... several threads back. They are moving away from coal - even claim to have over 60% carbon free... have nuclear, dams, building a solar sites, etc.

You don't know where your energy comes from and can't remember a conversation from two months ago. Poor thing.

Hello; China is putting into operation something like two brand new coal fired power plants every week to ten days and you somehow interpret this as moving away from coal.

Sponsored

 

[jtmat]

Hello; perhaps you do not understand the image you present so far. Even in your own words you stated "belief" about the key tenants of this Green +EV discussion. It follows then that since you have self-declared the belief, then we will see you as a true believer. Sort of a if the shoe fits thing.

Why don't you stop with your BS already. He comes off much like I do... not for and not against.

Everything has to be a pigeon-hole for pigeon brains. Don't be that.

You and your political agenda team only sees things through the political lens. I believe he sees that as well, but choses to share knowledge anyway. Wasting his time in my opinion.

 

[jtmat]

Hello; China is putting into operation something like two brand new coal fired power plants every week to ten days and you somehow interpret this as moving away from coal.

What is wrong with you? You don't live in China!!!! Or maybe you do... that would explain why you don't care if Americans die or don't have work.

You have claimed to live in the area of TVA (Tennessee power...). My comment was in reference to that. You even mentioned TVA in your post!!!!!!!

I see you getting older and older right in front of my eyes. It is sad.

 

[sk47]

What is wrong with you? You don't live in China!!!! Or maybe you do... that would explain why you don't care if Americans die or don't have work.

You have claimed to live in the area of TVA (Tennessee power...). My comment was in reference to that. You even mentioned TVA in your post!!!!!!!

I see you getting older and older right in front of my eyes. It is sad.

We've been through that... several threads back. They are moving away from coal - even claim to have over 60% carbon free... have nuclear, dams, building a solar sites, etc.

You don't know where your energy comes from and can't remember a conversation from two months ago. Poor thing.

Hello; The word they is not clear. This is why I spell out distinct terms such as China or TVA.

 

[martinjlm]

This was the article I read. Maybe give it once over because it seems they have a lot of good info. Maybe it’s wrong but then again it is the internet.

https://ckpower.com/battery-vs-diesel-why-we-need-both-as-we-move-into-a-greener-future/

Some of what they say is true, but some of it is twisted and contrived math. First, they are primarily talking about stationary generators, not vehicles that move across the road. There is a convenience factor on the side of diesel used for stationary power generation that must be taken into consideration. Their measure of the amount of energy in a gallon of diesel vs some undefined measure of lithium is weird. First of all, they don’t define the measure of lithium. That or I read by it too fast. Three times. Second…lithium by itself doesn’t provide the energy in a lithium ion battery. There are many different formulations of lithium ion batteries. There’s LFP (lithium iron phosphate, there’s NMC (nickel cobalt manganese), there’s NCA (nickel cobalt aluminum)… you see where I’m going with this. The way to evaluate them is to pick a chemistry, or identify the average energy characteristics across multiple chemistry, and calculate how much in input energy it takes to deliver a particular energy output. Or start with the same kWh level of energy and calculate how much of that energy moves the wheels at the same rate and distance.

Motor Trend did a really nice comparison. What the Motor Trend study shows is that regardless of the source of power generation, EVs are far more energy efficient than either gasoline or diesel. This is because for both ICE fuels, more energy is lost in heat than actually makes it to the wheels. That is simple physics and heat transfer principals applied. Motor Trend EV vs ICE efficiency comparison.

 

[jtmat]

Hello; The word they is not clear. This is why I spell out distinct terms such as China or TVA.

Goodbye; Again... you can't remember a conversation from two months ago.

Good grief.

 

[martinjlm]

Hello; perhaps you do not understand the image you present so far. Even in your own words you stated "belief" about the key tenants of this Green +EV discussion. It follows then that since you have self-declared the belief, then we will see you as a true believer. Sort of a if the shoe fits thing.

Last chance. Re-read post #1528. Refer to me by name or by screenname or bugger off. I’m really trying to be nice and maintain a cordial dialogue. Your call.

