MidnightMugdown said:

---

The newest Tesla has a range of 520 miles and can charge in 30 minutes at a supercharger. That's not far off (if not already there) from handling any daily driving demand someone could have. You can certainly argue power generation/battery supply will not be high enough to sustain the demand, but EVs certainly have the potential to absolutely take over the roads.

---

OK so let's play this out in real life..

When I pull up To Buckys, I normally have to wait for a pump. Wait time now is about 5 minutes. The queue does not back up that bad. With this EV scenario, every car now has to wait 30 minutes. And my total down time is 1 hour, 30 minutes waiting, 30 charging. So during a real world scenario for a trip, I've added an hour at least to it.

That means we have to have 6 times the number of stations as we do pumps to process the same number of cars in the same amount of time. If not, then it's much longer than 30 minutes and we have major queuing problems and mass wait times.

How does that work?

Cassius said:

---

MidnightMugdown said:

---

The newest Tesla has a range of 520 miles and can charge in 30 minutes at a supercharger. That's not far off (if not already there) from handling any daily driving demand someone could have. You can certainly argue power generation/battery supply will not be high enough to sustain the demand, but EVs certainly have the potential to absolutely take over the roads.

---

OK so let's play this out in real life..

When I pull up To Buckys, I normally have to wait for a pump. Wait time now is about 5 minutes. The queue does not back up that bad. With this EV scenario, every car now has to wait 30 minutes.

That means we have to have 6 times the number of stations as we do pumps to process the same number of cars in the same amount of time. If not, then it's much longer than 30 minutes and we have major queuing problems and mass wait times.

How does that work?

---

It doesn't, and 30 minutes is optimistic. In the Youtube videos, the Model X he was charging took much longer than 30 minutes, and the last 20% of charge takes much longer, so if you want full range, you're going to have to wait a lot.

Car and Driver does a range test on EV's including a straight highway stint, and it knocks at least 20% off of the claimed EPA range on Teslas.

EV's are fine in cities and commuting, but if you're driving long distances, they don't work. You would be putting a hard cap on daily road trips and then you would get $300 hotel rooms and $100 overnight charger rentals in places like Pecos that will salivate at the though of screwing over everyone that drives through the one patch of meager infrastructure in the region.

Freight would be even worse. Getting torque to a driveshaft requires the same amount of energy regardless. If it takes an hour to get 400 miles of that torque into a battery for an efficient sedan, what are you going to do about semi trucks and trains?

The obsession with cars is all optics. People remember, at least faintly that air pollution was helped greatly by emission controls on passenger cars, but for the supposed problem of CO2, their impact is minimal, but "doing something" is seen as virtuous, but only if someone can see you do it. That's what GM is doing here. Cuddling up to trendy, useless virtue signaling. It has worked for Tesla, and they want some of that cheddar.

chimpanzee said:

---

Cassius said:

---

MidnightMugdown said:

---

The newest Tesla has a range of 520 miles and can charge in 30 minutes at a supercharger. That's not far off (if not already there) from handling any daily driving demand someone could have. You can certainly argue power generation/battery supply will not be high enough to sustain the demand, but EVs certainly have the potential to absolutely take over the roads.

---

OK so let's play this out in real life..

When I pull up To Buckys, I normally have to wait for a pump. Wait time now is about 5 minutes. The queue does not back up that bad. With this EV scenario, every car now has to wait 30 minutes.

That means we have to have 6 times the number of stations as we do pumps to process the same number of cars in the same amount of time. If not, then it's much longer than 30 minutes and we have major queuing problems and mass wait times.

How does that work?

---

It doesn't, and 30 minutes is optimistic. In the Youtube videos, the Model X he was charging took much longer than 30 minutes, and the last 20% of charge takes much longer, so if you want full range, you're going to have to wait a lot.

Car and Driver does a range test on EV's including a straight highway stint, and it knocks at least 20% off of the claimed EPA range on Teslas.

EV's are fine in cities and commuting, but if you're driving long distances, they don't work. You would be putting a hard cap on daily road trips and then you would get $300 hotel rooms and $100 overnight charger rentals in places like Pecos that will salivate at the though of screwing over everyone that drives through the one patch of meager infrastructure in the region.

