GM is pulling back on EVs

[Burkey]

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.

My point was that the moniker (seemingly) doesn’t need to be accurate. Ergo, in the same way that the one you’ve selected for me isn’t accurate, I needn’t bother as to whether you're being paid or not when inventing yours.

Get it?

Sponsored

 

[GT 550]

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.

Why do you think it's more balanced? IMHO they seem to say pretty much the same thing? Yes, no links to the Mits studies...other than the chart in the first one.

 

[sk47]

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

Autoline discusses bi-directional charging

Hello; I get it. The Achilles heel of the two main green energy sources, wind & solar, is they are not always available when needed. Others such as tidal or geothermal can be constant but are very limited. Hydro is in place in many areas and already pretty much maxed out. (Side note - dams are being removed in places due environmental concerns. A conflict between green energy and environmentalists.)( often about salmon runs)

Back to the topic. With solar & wind needing some way to be backed up when it is dark or windless some sort of storeage is needed. I can see how batteries could work if you have enough of them. Gonna be expensive for the green power suppliers to have all the needed batteries. With the shortage of rare earth minerals may not be enough to make the batteries needed for the EV's as it is.
So, the solution is to turn the private consumers personal EV's into the backup storage for the grid. Consumers will not have any choice but to be plugged in else they will not be able to charge their EV's.
During a power supply shortage the grid can take back any charge stored in the many EV's. I imagine some EV's will have priority over others. By that i am jumping ahead to an all EV time. The ambulance EV's will not get their charge taken back. Nor will fire fighters. Probably not police either. Maybe all the mayors, city council members, senators, representatives, doctors, air traffic controllers, pilots, and other such folks will be exempt.

The ordinary Joe will be buying an expensive EV and find it is declared part of the grid infrastructure. As K4fxd said I would not agree to such a deal by choice. What if we average Joes need to evacuate or make a hospital run in that EV with the range reduced after the grid takes back some charge???

Oh. Oh. Here is an idea. Keep some fossil fuel power plants around to fire up during peak demand time or when the sun does not shine, or the wind does not blow. Likely will need to be natural gas fired as they can be put into operation much quicker than coal.

Now we can see the hidden agenda behind the F-150 lightning ads showing the truck power up a home.

 

[Burkey]

Why do you think it's more balanced? IMHO they seem to say pretty much the same thing? Yes, no links to the Mits studies...other than the chart in the first one.

I’ll have to go back over it but it may have just been the tone of the writer

 

[sk47]

FWIW:

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

Hello; Good read. Some sobering real world information. Thanks.

 

[Burkey]

Why do you think it's more balanced? IMHO they seem to say pretty much the same thing? Yes, no links to the Mits studies...other than the chart in the first one.

I took the time to go back over the original article.
I was dead right, the bias was insane.
Even the opening line was deceiving.
Mitsubishi did NOT state that :

“Analysis by a major car company has revealed electric vehicles have a worse environmental impact than petrol cars in Australia – until cleaner energy is more widely available.”

They were talking quite specifically about LARGE vehicles, a fact that was entirely omitted by the journalist.

As referenced in the article I cited :

“However, all of that only applies to larger cars: C, D, and E-segment passenger vehicles and SUVs, not to mention things like the Pajero Sport and Triton. For smaller vehicles, Mitsubishi’s data says that going fully electric is the best means to culling emissions, thanks to their lower weight and smaller battery sizes: hence the launch of the all-electric ek X EV.”

I‘d say that’s a fairly pertinent detail. How you could omit that and call yourself a decent journalist is beyond me.

It’s a shame because he could‘ve run a story about how the size of the vehicle influences the effective change in CO2 output. Would’ve made for a good (and balanced) read.

 

[sk47]

I took the time to go back over the original article.
I was dead right, the bias was insane.
Even the opening line was deceiving.
Mitsubishi did NOT state that :

“Analysis by a major car company has revealed electric vehicles have a worse environmental impact than petrol cars in Australia – until cleaner energy is more widely available.”

They were talking quite specifically about LARGE vehicles, a fact that was entirely omitted by the journalist.

As referenced in the article I cited :

“However, all of that only applies to larger cars: C, D, and E-segment passenger vehicles and SUVs, not to mention things like the Pajero Sport and Triton. For smaller vehicles, Mitsubishi’s data says that going fully electric is the best means to culling emissions, thanks to their lower weight and smaller battery sizes: hence the launch of the all-electric ek X EV.”

I‘d say that’s a fairly pertinent detail. How you could omit that and call yourself a decent journalist is beyond me.

It’s a shame because he could‘ve run a story about how the size of the vehicle influences the effective change in CO2 output. Would’ve made for a good (and balanced) read.

Hello; Link the original article please.

