GM is pulling back on EVs

[sk47]

At what sort of mileage would you consider range to be a non-issue? Eg. How far do you expect to be able to travel on a single charge, assuming that a full charge might take 1 hour.

Hello; I am sure K4fxd has an answer if he chooses to provide one. Here is a simple standard we could use. Since the BEV is supposed to replace an ICE then let it do everything the ICE can do but some better and at less cost. You know, the sort of progress when we move from something good to something better. The total number of miles on a charge up is not as critical as the total time. I can fuel up an ICE in less than ten minutes usually.
But let us use my current car or truck. My car has an 11 gallon tank and can get 35 mpg on a trip. so that is 385 miles. My truck on a trip can get 18.5 mpg and has a 36 gallon tank, so that is 666 miles.
Of course, I do not run to empty so I will stop for fuel some before. I imagine that an BEV driver will do the same.

In the same vein use ICE as the standard to be bettered in other categories.

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

Carbon is necessary for life.

So is water. You can drown in it too.
Your simplistic view is only evidence of your simplicity.

This is another ploy that has sort of backfired on the true believers.

We are not “true believers”. We follow whatever the scientist‘s have to say, regardless of personal opinion..
Do you think we WANT to drive EV’s? Do you think we WANTED to wear masks and stay at home?
That’s the difference between us though isn’t it? We don’t allow our personal preferences to cloud our judgement. We allow ourselves to be informed by those who have expertise in their respective fields, just as you do, until it disagrees with what you want to be true.
Do you think we WANT the climate scientits to be correct? Seriously?

Trying to turn something needed for life into something evil.

Wait…..what? Who said CO2 was “evil“?
Maybe try presenting the actual views of the other side, instead of some ludicrous version that you’ve created. We might take you more seriously.

 

[sk47]

So is water. You can drown in it too.
Your simplistic view is only evidence of your simplicity.


We are not “true believers”. We follow whatever the scientist‘s have to say, regardless of personal opinion..
Do you think we WANT to drive EV’s? Do you think we WANTED to wear masks and stay at home?
That’s the difference between us though isn’t it? We don’t allow our personal preferences to cloud our judgement. We allow ourselves to be informed by those who have expertise in their respective fields, just as you do, until it disagrees with what you want to be true.
Do you think we WANT the climate scientits to be correct? Seriously?


Wait…..what? Who said CO2 was “evil“?
Maybe try presenting the actual views of the other side, instead of some ludicrous version that you’ve created. We might take you more seriously.

Hello; Not your best work.

 

[Gregs24]

No, your plot is that the 50-100 years was a good reason to avoid action. Rational people (or at least people who care about future generations) saw it as a good reason to get cracking immediately.

You have to remember he has no children (or friends with children it would seem) and he is old enough to have maybe 20 years left. Is his opinion on the future really valid anyway?

He just wants to carry on doing what he is doing now for the next few years and doesn't care about anybody else. That is his agenda - sad really.

 

[sk47]

Do you think we WANT to drive EV’s? Do you think we WANTED to wear masks and stay at home?
That’s the difference between us though isn’t it? We don’t allow our personal preferences to cloud our judgement. We allow ourselves to be informed by those who have expertise in their respective fields, just as you do, until it disagrees with what you want to be true.
Do you think we WANT the climate scientits to be correct? Seriously?

Hello; What i do recall from some I have come to think of as true believer's dates back to the Covid vaccine mandates. Not the part where we were told no such mandates would ever happen early on. More the part when people were losing their jobs if they did not get the shots even though they had a natural immunity from surviving a covid infection. Decades of knowledge and understanding about natural immunity were tossed away to support an agenda about the shots. The worst of you even were of such low nature that you cheered when K4fxd told us his sister was driven to tears over losing her position if she did not get the shots. (She was a practicing doctor if my recall is correct.) Challenge to the "experts in their respective fields" was not allowed and we had bully rules thrust upon us.
Seems some are going down a similar path with these EV policies and anti fossil fuels mandates. No discussion opposing the "experts" will be allowed.

I have no way to know what you want but can see clearly what you champion. In the more recent back and forth about the decades of continued warming after zero carbon predictions, it went on for many pages. After i established the predictions do exist, you and others resorted to name calling and putdowns. Even more of the same this morning which i will address shortly.

 

[sk47]

You have to remember he has no children (or friends with children it would seem) and he is old enough to have maybe 20 years left. Is his opinion on the future really valid anyway?

He just wants to carry on doing what he is doing now for the next few years and doesn't care about anybody else. That is his agenda - sad really.

Hello; I believe trite may be a suitable description for the above. That the older among us have no say on the future because we will not live long. Actually, this one is somewhat mild compared to your past pronouncements.