Freight would be even worse. Getting torque to a driveshaft requires the same amount of energy regardless. If it takes an hour to get 400 miles of that torque into a battery for an efficient sedan, what are you going to do about semi trucks and trains?

The obsession with cars is all optics. People remember, at least faintly that air pollution was helped greatly by emission controls on passenger cars, but for the supposed problem of CO2, their impact is minimal, but "doing something" is seen as virtuous, but only if someone can see you do it. That's what GM is doing here. Cuddling up to trendy, useless virtue signaling. It has worked for Tesla, and they want some of that cheddar.

---

Outstanding post.

Burdizzo said:

---

lb3 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

We don't have enough lithium. We simply don't.

---

Lithium is quite abundant. Our reserves are low because we simply haven't really invested any resources in developing it here.

The rare earths aren't really even an issue if we are willing to strip mine all of the Mojave and parts of the RGV.

---

The new administration hates fracking, but I bet strip mining makes them bust a blood vessel.

---

It's so easy to get all those landowners to agree over pipeline easements and solar farms, imagine them running wild to sign up to turn their land over to strip mining.

Aggieangler93 said:

---

I'm in the market for a new gas guzzling carbon producing fuel burning truck. I can't imagine a dirty coal car (read EV) could ever produce enough power to pull a boat, so they can to get stuffed!!!!

---

From a fuel (in)efficiency stand point and total emissions, I recommend the Tundra with 5.7 as your most politically incorrect choice for a new truck.

I haven't read this whole thread so this may have already been covered...... but here's one more reason why GM is really screwing themselves with this statement.

So for arguments sake, let's say they stick to this '35 transition date. Why would anyone buy a gas burning vehicle from them the last 5-8 years before the transition? All their engineering resources will be moved over to electric vehicles. All of their innovation efforts will have moved away from gas vehicles. If Ford/Dodge/etc are still prioritizing gas vehicles then, many customers will move their direction.

Full disclosure - I've driven GM vehicles for 30+ years, but I'm likely to follow the path described above and move over to Ford or Toyota.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

I haven't read this whole thread so this may have already been covered...... but here's one more reason why GM is really screwing themselves with this statement.

So for arguments sake, let's say they stick to this '35 transition date. Why would anyone buy a gas burning vehicle from them the last 5-8 years before the transition? All their engineering resources will be moved over to electric vehicles. All of their innovation efforts will have moved away from gas vehicles. If Ford/Dodge/etc are still prioritizing gas vehicles then, many customers will move their direction.

Full disclosure - I've driven GM vehicles for 30+ years, but I'm likely to follow the path described above and move over to Ford or Toyota.

---

They should put their money where their mouth is and spin off the legacy truck business and use the proceeds to fund their new plan.

Except their legacy business is so burdened with debt and obligations as to be worthless. GM's organization exists as it does today because of political patronage. During their bankruptcy, the Obama admin strong armed the creditors to accept way less than what they were legally owed in the reorganization. The people left in charge of what emerged are playing the political game they were installed to play. It's surely just a coincidence that they announced their new strategy on the heels of Obama's 3rd term.

chimpanzee said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

I haven't read this whole thread so this may have already been covered...... but here's one more reason why GM is really screwing themselves with this statement.

So for arguments sake, let's say they stick to this '35 transition date. Why would anyone buy a gas burning vehicle from them the last 5-8 years before the transition? All their engineering resources will be moved over to electric vehicles. All of their innovation efforts will have moved away from gas vehicles. If Ford/Dodge/etc are still prioritizing gas vehicles then, many customers will move their direction.

Full disclosure - I've driven GM vehicles for 30+ years, but I'm likely to follow the path described above and move over to Ford or Toyota.

---

They should put their money where their mouth is and spin off the legacy truck business and use the proceeds to fund their new plan.

Except their legacy business is so burdened with debt and obligations as to be worthless. GM's organization exists as it does today because of political patronage. During their bankruptcy, the Obama admin strong armed the creditors to accept way less than what they were legally owed in the reorganization. The people left in charge of what emerged are playing the political game they were installed to play. It's surely just a coincidence that they announced their new strategy on the heels of Obama's 3rd term.

---

The (gas/diesel) pickup (and large SUV) business is basically what is keeping the whole shenanigan afloat these days. The rest is just a house of cards, especially their electric car business (which is a cash bottomless pit).