 

[sk47]

My point was that the moniker (seemingly) doesn’t need to be accurate. Ergo, in the same way that the one you’ve selected for me isn’t accurate, I needn’t bother as to whether you're being paid or not when inventing yours.

Get it?

Hello; Accurate huh? Let us consider the known facts. You have and continue to post positively about EV's and when any of us post something negative you come back with a challenge of such negativity. You have told us EV's are the future and we doubters will just have to get over it. You post in favor of the mandates siding with Greg's who surmises we "morons" will not do as we are told without force. Your comments are many in this and other threads.

Yet you plan to purchase a new ICE soon. Don't go thru the reasons again. I understand. No EV's make the grade for your need, much the same as for most of us. ( SIDE NOTE- actually I could replace my car with an EV as over 90% of my driving is under 100 miles.) ( Not my truck tho.)

Now for my posts. I favor continued use of ICE's because they work in all ways. The infrastructure exists and does not have to be new built. I am fine with hybrids. I am fine with EV's if they and ICE's are left to compete without mandates and incentives. In fact if the EV makers can build one that out performs a similar ICE and be cheaper that would be great. That I can list several short comings of the EV's compared to the ICE are practical facts.

But call me a shill for oil if you wish. I once made and posted a pages long listing of the putdowns and names you and a few others called me in the science in cancelled thread. I survived that just fine. The same has continued in this thread. I do not hide in a safe space by putting any on ignore.

 

[K4fxd]

I was dead right, the bias was insane.

Like other sources aren't biased the other way. That's the problem with all journalism these days. Trying to sell an agenda.

The main point I get from both articles is what I've been saying here all a long. We are not ready for this massive switch. Slow the roll and let the things that need to catch up, catch up.

Meanwhile; Compared to 1970 vehicle models, new cars, SUVs and pickup trucks are roughly 99 percent cleaner for common pollutants (hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particle emissions).Jan 31, 2023

https://www.epa.gov/transportation-...history-reducing-air-pollution-transportation

Yet people are running around like chicken little screaming kids are dying, the earth will end ect.......

 

[AZlb5.0]

I know we are far along on this thread, but let me pose an argument.

Since hydrogen burns absolutely clean. Has the highest specific energy density than any fuel other than nuclear. It’s naturally the most abundant molecule/fuel. It’s definitely cleaner than EV battery sourcing/ making and even more so than conventional ICE engines. Why is Toyota the only one moving in this direction and what would EV proponents have against this?

 

[K4fxd]

Why is Toyota the only one moving in this direction and what would EV proponents have against this?

Currently it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than the energy we get from it.

 

[AZlb5.0]

Currently it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than the energy we get from it.

But that’s with all fuels. Same with gasoline products and with EV batteries.

 

[K4fxd]

But that’s with all fuels. Same with gasoline products and with EV batteries.

Hydrogen is significant. I think some pages back Gregs alluded to a new process that works better.

 

[AZlb5.0]

Hydrogen is significant. I think some pages back Gregs alluded to a new process that works better.

Maybe we can get @Gregs24 to chime in and post some info that relates.

 

[martinjlm]

Like other sources aren't biased the other way. That's the problem with all journalism these days. Trying to sell an agenda.

The main point I get from both articles is what I've been saying here all a long. We are not ready for this massive switch. Slow the roll and let the things that need to catch up, catch up.

Meanwhile; Compared to 1970 vehicle models, new cars, SUVs and pickup trucks are roughly 99 percent cleaner for common pollutants (hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particle emissions).Jan 31, 2023

https://www.epa.gov/transportation-...history-reducing-air-pollution-transportation

Yet people are running around like chicken little screaming kids are dying, the earth will end ect.......

I would tend to agree to a more moderate approach to transition but I would still say that EVs should come to market asap in areas where they can equal and/or exceed the capability of ICE vehicles. Thing is, for most drivers, that’s everything except extensive towing and hauling and high instance of long distance driving. I’m at the New York Auto Show press day events. Ram and Jeep are introducing their EV products. Jeep has already said that the Jeep Wrangler 4XE (plug-in hybrid) is the safest and most capable Wrangler ever. And discuss an all electric version coming soon. Ram showed the production version of their EV truck, with 14,000 towing capacity. Of course how far you can tow that much weight is an issue.

So for most vehicle uses, EVs are more restricted by where you live than what the car’s capability is. apartment dwellers, condo communities et cetera.

When we publish our forecast projecting 40+% percent EV, by 2030, every single manufacturer who subscribes to our forecast tells us that our forecast for their EVs is lower than what they have in their own plans. If we put in the forecast the numbers each of the manufacturers want us to include, we’d have to forecast over 50% by 2030. So as I keep saying…it ain’t the government, it’s the automakers.

Sponsored