Electric Suburban / Electric Tahoe / Yukon / Escalade EV

[Quark]

Yeah but they won’t. there’s no way they’ll stop OMG incentives, subsidies and wars...let alone go back and tear up the highway system (defense purposes...rrriiigghhhttt) that was a boon to early auto manufacturers. The govt has always had its thumb on the scales of industries that they believe serve the long term greater good.

Zero chance all cars are full EV in 8 years though so no worries there. Would be cool though!

Back to the war thing after evading it, oy. You keep making statements then avoiding direct responses to those statements.

The modern highway system was a boon to industry and our quality of life. It was from an era when government was more sensitive to the actual needs of the taxpayer. It appears that era has ended.

 

[cardude2000]

Back to the war thing after evading it, oy. You keep making statements then avoiding direct responses to those statements.

The modern highway system was a boon to industry and our quality of life. It was from an era when government was more sensitive to the actual needs of the taxpayer. It appears that era has ended.

I didn’t evade anything. I said you’re welcome to hold that opinion. Saying that “someone once said something in 2016” isn’t a particularly compelling argument (especially considering that the only document/source you provided in this thread was an opinion piece penned by the oil lobby).

Correct. The modern highway system was a boon to many things including the American auto manufacturers. Just like the railroads were a generation prior. Less smog, greener fuels and fewer oil wars will be a boon to all Americans too.

Our best days are ahead of us...enjoy the ride!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quark]

I didn’t evade anything. I said you’re welcome to hold that opinion. Saying that “someone once said something in 2016” isn’t a particularly compelling argument (especially considering that the only document/source you provided in this thread was an opinion piece penned by the oil lobby).

Correct. The modern highway system was a boon to many things including the American auto manufacturers. Just like the railroads were a generation prior. Less smog, greener fuels and fewer oil wars will be a boon to all Americans too.

Our best days are ahead of us...enjoy the ride!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's all opinion and when you just hop from claim to claim nothing gets hashed out. But perhaps that is just the inherent nature of forums. For instance your claim that somehow adopting EVs will reduce war. What?

 

[cardude2000]

It's all opinion and when you just hop from claim to claim nothing gets hashed out. But perhaps that is just the inherent nature of forums. For instance your claim that somehow adopting EVs will reduce war. What?

I’ve stuck to my core claims all through this thread. Its not all opinion. Much is factual and easily sourced which I have done.

It seems like I’m hopping around because people keep throwing out silly stuff like “yeah but dah windmillz don’t like cold and librulzzz bad!!!” or “Librulzzz want $500B for a charging station!!!”...I am dumb enough to respond. That’s on me. I’ve been interwebbing long enough to know better.

My opinion is that with less reliance on petroleum we will likely see less global conflict in areas that we are currently only in to stabilize to ensure access. Obviously EV’s are only a small part of that overall narrative.

That was really a secondary point used to make a point about govt intervention in EV’s. The central point was that the govt ALWAYS puts their thumb on the scale of future (initially unprofitable) technology and big bets.

 

[Holy Roller]

Do you care to comment on what he wrote?

So here’s the thing: I read it, word for word, last night. I kept hoping for some hint of balance, a little nuance. That’s why I read the whole thing. Right through to the author’s bio. But I never found anything more than a screed.

As written, it may fit your narrative - or that of a million others. But that doesn’t make it entirely true.

For me it read like something written by a cigarette executive 35 years ago. Raising fear, uncertainty and doubt, for tobacco farmers and all those reliant on an addictive, poisonous - albeit legal - product.

I’ve never even ridden in an electric. And I’ll keep driving diesel for as long as it makes sense for me. But I have enough life experience to know that my situation and needs change and evolve over time. As I bang this out on a piece of technology that didn’t even exist a decade ago.

 

[GTNator]

The leaders at GM have spoken, they are committed to an “ALL electric” future. Superior technology and performance through electrification is coming to GM, and to any other auto company that wants to remain in business beyond another 20 or so years.

https://www.gm.com/commitments/electrification.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dubyagee01]

Yep. Lets all believe what big corporations say.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...rs-have-made-about-the-future-of-cars/532806/

 

[cardude2000]

Yep. Lets all believe what big corporations say.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...rs-have-made-about-the-future-of-cars/532806/

Americans dream big.

I believe in America and our innovative spirit.

You’re welcome to sulk on the sidelines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rocket Man]

I mean, that Ultium system does look pretty badass. I still think they need drop- in batteries serviced from underneath at charging stations where you stop in and have a fully charged battery swapped out, kinda like battery powered tools do but that won’t work until they make batteries way smaller so there’s only a couple different sizes and shapes needed. As it is now, like with GM’s new system, they need to make the battery fit each vehicle.