This is more like Boeing declaring they will only build trains in 15 years, and give up on airplanes, if they had a money-losing train business they'd been failing at for 20 years. Boeing's got lot's of problems, but they're not going whole hog in to hydrogen planes etc.

nortex97 said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

I haven't read this whole thread so this may have already been covered...... but here's one more reason why GM is really screwing themselves with this statement.

So for arguments sake, let's say they stick to this '35 transition date. Why would anyone buy a gas burning vehicle from them the last 5-8 years before the transition? All their engineering resources will be moved over to electric vehicles. All of their innovation efforts will have moved away from gas vehicles. If Ford/Dodge/etc are still prioritizing gas vehicles then, many customers will move their direction.

Full disclosure - I've driven GM vehicles for 30+ years, but I'm likely to follow the path described above and move over to Ford or Toyota.

---

They should put their money where their mouth is and spin off the legacy truck business and use the proceeds to fund their new plan.

Except their legacy business is so burdened with debt and obligations as to be worthless. GM's organization exists as it does today because of political patronage. During their bankruptcy, the Obama admin strong armed the creditors to accept way less than what they were legally owed in the reorganization. The people left in charge of what emerged are playing the political game they were installed to play. It's surely just a coincidence that they announced their new strategy on the heels of Obama's 3rd term.

---

The (gas/diesel) pickup (and large SUV) business is basically what is keeping the whole shenanigan afloat these days. The rest is just a house of cards, especially their electric car business (which is a cash bottomless pit).

This is more like Boeing declaring they will only build trains in 15 years, and give up on airplanes, if they had a money-losing train business they'd been failing at for 20 years. Boeing's got lot's of problems, but they're not going whole hog in to hydrogen planes etc.

---

Agreed.

As a commercial venture, electric vehicles are still vaporware. Take away the subsidies and mandates and you have a cash incinerator.

Audio speaks cranked up for the (vroom vroom)

Shanked Punt said:

---

Jbob04 said:

---

Ol Rock said:

---

I wonder where all of that electricity will come from?

---

---

lol, coal is dying away. electric generation from coal in 2035 will be single digit small potatoes.

---

Not in other countries who need it. Coal is a step up if you are burning wood and dung for heat. If we don't sell it to them they will get the coal from elsewheremaybe even China and strengthening that country's ties to the CCP over the good old USA.

fixer said:

---

Aggieangler93 said:

---

I'm in the market for a new gas guzzling carbon producing fuel burning truck. I can't imagine a dirty coal car (read EV) could ever produce enough power to pull a boat, so they can to get stuffed!!!!

---

From a fuel (in)efficiency stand point and total emissions, I recommend the Tundra with 5.7 as your most politically incorrect choice for a new truck.

---

The Tundra may burn a lot of fuel, but if you actually drive it for its million miles life, surely you'll be doing the environment a solid, at least more so than the 10 Tesla battery packs and 20 motors that you would have consumed in that same million miles of driving.

A neighbor of mine raised an interesting question this afternoon. How well will electric snow plows work?

I guess that there would be room to pack a whole lot more batteries in an electric snow plow, but that would still be miserable. Around here, snow plows are basically just state trucks with a snow plow attachment on the front. Since the trucks are used to carry loads of road materials such as gravel and caliche, they wouldn't be able to load the back up with batteries.

Cassius said:

---

MidnightMugdown said:

---

The newest Tesla has a range of 520 miles and can charge in 30 minutes at a supercharger. That's not far off (if not already there) from handling any daily driving demand someone could have. You can certainly argue power generation/battery supply will not be high enough to sustain the demand, but EVs certainly have the potential to absolutely take over the roads.

---

OK so let's play this out in real life..

When I pull up To Buckys, I normally have to wait for a pump. Wait time now is about 5 minutes. The queue does not back up that bad. With this EV scenario, every car now has to wait 30 minutes. And my total down time is 1 hour, 30 minutes waiting, 30 charging. So during a real world scenario for a trip, I've added an hour at least to it.

That means we have to have 6 times the number of stations as we do pumps to process the same number of cars in the same amount of time. If not, then it's much longer than 30 minutes and we have major queuing problems and mass wait times.

How does that work?

---

You see, the magic that produces unicorn darts are going to develop a battery that is 100,000,000 more powerful and will drive your car a year before needing a charge.