The second line holds some truth up to the part about my not caring for anyone else. A lie from you. I would like to continue with a comfortable lifestyle. I made a decision to be childless over 50 years ago because I figured the population would grow too large and breach environmental tipping points. By then I was teaching and had two outlooks. One was to be a part of stabilizing the population at sustainable numbers. The other was a personal understanding not enough others were willing to be a part of that ZPG effort.
Once I understood the latter, I had a vasectomy, so I do not have children. The children I do not have did not have children nor grandchildren. I do not have to worry about children who never existed often seems a benefit.
You ignore that i taught in public schools for over 32 years. So, i know many hundreds of children I have cared about. My actions harmed no one and may have helped. Let the readers compare my statements with yours over time and decide which of us is uncaring.

 

[tripleyellowmustang]

Some unrelated humor.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; I am sure K4fxd has an answer if he chooses to provide one. Here is a simple standard we could use. Since the BEV is supposed to replace an ICE then let it do everything the ICE can do but some better and at less cost. You know, the sort of progress when we move from something good to something better. The total number of miles on a charge up is not as critical as the total time. I can fuel up an ICE in less than ten minutes usually.
But let us use my current car or truck. My car has an 11 gallon tank and can get 35 mpg on a trip. so that is 385 miles. My truck on a trip can get 18.5 mpg and has a 36 gallon tank, so that is 666 miles.
Of course, I do not run to empty so I will stop for fuel some before. I imagine that an BEV driver will do the same.

In the same vein use ICE as the standard to be bettered in other categories.

How often do you drive 660 miles or more in a day?
I‘ve done it 3 times in my 30 years of driving.
My wife’s parents live 550kms away (330 miles) and we do that trip a few times a year.
For us, an EV just needs to be able to complete that trip in a day. Even in an ICE vehicle it takes us >7 hours to get there, so if it takes an extra hour for a charge, it’s neither here nor there. It’s probably a good excuse to get out of the vehicle, stretch the legs, grab some lunch etc.

Realistically, you should be taking a break from driving every 2-3 hours anyway. Or do they not run a similar road safety campaign in the US?

 

[key01]

How often do you drive 660 miles or more in a day?
I‘ve done it 3 times in my 30 years of driving.
My wife’s parents live 550kms away (330 miles) and we do that trip a few times a year.
For us, an EV just needs to be able to complete that trip in a day. Even in an ICE vehicle it takes us >7 hours to get there, so if it takes an extra hour for a charge, it’s neither here nor there. It’s probably a good excuse to get out of the vehicle, stretch the legs, grab some lunch etc.

Realistically, you should be taking a break from driving every 2-3 hours anyway. Or do they not run a similar road safety campaign in the US?

Yes, you need to take breaks and that is certainly taught. The EV car manufacturers are not stupid and have researched and polled the range requirements to death and have developed their designs based around these user requirements. This whole idea of range anxiety is just another fabricated talking point by those who don't fly and prefer to drive 2,500 mile round trips to Disneyland from the Northeast and Midwest. They will never own an EV and the manufacturers aren't considering them in their target designs. Illustrating that one can traverse the continental US with an EV is simply to show it can be done. 99.5% of the public don't normally drive those distances. People just like to bitch for the hell of it and as already said the loudest bitchers aren't going to be around when the EV takes market share for good.

 

[K4fxd]

If it will go 300 miles and charge in 10 min or less, it would compete with ICE.

Last Christmas the California off freeway charging stations were stacked 30 to 40 cars deep. All requiring 30 to 60 min of charge time. Not practical at this point and I don't see it being any better in 2035 when they ban new sales of ICE.

Just found out today they are not only shutting off coal power plants they are scraping them.

Forrest for the trees.

 

[Burkey]

More the part when people were losing their jobs if they did not get the shots even though they had a natural immunity from surviving a covid infection. Decades of knowledge and understanding about natural immunity were tossed away to support an agenda about the shots. The worst of you even were of such low nature that you cheered when K4fxd told us his sister was driven to tears over losing her position if she did not get the shots. (She was a practicing doctor if my recall is correct.)

I can’t comment directly on the situation in the US but what I can say is that here in Australia, for quite some time, healthcare workers have been legally required to get a range of vaccinations in order to keep their jobs. Previous infection has NEVER been regarded as a reason to avoid those shots. It’s also worth noting that the annual flu shot may/may not be part of that, depending on the specific area of care being provided.
So yeah, for DECADES, vaccine mandates have applied to people working in health care. It was nothing new.

So yeah, when a healthcare professional refuses to take steps that can prevent infection in their patients, or protect themselves adequately from being infected, both the government and the employer should have the right to refuse them employment.

We don’t allow construction workers in drop zones to be without a hard hat. It’s THAT simple.

Yes, vaccine immunity wanes over time, as does natural immunity. So, for the example you’ve provided, no matter what happened, she was going to have to go and get a shot at some point during this pandemic, regardless of her previous infection status. Her refusal to do so was her choice, in the same way that an employee can refuse to take the flu vax and lose their job as a result.

Nobody OWES you a job. You either comply with the rules set out by the employer (or government rules that the employer is compelled to enforce, like OH&S laws) or you don’t work. This isn’t a new concept.