 

[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; interesting. These are two of the main items of discussion in the thread. You are free to believe what suits you.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; The clue to this cherry picking is that you started out with solar panels on your own roof. I could use my area which is TVA and uses lots of coal. So, some very selective micro spots can be mainly solar or wind. Some other areas will be mostly coal and maybe natural gas. Hence the reference to India and China. My guess is if somehow all electricity production is averaged around the world most will be from fossil fuels.

China 24%, India 18%. Both better than the US (14%) on average.
Again, facts. The average EV sold in either of those nations will have a lower emissions profile than if sold in the US.
Pretty sad when the nation that sent man to the moon is being outclassed by much poorer nations. What went wrong?

Regardless, I’ll say it again.
THE STUDY YOU CITED SHOWS THAT EVEN IN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, THE EV HAS A LOWER EMISSIONS PROFILE OVER THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLE.

You can continue to avoid understanding the material you are referencing, but it doesn’t change the FACT that the study clearly indicates that regardless of the energy source, and even in the worst case scenario, the EV was ahead. The only thing that changed with the energy source was how FAR ahead it was.

Winning is winning. The margin doesn’t matter when you cross the line in first place.

Solutions don’t have to be perfect. They just need to represent an improvement. Make enough improvements over time and you have better solutions.

Now to your point regarding renewables. Yes, most of the electrify produced globally currently comes from fossil fuels.

“Globally, renewables made up 29 percent of electricity generation in 2020, much of it from hydropower (16.8 percent).”

Give it some time and even that statement won’t be a “fact”. You’re arguing for why we shouldn’t make any changes today even though tomorrow will most certainly be different.

I’ll state it differently in case you didn’t understand it. Even the worst case emissions profile of the EV from your study, is going to REDUCE over time, as the US (and basically every other nation) continues to expand renewable power to priduction. Meaning, the longer you own that EV, the more green it becomes. The emissions profile reduces every time there’s a reduction in fossil fuel contribution to energy production
Fact.

 

[Burkey]

Last chance. Re-read post #1528. Refer to me by name or by screenname or bugger off. I’m really trying to be nice and maintain a cordial dialogue. Your call.

Best of luck. Just wait until he starts playing the victim. He calls you names, you respond, he gets upset. Rinse repeat.

On a different note, thanks for your input here. Some really good info sharing on your part.
Cheers for that

 

[Burkey]

Some of what they say is true, but some of it is twisted and contrived math. First, they are primarily talking about stationary generators, not vehicles that move across the road. There is a convenience factor on the side of diesel used for stationary power generation that must be taken into consideration. Their measure of the amount of energy in a gallon of diesel vs some undefined measure of lithium is weird. First of all, they don’t define the measure of lithium. That or I read by it too fast. Three times. Second…lithium by itself doesn’t provide the energy in a lithium ion battery. There are many different formulations of lithium ion batteries. There’s LFP (lithium iron phosphate, there’s NMC (nickel cobalt manganese), there’s NCA (nickel cobalt aluminum)… you see where I’m going with this. The way to evaluate them is to pick a chemistry, or identify the average energy characteristics across multiple chemistry, and calculate how much in input energy it takes to deliver a particular energy output. Or start with the same kWh level of energy and calculate how much of that energy moves the wheels at the same rate and distance.

Motor Trend did a really nice comparison. What the Motor Trend study shows is that regardless of the source of power generation, EVs are far more energy efficient than either gasoline or diesel. This is because for both ICE fuels, more energy is lost in heat than actually makes it to the wheels. That is simple physics and heat transfer principals applied. Motor Trend EV vs ICE efficiency comparison.

Wow. It’s almost as if you had some sort of background in this area….I wonder if YOUR expertise might be enough to help educate…..

 

[sk47]

China 24%, India 18%. Both better than the US (14%) on average.
Again, facts. The average EV sold in either of those nations will have a lower emissions profile than if sold in the US.
Pretty sad when the nation that sent man to the moon is being outclassed by much poorer nations. What went wrong?

Regardless, I’ll say it again.
THE STUDY YOU CITED SHOWS THAT EVEN IN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, THE EV HAS A LOWER EMISSIONS PROFILE OVER THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLE.

You can continue to avoid understanding the material you are referencing, but it doesn’t change the FACT that the study clearly indicates that regardless of the energy source, and even in the worst case scenario, the EV was ahead. The only thing that changed with the energy source was how FAR ahead it was.

Winning is winning. The margin doesn’t matter when you cross the line in first place.

