GM is pulling back on EVs

[Gregs24]

It’s not a binary issue. Land is not food or solar panels. There is no given that land used for solar panels is taken from land that would have been used for food. It could be land that was once a shopping mall or land that would other wise have been a parking lot. Or solar panels could actually be on top of parking structures in shopping malls. It’s not binary.

Exactly. Again this has been explained before - I even posted the same images!

Sponsored

 

[martinjlm]

Well in many states especially up north the sun isn’t as a constant as it is in states like Arizona and Nevada. You also have the good fortune that in these 2 states there are no major storms that produce tornadoes. . That can and do cause damage to property privet and public. Having the ability to produce energy in average of 300-320 days a year uninterrupted is a great way producing clean energy for the rest of the nation.

Look I’m just trying to help lol. But in all seriousness. Much like Africa has the Sahara here in the US we have the desert south west which if used properly can provide constant clean energy for the lower 48 plus the fact that there’s so much land that unused owned by the federal government, why not put it to good use.

I’m just saying why not do both? Get all the sunshine you want out of the sunny states, but get what you can when you can out of the others. Besides, “transporting” electricity long distances over wire has some built in inefficiencies.

 

[AZlb5.0]

Huge difference. The Sahara has virtually no life. The desert southwest has an abundance of both plant and animal life. US deserts you destroy habitat, Sahara has massive dust and sand storms. If the panels don't get buried they will be sandblasted into not working.

I an for the environment and right now today the most environmentally friendly way to power our world is through oil and gas.

I’m just being the devils ad

I’m just saying why not do both? Get all the sunshine you want out of the sunny states, but get what you can when you can out of the others. Besides, “transporting” electricity long distances over wire has some built in inefficiencies.

I’m just playing with ideas. I get what you’re saying there’s a definite degradation over distance when it comes to power lines. I foresee these two states being the more efficient over all at making power and storing power when it comes to that through solar and wind. I prefer solar because there’s a lot less damage to the environment in the bigger picture, but there will be some type of damage to the environment any way you cut it, if it’s displacing wild life or if it’s through the wind turbines with birds and also displacing wild life. Either way the impact of 7 billion people world wide and growing isn’t going to be an easy way forward to provide power food and water.

 

[Burkey]

Lithium is very plentiful on Earth. It resides in a number of configurations in water, in soil, in rock, etc. The issue becomes, “how much are you willing to invest to extract it?”. The petroleum equivalent to this is fracking. There were several years in the late ‘90s / early 2000s where every week we were hearing about “peak oil” and listening to calculations of when the world would run out of oil. Typically those discussions were focused on known oil reserves that could be accessed by known methods. Then fracking comes into play and suddenly there are gluts of oil and the US becomes the world‘s largest producer of oil.

Similar issue with lithium. If at some point the price of lithium rises to the point where investment in new extraction methods becomes profitable, we’ll see a shift in where lithium comes from. Other minerals don’t have such a rosy perspective and battery engineers are hard at work developing workable substitutes for those minerals.

Thank you for the insight.

 

[sk47]

So to your point that if fossil fuels burn 100% clean… you do realize you are proposing ignoring the laws of physics, right?

Similar issue with lithium. If at some point the price of lithium rises to the point where investment in new extraction methods becomes profitable, we’ll see a shift in where lithium comes from. Other minerals don’t have such a rosy perspective and battery engineers are hard at work developing workable substitutes for those minerals.

Hello; Nice try. I know about the laws of physics. I was making a point about how it is the emissions from using fuels or energy systems that are being attacked. Hence the "IF" in my comments. Fossil fuels can be burned much cleaner now than tears ago. If not ideal combustion in the engine then more burning in the cats.

About extraction of lithium and lets throw in any other items required to make the "Green and EV" agendas workable. Sounds like the same way the oil sands/tar sands extraction worked out. A point weas reached where it was profitable to extract the heavy oils/tars.
That causes an uproar among the environmentalists a few years ago. You know as to how awful it is to do all that damage to get at the oil. Are we going to experience the same sort of outcries when massive lithium extractions hit the environment?
I think i know possible answers already. We have had some discussion on the impacts of current mining for green & EV materials, for the new coal fired power plants every 10 days opening in China, for the upfront impact of a single massive wind turbine. Feel free to throw something out , but i can recall past rationalizations well enough.

 

[sk47]

Hello; There are practical- common sense ways to go about energy production. There are practical and cost-effective ways to overhaul energy systems. However currently common sense, cost effective and practical are not part of the Green & EV agendas.

New power sources could be phased in as older systems reach an end of use stage. Solar, wind, tidal, and other greener equipment tried out and in time the better designs adopted while keeping the proven fossil fuel plants in operation (As Burkey knows, the way China is doing currently.) (Somehow the USA and other western countries are not allowed that option.)


BEV's could gain market share without mandates and expensive taxpayer funded incentives as they prove to be practical for general use. Even our own Burkey had to pass on a BEV for very sensible reasons.

Gasoline & diesel will phase out when the BEV's are better vehicle platforms. Sad thing is the EV champions know, same as i do, that the BEV likely never will be as good a platform as ICE. Currently I give them a weak 3 out of ten. When they can be used as police cruisers, ambulances, farm tractors, over the road haulers ( jury is still out on the Tesla rigs), shipping, railroads and towing my boat, I will up the score.

 

[martinjlm]

Fun fact…right now I’m in Louisville preparing to deliver a keynote address on batteries tomorrow morning.

 

[AZlb5.0]

This won’t fair well for Hybrid corvettes and any other hybrid cars moving forward.

