GM is pulling back on EVs

[jtmat]

You keep saying fossil fuels are heavily subsidized, yet you offer no evidence.

BEV's are subsidized, 7500 dollars to the consumer plus who knows the hidden amount.

BEV's are not clean. Neither are wind and solar. You know this so I will not repeat all the ways they are not clean.

I provided evidence of heavily subsidized fossil fuels several threads back. Like you, I'm not rehashing since it won't change your mind. So there we are. You know it is subsidized and I'm okay with that. Your heavily subsidized oil works great in my car. I pay a lot in taxes and don't mind the bill.

BEVs are heavily subsidized and I'm fine with that as well. As we grow the market it is just like other industries I've mentioned in this thread. Not repeating all of that either. We are setting Americans up to take advantage.

Far as being "clean", the jury is out on that one. I read stories were BEVs are more clean at a point (one calculated around 15,000 miles for example). I think you have to look at the total product lifecycle where (I believe) they were cherry-picking certain stages. I've not researched it in great lengths.

There are moves being taken at different stages, like the battery recycle plant in SC opening up. That did not fit your narrative so I'm sure you went right past that post. The technology is maturing, new ideas will spring forward, etc. That is the way things work.

If you go back to the product Lifecyle chart, that explains exactly what is happening. BEVs, solar, etc. are so far along in the introduction stage it does not matter if anyone likes it or not. Keep shaking your fist at the sky. I find it rather amusing. lol

Sponsored

 

[tripleyellowmustang]

Wow... someone seems triggered!

JTM - the Earnest T. Bass of M6G.

 

[K4fxd]

I provided evidence of heavily subsidized fossil fuels several threads back.

If I remember correctly you posted about depreciation, which all businesses get to deduct. There are no direct oil subsidies in the US. Only a fool would support that since the oil companies make billions in profits.

 

[Burkey]

Stupid question perhaps, but why must they be painted in the first place? Make them from stainless steel, or aluminium, or whatever other metal that can withstand the elements, and call it a day.


Huh? Projections into the future and expectations aren't facts.
Unless you mean the fact that they are actually making these projections.

Weird way to tell me that you didn’t actually read the linked article.
Like a moron, I’ll link yet another article, that includes the study that was conducted by the peak scientific body in Australia AND the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) so that you can ignore the facts they discovered also….they aren’t saying that renewables “might” be cheaper in Australia, they’re saying that they already are.


https://www.energy.gov.au/news-media/news/renewables-confirmed-cheapest-source-electricity

I’ll refer you back to my original comment. ”Renewables CAN be cheaper than their counterparts”. Which part of that would you like to dispute when the peak body is telling us EXACTLY that?

“CSIRO and AEMO’s GenCost 2021-22 report confirms that wind and solar are the cheapest sources for electricity generation and storage in Australia.“

 

[Vlad Soare]

Weird way to tell me that you didn’t actually read the linked article.

No, I didn't. I was only discussing your statement. Someone says, "this isn't fact", to which your reply is, effectively, "I've been talking to people who expect this to be the case, so it is fact".
That's a weird argument.

 

[Vlad Soare]

corrosion resistance.

Well, yes, but I'm sure there are corrosion-resistant metals that could withstand the elements on their own. There must be some high quality stainless steels or something.

 

[Burkey]

No, I didn't. I was only discussing your statement. Someone says, "this isn't fact", to which your reply is, effectively, "I've been talking to people who expect this to be the case, so it is fact".
That's a weird argument.

The factual part of the opening statement was the bit where the (relative) cost of power is reducing in countries where renewable expansion is happening.

I say relative because the cost of electricity might well be rising in some of those countries, but not to the extent that it otherwise would if they didn’t have renewables in place. You know, inflation and that jazz.

Want “proof” of the “fact”?
Well, electricity in Australia is now at the cheapest it’s been in over a decade, DESPITE inflation pressure and the rise in the cost of gas/coal.
Why?
Because….
More renewables are coming online and a a result, the wholesale price of electricity — a big component of bills — has fallen.

So, the question becomes not one of IF renewables can create cheaper power, but rather to what EXTENT they can do it, which, is the question those people above me are asking, because they already KNOW that renewables create cheaper power, they just want to know HOW CHEAP it might eventually be.

It pays to have an indication of these things when you’re trying to plan for the future.

 

[sk47]

So now it is different story. The story you told was you failed your entire class, you were took to the principle office and then was let go.

I remember stories and remember that one because it "fit" the (failed) argument you were trying to explain.

I'm just repeating what you said. We have been through it a couple of times and this is the first time you are telling a different story. Guess your original story does not fit anymore. I don't blame you for wanting no one to repeat, it is rather embarrassing.

I'm guilty of repeating your lie.

Hello; At first i was furious that you lied about me. Now I see it is an opportunity to illustrate the way you twist/spin things. You distort too often.
I did tell a story of failing some students one semester term and having the school principal having me in to tell me he would go ahead and pass them on his own. The next semester I again failed 17 more students. Knowing what the principal had done before I picked up 17 grade change forms. Left them blank for a grade. Signed them and gave them to the principal so he could give a grade to students he had never had in a classroom. Because of the principal's actions I was not going to work under him again. I am sure the feeling was mutual on his part. I challenged his methods.