 

[dubyagee01]

Americans dream big.

I believe in America and our innovative spirit.

You’re welcome to sulk on the sidelines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im sure your definition of “American” is the same as mine.

You appear to lean marxist.

Your style of insult definitely shows progressive but I repeat myself.

 

[cardude2000]

Im sure your definition of “American” is the same as mine.

You appear to lean marxist.

Your style of insult definitely shows progressive but I repeat myself.

Facts only insult the ignorant and I certainly applaud progress. Thanks for noticing! [emoji869]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HiHoeSilver]

Facts only insult the ignorant and I certainly applaud progress. Thanks for noticing! [emoji869]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Still at it, eh old buddy? You'll be pleased to know that I've purchased a Tesla with my profits from Dogecoin since we last talked...




...And then I woke up from my slumber, which was extra super deep, as I was comfortably nestled in my 15 year old leather recline.....I mean, drivers seat. The upside, of course, is that the vehicle can't drive without me being awake and telling it what to do, so I'm still here. I know you were worried for a while there.

 

[Quark]

So here’s the thing: I read it, word for word, last night.

And rather than comment on any of the points delivered you can only voice your overall dissatisfaction with the tone of the author.

 

[Holy Roller]

And rather than comment on any of the points delivered you can only voice your overall dissatisfaction with the tone of the author.

My dissatisfaction was not with tone. Although there is definitely an air of arrogance about it. As already stated, my dissatisfaction lies in the lack of balance in its content or nuance in its arguments. It is written by a lifetime creature of O&G and is targeted at a specific audience as though it was an authoritative analysis of facts. Something that it clearly is not.

If it made you feel good to read something that confirms your own bias, then perhaps it accomplished the writer’s objective. It did not however move the goal posts any closer on a discussion that is going on everywhere around.

I’m curious if you actually read it, word for word, as I did? And if so, could you please explain why you felt that it was a rebuttal so powerful in your mind that it was worthy of your endorsement in this thread?

 

[Quark]

My dissatisfaction was not with tone. Although there is definitely an air of arrogance about it. As already stated, my dissatisfaction lies in the lack of balance in its content or nuance in its arguments. It is written by a lifetime creature of O&G and is targeted at a specific audience as though it was an authoritative analysis of facts. Something that it clearly is not.

If it made you feel good to read something that confirms your own bias, then perhaps it accomplished the writer’s objective. It did not however move the goal posts any closer on a discussion that is going on everywhere around.

I’m curious if you actually read it, word for word, as I did? And if so, could you please explain why you felt that it was a rebuttal so powerful in your mind that it was worthy of your endorsement in this thread?

You probably won't like this either, it doesn't meet your standard of confirmation bias.

"The IEA stipulates up front one underlying fact that advocates of a transition never mention: Green-energy machines use far more critical minerals than conventional-energy machines do. “A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired power plant,” the report says. “Since 2010, the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables has risen.” That was merely to bring wind and solar to a 10% share of the world’s electricity.

As the IEA notes dryly, the transition is a “shift from a fuel-intensive to a material-intensive energy system.” That means a shift away from liquids and gases whose extraction and transport leave a very light footprint on the land and are transported easily, cheaply and efficiently, and toward big-footprint mines, the energy-intensive transport of massive amounts of rocks and other solid materials, and subsequent chemical processing and refining."

"Well buried in the report is a warning about the “high emissions intensities” of ETMs. Energy use per pound mined is even trending up. This is no arcane nuance. It’s the key hidden factor that determines whether, or to what extent, a clean-energy machine actually reduces carbon-dioxide emissions on net. The IEA data show that, depending on the location and nature of future mines, the emissions from obtaining ETMs could wipe out much or most of the emissions saved by driving electric cars."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/*****s-not-so-clean-energy-transition-11620752282?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

 

[cardude2000]

You probably won't like this either, it doesn't meet your standard of confirmation bias.

"The IEA stipulates up front one underlying fact that advocates of a transition never mention: Green-energy machines use far more critical minerals than conventional-energy machines do. “A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired power plant,” the report says. “Since 2010, the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables has risen.” That was merely to bring wind and solar to a 10% share of the world’s electricity.

As the IEA notes dryly, the transition is a “shift from a fuel-intensive to a material-intensive energy system.” That means a shift away from liquids and gases whose extraction and transport leave a very light footprint on the land and are transported easily, cheaply and efficiently, and toward big-footprint mines, the energy-intensive transport of massive amounts of rocks and other solid materials, and subsequent chemical processing and refining."

