From the press statement, GM says 40% of their US offerings will be electric by 2025.
I'd call that pretty immediate.
From the press statement, GM says 40% of their US offerings will be electric by 2025.
I'd call that pretty immediate.
I think this is one part promotion and one part exceptance of market trends.
The current market value of car companies without a major push into electric is low. Efforts like this may boost stock prices, even if they're overly optimistic.
It seems that a number of companies have announced a significant forthcoming improvement in battery technology in terms of both price and range. While electric hasn't really caught on yet, it may make a lot more sense shortly. I can't help but wonder if they are still doing this a bit too early. Look how well the Bolt sold. With all of these investment dollars at stake, will the company survive if no one buys these new electric models?
In terms of CO2 emissions, at the moment an electric car powered by coal generated electricity emits fewer emissions than a gasoline powered car. That said, coal doesn't make much sense in many places, because natural gas is so cheap. CO2 from natural gas is half or less than coal.
Apparently solar is now the cheapest form of energy in many parts of the world, but of course there's a supply consistency issue. If a solution to the storage can be devised, places like the US south west may become the new energy production regions. A big part of the reason for cheap solar is German subsidies drove up production and competition, resulting in cheap panels. The same may be happening with batteries for cars.
In reply to wheelsmithy (Joe-with-an-L) (Forum Supporter) :
They could just go the Ford route and start offing product lines left, right, and center. Trim it down to an econo, a SUV, a CUV, the eVette, eMaro, and some pickup. From there if the econo, CUV, and SUV/pickup are elctric then that's the target. The pickup should be pretty easy, most of them only need to haul around an ego and 2 spotlights on the front so they should get great range.
I think the OEMs don't want to be late to the party on this so I think that we will likely see similar lineup changes from all the major manufacturers well before 2030. Just look at the other thread about the EPA decision, it's coming from both angles.
Don't get this confused with excitement for the RC future of cars. I wonder if the next Fast & Furious movie will have them making a furious getaway when Elon Musk walks into scene and orders a technician at HQ to shut their car down?
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:That's 14 years from now. A lot can happen in 14 years. The people running GM today won't be running it in 2035. Will GM even exist? The people running the country today may not even be alive in 2035. Who knows what the world will be like in 2035. Did we have any idea in 2006 that we would be running around wearing masks in 2020?
I get what you're saying, but in order to accomplish something one has to set goals & come up with a plan to get there. Things will happen along the way that cause one to reevaluate goals and alter the plan. That's normal, but you have to start somewhere. How much do you believe was worked out perfectly when Kennedy said we were going to put a man on the moon before the end of the 1960's? He was dead before 1964, new leadership, etc.
California is the largest auto market in the US and the governor signed an order last year saying that all cars and trucks sold in the state in 2035 must be zero emissions, Massachusetts has as well. A bunch countries and cities around the world have similar plans, some earlier, some later. It makes sense for GM to plan that the rest of the states that belong to CARB will also follow California (and probably the feds will too), and come out and make this announcement before the rest of the industry announces something similar so that they can get a lot of good press and try for a stock price boost.
Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:I see a dim future for automotive enthusiasts.
I remember reading exactly the same sentiment in the 70s and early 80s, where computers and fuel injection meant the end of performance and the end of the aftermarket and the end of modifying your car and the end of life itself! In fact, the exact opposite happened - we got the golden age of horsepower and aftermarket performance. Plus better economy, WAAAAY better reliability and durability. Sounds pretty good to me. There's a huge and growing movement for hotrodding electric cars (used Volt drivetrains are crazy expensive as a result). Think about the talent, creativity and resourcefulness you see on this board all the time - I'm betting on clever enthusiasts to make life interesting for enthusiasts in the future.
I'm completely sold on electric motors as the way of the future - torquey, reliable, quiet, thrifty. I'm less sold on batteries to supply the electricity for them (at least in terms of the foreseeable future), but there's lots of smart people working on this, so I'm excited to see what they come up with.