(EDIT - for what it may be worth I only once had a public school class in which 17 students could be a whole class. That was one AP Biology class with 15 students. Did not have to give bad grades to any of them. The 17 failed student in the story were out of a total of well over 100 students. I also would contend that the students themselves failed rather than just some arbitrary action on my part.)


I had already retired from KY at the time I took the job in NC. I worked for six years after retiring in KY. Filling in for school systems on a one-school year contract because there was a shortage of qualified Biology teachers at the time. I finished each contract term and was not "let-go".
I had kept my home in KY during the time I taught in NC knowing from the start it was a short-term contract. There is a very distinct difference between leaving at the end of a contract term and being "let-go".

I took more short-term contracts in other schools. Twice in different schools to fill in for Biology teachers who took a year off to have babies. The last job to finish out the school year for an older Biology teacher who became too ill to continue teaching. My posts on this likely still exist.

But the main points today are at least two. One is to highlight how easy it is for you to lie and distort. Another is you and Burkey have devolved into personal attacks and putdowns the last few pages. More and more so as your arguments are being torn apart.

I am over the anger of the moment for the lie you tried to spin about me. The personal putdowns do not enhance your agenda.

 

[jtmat]

If I remember correctly you posted about depreciation, which all businesses get to deduct. There are no direct oil subsidies in the US. Only a fool would support that since the oil companies make billions in profits.

Many of the EV companies are profitable but they still get subsidies. Same as oil companies. That argument, for example, does not make any sense on your part.

Again, I've already posted the facts so you can believe whatever you want. I'm not here to educate you on subsidies. Fossil Fuels are heavily subsidized as you know. Only a fool would go round and round with someone like you on this matter. You write a couple of lines and expect everyone else to do your work.

 

[K4fxd]

There must be some high quality stainless steels or something.

Cost issue?

Fossil Fuels are heavily subsidized as you know. Only a fool would go round and round with someone like you on this matter.

A whopping 80 percent of this goes to oil and gas (with the rest supporting coal), and most of the subsidies are in the form of tax deductions and exemptions and other “obscure tax loopholes and accounting tricks” that result in massive avoided costs for fossil fuel producers.

As I said earlier they get the same tax breaks as all businesses.

Show me where there is a direct payment like in the BEV world.

 

[sk47]

Drift of Earth's Pole Confirms Groundwater Depletion as a Significant Contributor to Global Sea Level Rise 1993–2010 - Seo - 2023 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
“Plain Language Summary”

“Melting of polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers has been understood as a main cause of sea level rise associated with contemporary climate warming. It has been proposed that an important anthropogenic contribution is sea level rise due to groundwater depletion resulting from irrigation. A climate model estimate for the period 1993–2010 gives total groundwater depletion of 2,150 GTon, equivalent to global sea level rise of 6.24 mm. However, direct observational evidence supporting this estimate has been lacking. In this study, we show that the model estimate of water redistribution from aquifers to the oceans would result in a drift of Earth's rotational pole, about 78.48 cm toward 64.16°E. In combination with other well-understood sources of water redistribution, such as melting of polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers, good agreement with PM observations serves as an independent confirmation of the groundwater depletion model estimate.”

Hello; two main points. First if the above model proves to be correct then changing the tilt of the earth can be a major climate influence. I would spend some time in my science classes explaining how the tilt of the earth causes seasons. Also how the angle of the sun’s rays striking the earths surface affects unit of surface area.

It is known for a long time about precession of the earths axis (wobble). This added change of the tilt can have a big effect. Tilt of the axis relative to the orbital path around the sun creates the seasons. It has been known to be about 23 ½ degrees. The tilt also defines the tropic zones and the artic and anartic circles.
Groundwater Is Now Affecting the Planet's Tilt (msn.com)

“Last year, Modern Farmer reported on a Dartmouth study that suggested that making groundwater use sustainable would significantly decrease the amount of several major U.S. crops. That study, and its implications, point to one alarming facet of the way humans manage groundwater. “

“The study measured the amount of water removed from the planet’s natural reservoirs between 1993 and 2010, which came to 2,150 gigatons. During that same time, the planet’s tilt has changed by almost three feet — specifically, 31.5 inches.”

Hello; Second thing is that depletion of ground water is a much more dire problem than a gradual climate change whether that climate change is natural or man influenced. My take on the making ground water sustainable means to have a long term and continuious supply the rate at which it is pumped out must be slowed.

 

[sirben711]

Guys, you are still going at it?

You guys are STILL going at it??

 

[K4fxd]

https://informingnews.com/e-bike-fire-kills-four-people-in-new-york-city/

More mayhem caused by Lion batteries. Talk about a rolling bomb.

 

[sk47]

https://informingnews.com/e-bike-fire-kills-four-people-in-new-york-city/

More mayhem caused by Lion batteries. Talk about a rolling bomb.

Hello; I will venture for some this will be part of a price worth paying o save the earth.

Then one of the champions will find a picture or story of a fire caused by an ICE and make a point of that. Of course, they will have a point. Thing is there is no free lunch with either energy system. Both have negative issues. Both will do harm to the environment.

Thing is for me, so far, the BEV is a far inferior personal transport system along with a questionable energy supply (inadequate grid).

 

[sk47]

See China’s Abandoned EV Graveyard: Thousands Of Cars Rot In Huge Fields (msn.com)

Sponsored