Stop acting like there was something controversial going on. What did you expect? Did you honestly think you were going to be able to continue on, business as usual, while a global pandemic was raging?

What was YOUR solution to the problem?
If you were in government, how would YOU have dealt with the threat to the people you’ve been entrusted to protect?

 

[K4fxd]

So yeah, when a healthcare professional refuses to take steps that can prevent infection in their patients, or protect themselves adequately from being infected, both the government and the employer should have the right to refuse them employment.

In the US, up until Covid, we have had individual liberty trump collective.

 

[sk47]

I can’t comment directly on the situation in the US but what I can say is that here in Australia, for quite some time, healthcare workers have been legally required to get a range of vaccinations in order to keep their jobs. Previous infection has NEVER been regarded as a reason to avoid those shots. It’s also worth noting that the annual flu shot may/may not be part of that, depending on the specific area of care being provided.
So yeah, for DECADES, vaccine mandates have applied to people working in health care. It was nothing new.

So yeah, when a healthcare professional refuses to take steps that can prevent infection in their patients, or protect themselves adequately from being infected, both the government and the employer should have the right to refuse them employment.

We don’t allow construction workers in drop zones to be without a hard hat. It’s THAT simple.

Yes, vaccine immunity wanes over time, as does natural immunity. So, for the example you’ve provided, no matter what happened, she was going to have to go and get a shot at some point during this pandemic, regardless of her previous infection status. Her refusal to do so was her choice, in the same way that an employee can refuse to take the flu vax and lose their job as a result.

Nobody OWES you a job. You either comply with the rules set out by the employer (or government rules that the employer is compelled to enforce, like OH&S laws) or you don’t work. This isn’t a new concept.

Stop acting like there was something controversial going on. What did you expect? Did you honestly think you were going to be able to continue on, business as usual, while a global pandemic was raging?

What was YOUR solution to the problem?
If you were in government, how would YOU have dealt with the threat to the people you’ve been entrusted to protect?

Hello; You thew out a lot of sub-par BS yet omitted an important aspect. The Covid shots were under an emergency use approval (Feel free to get technical if my term is not exact). The shots had not gone thru a regular standard of testing and trials. So much so that zero liability attached to the pharmacy companies, the car givers nor the clinics or hospitals.

Of course, at the start of the shot mandates we did not yet know the vaccines were not going to work so that was not yet an issue. However, any reasonable person was aware that natural immunity follows survival of a viral infection. You and a few others use putdowns about me and others implying we are too dumb to understand things. Yet I and others knew of natural immunity and argued it ought to be as good as the shots.

Here is a kicker for you. Even currently after the well known failure of the shots to prevent infection or disease, some agencies are still clinging to the shot mandates.

An interesting thing is some of the shot mandate champions of the past are now EV champions in this thread. Interesting but not a surprise.

 

[K4fxd]

An interesting thing is some of the shot mandate champions of the past are now EV champions in this thread. Interesting but not a surprise.

It's a control mentality, actually admitted to by one on this thread.

The thought process is the avg person is not smart enough to make his/her own decisions so they, the so called smart ones, will do it for us through law or intimidation.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; You thew out a lot of sub-par BS yet omitted an important aspect. The Covid shots were under an emergency use approval (Feel free to get technical if my term is not exact). The shots had not gone thru a regular standard of testing and trials. So much so that zero liability attached to the pharmacy companies, the car givers nor the clinics or hospitals.

Of course, at the start of the shot mandates we did not yet know the vaccines were not going to work so that was not yet an issue. However, any reasonable person was aware that natural immunity follows survival of a viral infection. You and a few others use putdowns about me and others implying we are too dumb to understand things. Yet I and others knew of natural immunity and argued it ought to be as good as the shots.

Here is a kicker for you. Even currently after the well known failure of the shots to prevent infection or disease, some agencies are still clinging to the shot mandates.

An interesting thing is some of the shot mandate champions of the past are now EV champions in this thread. Interesting but not a surprise.

I note that you didn’t actually respond to any of the points I made, instead choosing to go off yet another tangent.

At no point whatsoever did we say that natural immunity wasn’t a thing. Fuck. Seriously.

Want we said was that the risk of DEATH from exposure to the virus made the acquisition of natural immunity less viable than vaccination.

STOP MISREPRESENTING THIS.

Regardless of that, neither naturally acquired immunity nor immunisation, will provide lasting immunity. So, as I stated originally, even if a person had a previous covid infection' they were still going to have to walk in and get a shot at some point, whether that be 3 months, 6 months or perhaps even 12 months later.

Short version, naturally acquired immunity is inferior to vaccine immunity in terms of risk associated with the path to achieving that immunity. Don‘t believe me? Go ask all of the Americans who died whilst trying to acquire natural immunity

I‘ll ask again.

HOW WOULD YOU HAVE DEALT WITH THE PANDEMIC?
I asked one question and you failed to give a response, instead opting to misrepresent what has been said before.

Sponsored