The The National Counsel of Corvete Clubs (NCCC) and Summit Point Motorsports are banning any and all EV and hybrids moving forward to not compete on their tracks or events.

I wonder if any other tracks will adopt this.


This is going to suck for those who are going to buy ERays

https://www.corvetteforum.com/articles/bans-e-ray-from-competition/

 

[Burkey]

Even our own Burkey had to pass on a BEV for very sensible reasons.

Which had absolutely nothing to do with EV technology and EVERYTHING to do with with factors outside of that.
Put simply, if Ford (or any manufacturer with a dealership nearby) offered the Everest (or equivalent) in an EV or hybrid variant we would’ve ordered that vehicle.

Please stop pretending that there’s something else at play here. This is a prime example of the manufacturers failing to keep pace with the consumers demands. Nothing more or less.

 

[kz]

This won’t fair well for Hybrid corvettes and any other hybrid cars moving forward.

The The National Counsel of Corvete Clubs (NCCC) and Summit Point Motorsports are banning any and all EV and hybrids moving forward to not compete on their tracks or events.

Boomers doing boomer things (Corvette club). It totally doesn't some like some in this thread, not at all.

Cars in motorsports these days are hybrids. F1 has been for years, LMPs are, this ship has sailed very long time ago and I am not sure you get how "this won't fair well for hybrid cars moving forwards" sounds.

This is what Summit Point have said " This decision was not taken lightly, and we endeavor to better understand, support, and develop policies to meet industry best practices for emergency support and response requirements related to Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicles. "

They also have EV chargers on site. LOLOLOL. They simply currently have not enough water / fire extinguishing capabilities to ensure safety and this is likely has been driven by their insurance carrier.

 

[sk47]

Which had absolutely nothing to do with EV technology and EVERYTHING to do with with factors outside of that.
Put simply, if Ford (or any manufacturer with a dealership nearby) offered the Everest (or equivalent) in an EV or hybrid variant we would’ve ordered that vehicle.

Please stop pretending that there’s something else at play here. This is a prime example of the manufacturers failing to keep pace with the consumers demands. Nothing more or less.

Hello; You want a hybrid/BEV. You got an ICE. The ICE package suited your family needs where no BEV did. I get it. I see it the same way when I look over the BEV's . I could get by much of the time with a small sedan BEV 90% of the time.
Only a few times a year do I make longer trips which could be a problem. Not many public chargers around and likely no way to pay cash to use one. No way a BEV pickup will suit.

Ironic in that I think you made the better choice while you seem to not like being told you did good.

 

[sk47]

Boomers doing boomer things (Corvette club). It totally doesn't some like some in this thread, not at all.

Cars in motorsports these days are hybrids. F1 has been for years, LMPs are, this ship has sailed very long time ago and I am not sure you get how "this won't fair well for hybrid cars moving forwards" sounds.

This is what Summit Point have said " This decision was not taken lightly, and we endeavor to better understand, support, and develop policies to meet industry best practices for emergency support and response requirements related to Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicles. "

They also have EV chargers on site. LOLOLOL. They simply currently have not enough water / fire extinguishing capabilities to ensure safety and this is likely has been driven by their insurance carrier.

Hello; Yes, F1 makes a token gesture with their hybrid power packs. A hybrid or BEV Corvette does not suit the fancy of many. Much like the electric Mustang does not suit. Many years ago I did give a Corvette vacuum cleaner to a friend so he could use it to clean his Vette.

The last part is telling. Not only special firefighting measures needed for BEV's but also special equipment/training for emergency personnel. Those battery pack can kill.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; You want a hybrid/BEV. You got an ICE. The ICE package suited your family needs where no BEV did. I get it. I see it the same way when I look over the BEV's . I could get by much of the time with a small sedan BEV 90% of the time.
Only a few times a year do I make longer trips which could be a problem. Not many public chargers around and likely no way to pay cash to use one. No way a BEV pickup will suit.

Ironic in that I think you made the better choice while you seem to not like being told you did good.

The decision was made after confirming that no EV or hybrid option will be available for that particular vehicle for at least another two years. We need a new car sooner than that (Although delivery is 12 months away).
The simple fact of the matter is that an EV would save us a LOT of money. Literally free energy 99% of the time.
This makes our decision a less than optimal choice, but the only choice we have available to us, outside of compromising on the selection parameters. Eg. Choosing something smaller, reduced towing capacity etc. in other words, not a vehicle that actually suits our needs.

 

[sk47]

The decision was made after confirming that no EV or hybrid option will be available for that particular vehicle for at least another two years. We need a new car sooner than that (Although delivery is 12 months away).
The simple fact of the matter is that an EV would save us a LOT of money. Literally free energy 99% of the time.
This makes our decision a less than optimal choice, but the only choice we have available to us, outside of compromising on the selection parameters. Eg. Choosing something smaller, reduced towing capacity etc. in other words, not a vehicle that actually suits our needs.

Hello; I get it. You want/need a vehicle with real world capacities so wisely got an ICE. Guess this will have to be like other differences in points of view we have. Such as the way you defend Chinas overall number one polluter status by couching it in per -capata terms.

 

[sk47]

This state just enacted a first-of-its-kind law against semi-trucks and big rigs — now, other states are following suit (msn.com)
Hello; No shock that this happens in California. One of my self-imposed tests is having an electric big rig that matches an ICE big rig. Range, hauling capacity and work schedule. I doubt any of the three will be met, but figure work schedule will be the toughest.
By that I mean barring a breakdown the ICE rig can run close to 24/7 itself with multiple drivers. Driver down time being required after so many hours.

Sponsored