There are some die-hards who will want halo cars to stay gas powered. Also, they need to build cars that a) people want, and b) people can afford.
That said, it is clearly already possible to build to good electric sports cars. If they go through with this, we need to have right-to-repair laws on the books so hobbiests and small repair shops are not squeezed out by restrictive technology licencing
I'm rooting for GM again with how balls-to-the-wall they're claiming to be for EV plans; their battery tech seems primed for the aftermarket for dorks like us to build our own packs for personal use, but also for the aftermarket in general to things like house storage or for grid tie-in.
RichardSIA said:How and where do I go to bet against this actually happening? I could use some easy money!
Until slow discharge capacitors* are perfected this an Opium Dream with no real chance of actually happening. Sure, GM can commit corporate suicide but my bet is that at some point reality and stockholders will change the course.
Even if this were to continue on as stated there simply is NOT enough electrical capacity to meet the required demand. Solar and Wind will never be able to bridge the gap, that leaves Nuclear and the huge upgrade in infrastructure required. CA cannot even keep the lights on all year under current demand (No pun) and GM/Greenies thinks this is feasible?
*Even with SDC's the power to charge them and the infrastructure to carry it still has to exist.
Oh, and how many of us are just fine with our lives work and investments being reduced to irrelevancy? I'm not!
If the American grid can handle everyone turning their AC on in the summer, EV will be a drop in the bucket.
Fudds and boomers have been screaming since the advent of EFI that hot rodding was gonna die, yet It's never been stronger. Chill.
TVR Scott (Forum Supporter) said:I was a little surprised, but impressed.
And the idea of a Corvette with all-the-torque at zero rpm sound great to me.
In reply to RichardSIA :
Remember that the people buying those older cars that are going up in value aren't the same people buying the fast-depreciating newer ones. The people buying the older ones are buying them because they think they're cool, not to drive them 15k miles a year.
The electrical grid will almost certainly need some changes to handle mass adoption of EVs. But it's not like everyone is going to replace their cars overnight, so there should be plenty of time to see how the loads are changing and adapt.
Charging cars is actually a good solution to "how do I stabilize my grid with unpredictable energy sources" - the battery doesn't much care whether it's being charged at 1kW or 20kW. If you've got plenty available, having everyone's home-or-work plug in charger react to it and rapidly charge is the storage you're looking for. If you're short, sending out the increased-price signal will have the cars automatically turn it down.
Also, most of the components that make up the electrical grid need replacement over the next 3 decades; the replacement parts and systems just need to be specified to do what we want them to do. Increased sales of electricity and increased rates when it's scarce can both be used to pay for it.
In reply to chaparral :
And this is even before you factor that people are leaving rural areas for the cities, or rather the cities are expanding into once-rural areas, so if you're going to build infrastructure, now is the time to build for big.
The thing that kinda sucks, when I was looking into Bolts recently, is that DC fast charging is apparently GM-specific, and the chargers are few and far between. GM would be smart to bite the bullet and license technology from Tesla so GMs can charge at supercharging stations. That right there would make owning a GM EV a lot more palatable.
RichardSIA said:As to hot-rodding being healthy, I guess that depends on your definition of the hobby.
I find being restricted to a change of wheels, paint, and maybe a "Chip" to be a lot less than real hot-rodding.
I see you're in Nevada. What are you not allowed to do there that is a necessary component of doing "real hot-rodding?"
I get the feeling some people in this thread have never actually driven an electric car. They're fantastic. Their performance is better than gas motors in essentially every single way, except of course the awesome noise that ICEs make. Battery technology has improved a lot over the past decade or so as well. Things are going to be fine in 14 years, and no smog police are going to come arrest you for owning a gas powered car. Energy production will likely continue to become cleaner as well.
I haven't really liked anything GM has built in decades, but an electric Corvette would be incredibly fast. The only downside I see is the aforementioned silence. In fact, that's the only real downside I see to switching over to electric cars. All the other problems (battery capacity and weight, charging times, power production) will be steadily improved, but electric motors are going to stay silent. I just went to the 12 hours of Sebring and probably 75% of the awesomeness was not only hearing, but feeling the roar of the engines as the cars flew by at insane speeds. Making those cars electric will certainly make them loads faster, but it will take away a lot of the experience.
