Jump to content

GM will be Exclusive Electric by 2035


jasonj80

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

No, they'll just make it illegal to drive them anywhere.

 

None of the current proposals to ban the sale of new ICE powered cars and light trucks make it illegal for someone with an existing ICE powered vehicle to drive it on public roads generally. However, as I mentioned earlier, there will probably be restrictions on the use of such vehicles in city centers.

 

Eventually, as the automotive landscape becomes both 100% electric and 100% autonomous, laws may be passed that disallow either ICE powered or non-autonomous vehicles on public roads. Those vehicles will be relegated for recreational use in certain venues. Bob Lutz wrote about this in Automotive News a few years back. Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye (autonews.com)

 

Quote

"Automotive sport — using the cars for fun — will survive, just not on public highways. It will survive in country clubs such as Monticello in New York and Autobahn in Joliet, Ill. It will be the well-to-do, to the amazement of all their friends, who still know how to drive and who will teach their kids how to drive. It is going to be an elitist thing, though there might be public tracks, like public golf courses, where you sign up for a certain car and you go over and have fun for a few hours."

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

None of the current proposals to ban the sale of new ICE powered cars and light trucks make it illegal for someone with an existing ICE powered vehicle to drive it on public roads generally. However, as I mentioned earlier, there will probably be restrictions on the use of such vehicles in city centers.

 

Eventually, as the automotive landscape becomes both 100% electric and 100% autonomous, laws may be passed that disallow either ICE powered or non-autonomous vehicles on public roads. Those vehicles will be relegated for recreational use in certain venues. Bob Lutz wrote about this in Automotive News a few years back. Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye (autonews.com)

 

 

Yes, you're talking about now.  I'm talking about down the road.  You know it's inevitable because they want the unicorn utopia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2021 at 7:24 PM, 351cid said:

So...how is all this electricity going to be generated?

 

Wind ain't gonna do it. Solar ain't going to be enough. Greenies will not allow nuke plants to be built.

 

I guess we will be buying oil from Iran to burn to generate electricity. 

 

How are the Chinese batteries going to be transported to the US for Assembly into GM Electric vehicles without fossil fuel?  Batteries will be assembled here you say?  How are all the Chinese components and rare earth minerals required to assemble batteries here in the USA going to be transported without fossil fuel?

 

So Trans Oceanic cargo ships are going to be powered by battery?  All those amps and all that water...sounds like a real nice combination for disaster.

 

Military ships are powered by electricity - generated by nuclear energy.   Are we promoting nuclear power nation wide?

 

Reprez- got any 'we have to save the planet from ourselves" spin on this?

 

For those who may not have thought about it, trans oceanic shipping is one of most highly polluting activities on the planet.  In other words, It is highly likely that transporting a single Prius from Japan to the USA on a vessel causes more pollution than if you didn't drive a hybrid vehicle.

 

 

Edited by Kev-Mo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rperez817 said:

. Bob Lutz wrote about this in Automotive News a few years back. Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye (autonews.com)

 

Bob Lutz article is very negative and sarcastic.  He is clearly indicating that he is thankful with the notion that his expected lifespan will spare him of this upcoming transportation dystopia.

 

Tell us all again why you appear to be so joyful positive about all of this?.  Tell us again, How are we going to go on a camping trip to Zion National Park or the Grand Canyon with the family and the RV?  Tell us again how our government has the constitutional authority to deny us such personal liberty and the pursuit of  happiness?

 

 

Edited by Kev-Mo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kev-Mo said:

For those who may not have thought about it, trans oceanic shipping is one of most highly polluting activities on the planet.  

 

Yes sir Kev-Mo, you are correct. Oceangoing international shipping was the last transport sector to formulate a GHG reduction and decarbonization strategy. The International Maritime Organization finally did so in 2018. The strategy will be revised in 2023 and reviewed in 2028. Initial goals are 40% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030 and 70% reduction by 2050, compared to 2008 levels.  International Maritime Orgnization Home Page (imo.org)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2021 at 2:57 PM, rperez817 said:

....Eventually, as the automotive landscape becomes both 100% electric and 100% autonomous, laws may be passed that disallow either ICE powered or non-autonomous vehicles on public roads. 