"Well buried in the report is a warning about the “high emissions intensities” of ETMs. Energy use per pound mined is even trending up. This is no arcane nuance. It’s the key hidden factor that determines whether, or to what extent, a clean-energy machine actually reduces carbon-dioxide emissions on net. The IEA data show that, depending on the location and nature of future mines, the emissions from obtaining ETMs could wipe out much or most of the emissions saved by driving electric cars."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/*****s-not-so-clean-energy-transition-11620752282?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

so your concern around EV’s is around the use of (largely reusable/recyclable) minerals and the impact on the environment?

So this is largely an environmental issue for you?

 

[Quark]

so your concern around EV’s is around the use of (largely reusable/recyclable) minerals and the impact on the environment?

So this is largely an environmental issue for you?

Why is it that none of you proponents care to respond to the subject presented. It's as if you have an agenda and anything that doesn't support that agenda must be avoided. Why else would you try to redirect attention to my concern about the environment, is it your intention to imply that since I'm not in the EV camp I don't care about the environment? Don't even bother to answer that as it is more rhotorical than not. Just respond to the IEA report or don't waste my time. Sorry for being abrupt but I'm more than tired of your ducking and dodging and always ending with, get used to it it's coming anyway, when you come up short.

 

[cardude2000]

Why is it that none of you proponents care to respond to the subject presented. It's as if you have an agenda and anything that doesn't support that agenda must be avoided. Why else would you try to redirect attention to my concern about the environment, is it your intention to imply that since I'm not in the EV camp I don't care about the environment? Don't even bother to answer that as it is more rhotorical than not. Just respond to the IEA report or don't waste my time. Sorry for being abrupt but I'm more than tired of your ducking and dodging and always ending with, get used to it it's coming anyway, when you come up short.

Sigh. More non answers.

Look. You don’t like the inevitable move to electric vehicles. I understand that. Change is hard and it’s always going to be met with resistance. It appears now that you’re throwing any argument against the wall to try and make your feelings about the change seem rational and warranted.

I’ve dodged absolutely nothing in this thread. Ive remained consistent in my thoughts and opinions on the subject.

Here they are again...

I love vehicles of all sorts and electric vehicles, with hybrids as a logical bridge, is really exciting to me. The idea of never having to go to a gas station again and having insane instantaneous torque is thrilling. Additionally, there’s no question in my mind that moving away from a finite non-reusable resource like petroleum (which increasingly require extraction from more costly and environmentally sensitive areas) is a good LONG TERM decision for us to be making.

I’m not sure what type of feedback you’re looking for specific to this report? If you’re asking whether or not mining for largely recyclable minerals changes my mind about EV‘s being the inevitable future of transportation, my answer is no, absolutely not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quark]

Sigh. More non answers.

Look. You don’t like the inevitable move to electric vehicles. I understand that. Change is hard and it’s always going to be met with resistance. It appears now that you’re throwing any argument against the wall to try and make your feelings about the change seem rational and warranted.

I’ve dodged absolutely nothing in this thread. Ive remained consistent in my thoughts and opinions on the subject.

Here they are again...

I love vehicles of all sorts and electric vehicles, with hybrids as a logical bridge, is really exciting to me. The idea of never having to go to a gas station again and having insane instantaneous torque is thrilling. Additionally, there’s no question in my mind that moving away from a finite non-reusable resource like petroleum is a good long-term decision for us to be making.

I’m not sure what type of feedback you’re looking for specific to this report? If you’re asking whether or not mining for largely reliable minerals changes my mind about EV‘s being the inevitable future of transportation, my answer is no, absolutely not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yours is an absolute non answer and a sophomoric attempt at debating. I asked you not to waste my time and you couldn't resist. Have fun, evidently that is your intent as you have evaded every attempt to discuss feasibility of a new technology that is supposed to save the planet and end all wars.

 

[cardude2000]

Yours is an absolute non answer and a sophomoric attempt at debating. I asked you not to waste my time and you couldn't resist. Have fun, evidently that is your intent as you have evaded every attempt to discuss feasibility of a new technology that is supposed to save the planet and end all wars.

Nope. I’ve answered everything you’ve put out there with almost painful specificity. Heck I even specifically responded to the snippet of the report that you pasted and your associated comment. You’re playing a parochial game of gotcha around an entrenched worldview and it hasn’t worked. Beyond that you’re arguing, mostly, against things I never claimed. I’ll comment, again, on two areas I have discussed.

Regarding feasibility:

-currently it takes govt subsidies to make EV’s profitable. I’ve discussed this in much depth.

Regarding wars:

-I believe that most modern long term conflicts are heavily influenced by the need for reliable cheap oil. I’ve discussed this over and over again.

You’re welcome to stomp off and not answer a single question but remember, just linking to a report isnt debating. It’s clear you’re emotional about EV’s and simply looking to rationalize that emotion.