In reply to infinitenexus :
And to that I say "meh". Modern cars make hadly any engine noises anyway. Drive down the road with your windows down and, aside from people with modified exhausts, all you hear from a newer vehicle is tire sing.
While I still don't see a real viable path for the entire fleet to go EV, I also don't understand some of the fears...
Why can't one hot-rod an EV? From bigger wires to allow higher current to different battery packs that allow faster discharge- there are plenty of things to improve power. To the point that if anyone makes a very nominal car to make them the most efficient, it would be pretty easy to upgrade to switch to peak power.
And if my current concern to a viable path is met- then there will be considerable battery upgrades available to lower the weight and increase performance.
So instead of spending $10k for a new engine, you would do the same for a new power controller to get the same effect. And given the danger working with these new things (electrical potential is pretty dangerous)- the skill to do this work will be reasonably high, and very needed- lots of new jobs.
So we would be going from Comp Cams to Comp Power Controllers, or Edlebrock intakes to Edlebrock batteries.
In reply to rslifkin :
Thanks!
Your just moving the problem to a different point source. Its not greener if you just move the tailpipe emission to the power plant. More powerplants will be needed to meet the added electric demand. There just isn't enough land space to build windmills and solar panels to meet all the demand, and it takes decades to get permits and build them all, even if there was hundreds of thousands of unused acres waiting. Currently 68% of powerplants run on fossil fuel and it will stay well over 50% over the next few decades to power an additional 17 million cars, SUV and light trucks added each year. In 10 years, that's 170 million more plug-ins every night pulling on an already fragile power grid. The greenest thing is to not build any cars, electric or gasoline, and keep repairing and re-using existing ones, don't mine iron ore and coal and burn it to make steel, don't manufacture plastics (which takes natural gas), don't mine more lithium for batteries. Do you know how earth-damaging it is to mine lithium?, and later dispose of all those batteries? Everyone should be on the $2000 challenge the rest of their lives!
In reply to t321sg :
It is greener because power plants are far more efficient than a whole bunch of questionably maintained individual sources.
It also helps with source intermittency - if it's a day with variable wind speeds, the other parts of your load won't change much, but you can tell your chargers to charge your cars faster when it's windy!
One thing that's gone unmentioned so far is that EVs scale down better than ICEs.
There's not much of a fuel economy gain to building an ICE below 75 hp, and once your car gets down to the size and drag of a CRX you're only looking at 10-15 hp on the freeway which is tough to provide efficiently.
A 1500# EV with half the frontal area and drag of a present compact will use half the energy of an electric compact. It opens up a nice avenue for tiny sportscars especially if we don't get $40/kWh batteries.
I think it's good to see people planning for a 100% EV new car market - we'll find what the REALLY tough nuts are to crack and companies will either find a way to do it, a good plan to keep ICEVs refurbished for that last 5-10%, or show a future government why it's impractical to go much above 90%? 95%? EV.
t321sg said:Your just moving the problem to a different point source. Its not greener if you just move the tailpipe emission to the power plant. More powerplants will be needed to meet the added electric demand. There just isn't enough land space to build windmills and solar panels to meet all the demand, and it takes decades to get permits and build them all, even if there was hundreds of thousands of unused acres waiting.
The nice thing about solar panels, is that they can be mounted to existing structures and don't necessarily need to be free standing in new places. How many parking garages, big box stores, schools, shopping malls, warehouses, etc have acres of roof space that could be repurposed?
But if we assume that we'd need these panels to be entirely located on new land, there's a whole lot of sparsely populated land in the US, and a good bit of it gets a whole lot of sunshine. With current solar panel efficiency, it would take about 21k sq miles of panels to power the entire US. The yellow square would be sufficient:
Red Barchetta.
You'll need to log in to post.