Then, the same magic will allow the once a year charging to take 10 min for a full recharge.

https://instagr.am/p/CKz2w5EJLdD

For just trips around town, an electric vehicle would be fine. Most of us would never come close to driving it that far around town or even around the county in a single day and then charge overnight at home for the next day. But travelling on the open road is another story.

From watching a couple of the videos on the Tesla, I came to the conclusion that driving a Tesla mainly seems to be an activity for the dedicated hobbyist. Kind of like Ham Radio on Wheels.

A few years ago, I not-very-seriously looked at Neighborhood Electric Vehicles for use around town. These were basically just electric golf carts that could be used for relatively short trips. From what I gather, that was a really big scam, at least for the ones I was looking at.

For example, there was some kind of tax credit for anyone who bought one new. In general, though, anyone buying one didn't get a tax credit because the dealers were reportedly selling them to each other and taking the tax credit themselves and then selling it at the full price to suckers who wanted to buy them.

Also, they had decent warranties on the batteries, but woe to the sucker who tried to use the warranty. And when you bought one of the vehicles new, the batteries were apparently not new and near the end of their life.

It was all a big scam.

This is a perfect example of liberals thinking they're "doing the right thing" because the MSM says electric is the way to go, without even beginning to ponder the ramifications of rare earth metal mining or actual electricity generation for the batteries.

Nuclear is much, much more likely to be involved in the next big technological jump. As long as we can push out all the paranoid Cold War negative nancies.

WaltonAg18 said:

---

This is a perfect example of liberals thinking they're "doing the right thing" because the MSM says electric is the way to go, without even beginning to ponder the ramifications of rare earth metal mining or actual electricity generation for the batteries.

Nuclear is much, much more likely to be involved in the next big technological jump. As long as we can push out all the paranoid Cold War negative nancies.

---

But Pelosi is invested in Tesla and Lithium not Nuclear and Diesel.

Edit: don't get me started on DEF

Democrats and the media are controlled by the progressive leadership. Democrat politicians work in concert with the media so the progressive propaganda is more effective.

agracer said:

---

Shanked Punt said:

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/general-motors-plans-to-exclusively-offer-electric-vehicles-by-2035.html

This is great news all around, though hopefully they can bring in the deadline yet another five years or so. Its now time to get all the infrastructure in place. This can't come soon enough to help greatly reduce our dependency on oil.

Quote:

---

DETROIT General Motors wants to end production of all diesel- and gasoline-powered cars, trucks and SUVs by 2035 and shift its entire new fleet to electric vehicles as part of a broader plan to become carbon neutral by 2040, the company said Thursday.

The company plans to use 100% renewable energy to power its U.S. facilities by 2030 and global facilities by 2035 five years ahead of a previously announced goal.

---

---

Yes, lets turn over our transportation network to the Chinese and other countries not friendly to the US....

the short sightedness of the 'electric vehicle' crowd never cease to amaze me. But then it's you and your short sightedness is pretty limitless.

---

If electric cars perform, develop into a superior tech then the markets should go that way.

I am not for any gov interference from any quarter jacking up the market. IF oil cant compete its bye bye *****. Same for electric.

Let the best product and tech win.

This is a stunt for government "green energy" subsidies. Nothing more. The GM bailout will continue under Biden as well. GM is not this dumb.

I'm not familiar with DEF, are you referring to diesel exhaust fluid?

I'm a biochemist, and serious discussions about biofuel being produced on a large scale have been increasing the past few years. There was a lab that had been working on it for around a decade and kept hitting roadblocks. I would think that would be a lot more viable, especially in tandem with the CO2 sequestering projects that Musk is trying to fund.

Isn't A&M making large leaps in scaling down their nuclear reactors, or am I thinking of another university? I know that the safety of the reactors has been increased by several factors of magnitude within the past few decades.

This IS great news. Can't wait!!!

Electric vehicles so we can destroy more of the earth with lithium mines. Oh goody

Stop slandering lithium.

Sincerely,

The B&I Board

Libs not liking pipelines.
Do they think electricity is just going to jump across the country to those charging stations?

Sure they will..... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/02/02/gm-unveils-cadillac-ct4-v-and-ct5-v-blackwing-performance-sedans.html