 

 

The rock group 'Rush' predicted this situation back in 1981....  ? 

 

"Red Barchetta"

By Rush

 

My uncle has a country place
That no one knows about

He says it used to be a farm
Before the Motor Law

And on Sundays I elude the eyes
And hop the Turbine Freight
To far outside the Wire
Where my white-haired uncle waits
 
Jump to the ground
As the Turbo slows to cross the borderline
Run like the wind
As excitement shivers up and down my spine
Down in his barn
My uncle preserved for me an old machine
For fifty odd years

To keep it as new has been his dearest dream
 
I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining car
A brilliant red Barchetta
From a better vanished time
I fire up the willing engine
Responding with a roar
Tires spitting gravel
I commit my weekly crime
 
Wind
In my hair
Shifting and drifting
Mechanical music
Adrenaline surge...
 
Well-weathered leather
Hot metal and oil
The scented country air
Sunlight on chrome
The blur of the landscape
Every nerve aware
 
Suddenly ahead of me
Across the mountainside
A gleaming alloy air car
Shoots towards me, two lanes wide
I spin around with shrieking tires
To run the deadly race
Go screaming through the valley
As another joins the chase
 
Drive like the wind
Straining the limits of machine and man
Laughing out loud with fear and hope
I've got a desperate plan
At the one-lane bridge
I leave the giants stranded at the riverside

Race back to the farm
To dream with my uncle at the fireside
 

 

-Ovaltine

Edited by Ovaltine
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Heh, I've had that thought several times recently but never bothered to post it. Neil(RIP :( ) sure did nail that one, didn't he? 

Yep he did.  Been over a year now since he passed.  Listening to Signals right now.  What a legacy he (and Alex and Geddy)left.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2021 at 2:57 PM, rperez817 said:

 

None of the current proposals to ban the sale of new ICE powered cars and light trucks make it illegal for someone with an existing ICE powered vehicle to drive it on public roads generally. However, as I mentioned earlier, there will probably be restrictions on the use of such vehicles in city centers.

 

Eventually, as the automotive landscape becomes both 100% electric and 100% autonomous, laws may be passed that disallow either ICE powered or non-autonomous vehicles on public roads. Those vehicles will be relegated for recreational use in certain venues. Bob Lutz wrote about this in Automotive News a few years back. Bob Lutz: Kiss the good times goodbye (autonews.com)

 

It would be easy to call Lutz an idiot for this piece, but we can chalk it up to him being senile.  If you think January 6 was bad, wait until you try taking away someone's freedom away.  I don't see the masses happily driving their $75,000 vehicles down to the scrap yard to be destroyed.  And I also don't see people paying off their car notes if they know Big Brother will soon be taking them away "for our own good."  This would bankrupt the entire auto industry overnight.  Like a good pro athelete, Lutz should have retired and rested on his laurels.  

Edited by Footballfan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2021 at 10:57 PM, Kev-Mo said:

Bob Lutz article is very negative and sarcastic.  He is clearly indicating that he is thankful with the notion that his expected lifespan will spare him of this upcoming transportation dystopia.

 

Tell us all again why you appear to be so joyful positive about all of this?.  Tell us again, How are we going to go on a camping trip to Zion National Park or the Grand Canyon with the family and the RV?  Tell us again how our government has the constitutional authority to deny us such personal liberty and the pursuit of  happiness?

 

 

I'm sure we could all gather around the computer and do Google Earth lol.  If the government takes our vehicles away, what else is going to be taken away? Our homes because they use too large of a carbon footprint?   Anyone who is ignorant enough to think this is a good idea should not be surprised to see their offspring marched off to concentration camps "for their own good."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Autoextremist who rarely thinks highly of any automaker's strategy is impressed with GM's commitment to BEV. His column this week talks about that, along with C8 Corvette, Cadillac CT4-V Blackwing, and CT5-V Blackwing. Rants - Autoextremist.com ~ the bare-knuckled, unvarnished, high octane truth...

 

Quote

The True Believers at GM are living in a strange Twilight Zone as you read this. They have one right foot pressing down hard on machines that will define the End of the ICE Age, while working feverishly on a dazzling array of new-generation products that will usher in the Dawn of the Electron Age.