Solutions don’t have to be perfect. They just need to represent an improvement. Make enough improvements over time and you have better solutions.

Now to your point regarding renewables. Yes, most of the electrify produced globally currently comes from fossil fuels.

“Globally, renewables made up 29 percent of electricity generation in 2020, much of it from hydropower (16.8 percent).”

Give it some time and even that statement won’t be a “fact”. You’re arguing for why we shouldn’t make any changes today even though tomorrow will most certainly be different.

I’ll state it differently in case you didn’t understand it. Even the worst case emissions profile of the EV from your study, is going to REDUCE over time, as the US (and basically every other nation) continues to expand renewable power to priduction. Meaning, the longer you own that EV, the more green it becomes. The emissions profile reduces every time there’s a reduction in fossil fuel contribution to energy production
Fact.

Hello; You misconstrue my recent posts again. When i used the Volvo study reference that the EV has to be driven about 68,000 miles the logical conclusion is at 69,000 miles the EV is starting to do some better overall that the ICE. You try to make less of my comment that is valid.

Hello; Wining may be the only arbiter for you but how close second place comes in still can count. Point being EV's are not the pure earth saving item claims seem to make. Also still in question is the impact of recycling batteries if it can be done at a big enough scale ( note I avoided the mature trap criticism.) Versus the impact of recycling if somehow the battery recycling cannot get to a high percentage scale. Would not be the first time recycling has beeen promised but never happened at scale ( Plastics).


Hello;
"Now to your point regarding renewables. Yes, most of the electrify produced globally currently comes from fossil fuels."

So what exactly have I gotten incorrect about electricity production. I wrote that my TVA area uses lots of coal and we do.

 

[AZlb5.0]

Some of what they say is true, but some of it is twisted and contrived math. First, they are primarily talking about stationary generators, not vehicles that move across the road. There is a convenience factor on the side of diesel used for stationary power generation that must be taken into consideration. Their measure of the amount of energy in a gallon of diesel vs some undefined measure of lithium is weird. First of all, they don’t define the measure of lithium. That or I read by it too fast. Three times. Second…lithium by itself doesn’t provide the energy in a lithium ion battery. There are many different formulations of lithium ion batteries. There’s LFP (lithium iron phosphate, there’s NMC (nickel cobalt manganese), there’s NCA (nickel cobalt aluminum)… you see where I’m going with this. The way to evaluate them is to pick a chemistry, or identify the average energy characteristics across multiple chemistry, and calculate how much in input energy it takes to deliver a particular energy output. Or start with the same kWh level of energy and calculate how much of that energy moves the wheels at the same rate and distance.

Motor Trend did a really nice comparison. What the Motor Trend study shows is that regardless of the source of power generation, EVs are far more energy efficient than either gasoline or diesel. This is because for both ICE fuels, more energy is lost in heat than actually makes it to the wheels. That is simple physics and heat transfer principals applied. Motor Trend EV vs ICE efficiency comparison.

Gotcha I did power generation or better know as generator mechanic when I first got into the military so I had an idea of where they were going with the write up. I got out of that field and went into something way more fun. But agreed that if you pick the make up that gives the least amount of power you can make something as simple as blowing up an air balloon seem more powerful.

Thermal efficiency(35% DD road going cars) has always been the ICE engines biggest downfall. Through the years, the F1 engines became the most efficient (50+% thermal efficient) ICE engines. I mean we would need pre-chamber ignition and a 18:1 compression in road going cars which in DD vehicles is unsustainable and way too expensive to try and adapt.

I’ll read the link provided.

 

[K4fxd]

https://fcpp.org/2022/09/16/greenpe...ays-climate-change-based-on-false-narratives/

I'll just drop this here. Probably get ridiculed but I don't care. Guy has credentials.

 

[AZlb5.0]

@martinjlm
Read the article and It’s hard to beat the efficiency of electric vehicles when there is nothing like the need for drive trains, heating/cooling assist and many other thing ICE engines need to operate and make a vehicle comfortable. A motor attached to each driven wheel is the pinnacle of efficiency. The loss of heat is almost non existent. I’m still not sold on the idea and I probably will never be sold on it because I’m a Neanderthal but I can appreciate the engineering marvel EVs have become.

Sponsored