 

We’ve already had a preview of some of these new battery-powered machines, such as the Cadillac Lyriq and the GMC HUMMER EV, but these vehicles are just the first volley in a product offensive the likes of which has never been seen before in the company’s history. GM is developing EVs for every product segment in their current portfolio, plus some for segments not even imagined yet.

 

When GM announced last week that it plans to become carbon neutral in its global products and operations by 2040 and has committed to setting science-based targets to achieve carbon neutrality, there were plenty of skeptics. But GM Chairman and CEO Mary Barra made it very clear: “General Motors is joining governments and companies around the globe working to establish a safer, greener and better world. We encourage others to follow suit and make a significant impact on our industry and on the economy as a whole.” 

 

In a clear departure from its past, GM worked with the Environmental Defense Fund to develop a shared vision of an all-electric future and an aspiration to eliminate tailpipe emissions from new, light-duty vehicles by 2035. This is as real as it gets, and it's a serious, big-time commitment on GM's part. 

Big, bold goals require real vision, and skeptics will always be part and parcel of the process. To be sure, a lot will have to happen between now and then, but 2035 is not that far away. We're heading for a different world, folks. And GM is all-in on redefining its - and the automobile’s - role in it. 

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read:  https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact

 

The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction

 

EXCERPT:

....But there’s a problem. As the world scrambles to replace fossil fuels with clean energy, the environmental impact of finding all the lithium required to enable that transformation could become a serious issue in its own right. “One of the biggest environmental problems caused by our endless hunger for the latest and smartest devices is a growing mineral crisis, particularly those needed to make our batteries,”

Edited by Ovaltine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rperez817 said:

Even Autoextremist who rarely thinks highly of any automaker's strategy is impressed with GM's commitment to BEV. His column this week talks about that, along with C8 Corvette, Cadillac CT4-V Blackwing, and CT5-V Blackwing. Rants - Autoextremist.com ~ the bare-knuckled, unvarnished, high octane truth...

 

He also thinks your sainted Farley (in particular) is an a**hole who is incapable of properly running Ford. Will you be posting that too?

 

Delorenzo has a gold GM d*ck in his mouth and always has, except when he was bitching about the interim leadership after the bankruptcy. He practically wets himself over dead end products like the Caddy cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

He also thinks your sainted Farley (in particular) is an a**hole who is incapable of properly running Ford. Will you be posting that too?

 

That was posted in the following thread, thank you Ovaltine sir. Autoextremist's DeLorenzo's assessment of Ford management.... - Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum - Blue Oval Forums

 

Even crazy extremists think clearly and logically on a few occasions. Autoextremist finally did in this week's column. Unlike most of Autoextremist's other rants, his assessments of GM's BEV strategy, C8 Corvette, and Cadillac CT4-V Blackwing and CT5-V Blackwing are mostly in agreement with what other, less extreme professionals in the automotive industry have said about those things.

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
2 hours ago, stengines1 said:

I can see the EV working in a city environment. But a rural setting? The infrastructure is not there. Most do not even have High speed internet.  

 

Big chunk of Ford sales and profits come from F series sold in rural areas, and hardly any of those buyers will purchase EV within 20 years. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today, GM announced additional details about its Ultium battery platform as well as collaboration with SolidEnergy Systems. GM Targets Range and Battery Cost Improvements to Accelerate All-Electric Future

 

Today at a Washington Post Live virtual conference, General Motors President Mark Reuss provided more details about GM’s next-generation Ultium battery chemistry and announced a joint development agreement with lithium metal battery innovator SolidEnergy Systems.

GM’s lithium metal battery with a protected anode will feature a combination of affordability, high performance and energy density. The initial prototype batteries have already completed 150,000 simulated test miles at research and development labs at GM’s Global Technical Center in Warren, Michigan, demonstrating real-world potential.

To accelerate Li-Metal battery commercialization, GM is working with several innovative companies and making investments that will allow the company to scale quickly.

GM Ventures was an early investor six years ago in SES, a research, development and manufacturing leader of Li-Metal technology and AI-powered battery management software to optimize performance and safety. The 2015 investment was the start of a close working relationship between SES and General Motors’ research and development organization. 

Today’s joint development agreement is the next progression of that ongoing collaboration. As part of the agreement, GM and SES plan to build a manufacturing prototyping line in Woburn, Massachusetts, for a high-capacity, pre-production battery by 2023.

“Affordability and range are two major barriers to mass EV adoption,” said Reuss. “With this next-generation Ultium chemistry, we believe we’re on the cusp of a once-in-a-generation improvement in energy density and cost. There’s even more room to improve in both categories, and we intend to innovate faster than any other company in this space.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2021 at 9:51 AM, Footballfan said:

It would be easy to call Lutz an idiot for this piece, but we can chalk it up to him being senile.  If you think January 6 was bad, wait until you try taking away someone's freedom away.  I don't see the masses happily driving their $75,000 vehicles down to the scrap yard to be destroyed.  And I also don't see people paying off their car notes if they know Big Brother will soon be taking them away "for our own good."  This would bankrupt the entire auto industry overnight.  Like a good pro athelete, Lutz should have retired and rested on his laurels.  

This is the misconception that so many have about electrification, that someone will try to take your freedom/cars away.

This won't be a sudden switch and over the next ten years, there will be growing realisation that all forms of electrification

are in themselves freedom from fears of what the oil companies will do with pricing gasoline.  

 

It's ironic that we ask, where is all the electricity coming from to replace all that gasoline and diesel being consumed 

when the bigger question should be how much money flows out of this country each day and into the pockets of those 

oil producing countries. The day that flow of money is reversed and fed back into US companies and communities is the 

is the day that we can afford to pay for more electric power  infrastructure.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jpd80 said:

This is the misconception that so many have about electrification, that someone will try to take your freedom/cars away.

This won't be a sudden switch and over the next ten years, there will be growing realisation that all forms of electrification

are in themselves freedom from fears of what the oil companies will do with pricing gasoline.  

 

It's ironic that we ask, where is all the electricity coming from to replace all that gasoline and diesel being consumed 

when the bigger question should be how much money flows out of this country each day and into the pockets of those 

oil producing countries. The day that flow of money is reversed and fed back into US companies and communities is the 

is the day that we can afford to pay for more electric power  infrastructure.

 

 

 

I think it's generously presumptive to think the power companies won't raise prices themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

I think it's generously presumptive to think the power companies won't raise prices themselves.

True but would governments allow power utilities to rape and pillage people on the price of electricity? I think the outcry and inflationary pressure would force regulatory changes.

My point is that a lot more of that money normally spent on fuel stays in America and goes to power utilities . That in turn gets spent locally on maintenance and labor and aids in American prosperity.

 

In the first half of 2020, US imports of crude oil averaged 6.2 million barrels per day. Even cutting some of that and redirecting to power infrastructure would be a great move.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

True but would governments allow power utilities to rape and pillage people on the price of electricity? I think the outcry and inflationary pressure would force regulatory changes.

My point is that a lot more of that money normally spent on fuel stays in America and goes to power utilities . That in turn gets spent locally on maintenance and labor and aids in American prosperity.

 

In the first half of 2020, US imports of crude oil averaged 6.2 million barrels per day. Even cutting some of that and redirecting to power infrastructure would be a great move.

It is net imports that matter, not imports. In 2020, thanks to our oil and gas boom in recent years from shale and hydraulic fracturing technology, we became a net exporter of oil and gas. That is actually a good thing. It is likely to prove transitory, however, and as a nation we'll likely return to a net importer due to recent policy changes in Washington.

See for instance: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttntus2&f=m

Edited by Gurgeh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gurgeh said:

It is net imports that matter, not imports. In 2020, thanks to our oil and gas boom in recent years from shale and hydraulic fracturing technology, we became a net exporter of oil and gas. That is actually a good thing. It is likely to prove transitory, however, and as a nation we'll likely return to a net importer due to recent policy changes in Washington.

See for instance: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttntus2&f=m

I would argue that reducing imported oil is the key. If the need to import oil is reduced by increased electrification then it pushes the US more towards remaining a strong net exporter, that is a double barrel win.

 

The US’s biggest oil export customer last year was China and with its strong commitment to electrification, that demand is likely to start falling in the next few years. So with imports and exports likely to move around, there’s an opportunity to keep more money in the US, even if imports and nett imports change.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...