Electric Vehicles

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I don’t know what the upgrades might be to LT2. Just from what I’ve seen I think the Gen 6 addresses truck emissions and fuel economy in a front engine rear drive configuration. Can’t imagine they’d go to the trouble of also engineering a mid-engine car variant of it when they already have two mid-engine car variants available. If they are going to replace one of them I’d expect it to be through upgrading it rather than engineer yet a third mid-engine variant.

And to your point in an earlier post, C9 is almost certain to be an MCE on the current platform. They’re not gonna engineer a new platform when they’ve just introduced the current ZERV platform. And introduce an electric platform at the same time? Nope. MCE.

It just donned on me that they would have to make it a mid engine layout.

Here I was thinking it would be like the past given the truck motors and LS/LT motors shared a lot of components so it wouldn't be that hard to do a Gen VI Corvette version. But the mid engine fact flew over my mind. Not so easy anymore.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by docwra

And this "expensive energy" thing? Its another fallacy, renewables are cheaper: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...an-coal-report

Now renewable energy is so expensive officials say they will routinely expect consumers to cut usage during peak hours. In fact, they're paying them too no use electricity. One of my colleagues who lives in London told me his two bedroom two bathroom flat runs about 800 pounds a month, so about $1,000 a month. My three story 3,400 square foot home runs about $250 a month. More than twice the size, a quarter the cost.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...tax-inflation/

[docwra]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Now renewable energy is so expensive officials say they will routinely expect consumers to cut usage during peak hours. In fact, they're paying them too no use electricity. One of my colleagues who lives in London told me his two bedroom two bathroom flat runs about 800 pounds a month, so about $1,000 a month. My three story 3,400 square foot home runs about $250 a month. More than twice the size, a quarter the cost.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...tax-inflation/

The cost of generating renewable energy has not changed, its still cheaper than generating via fossil fuels.

What has increased is the wholesale cost of all energy to the end user.
As you no doubt know the rate for nuclear, solar, wind etc. is set at the price of natural gas regardless of cost of production.
As you are also undoubtedly aware there is a bit of a tear up going on in Ukraine which has pushed gas prices sky high, in better news they are actually already starting to fall.

Every European country is suffering as a result, not just the UK and not just those using renewable energy, since the beginning of 2021 we have seen an increase in cost of 404%

If you really want to make a comparison look at what we were paying pre 2021 but I can tell you it was roughly 25% of what it is now ......... back to the point current increases in price to end user have nothing to do with how the power is generated.

No doubt your friend will also have told you the UK government is subsidising so he actually wont pay more than £2500 a year, like every other household he will receive a further £400 (£1200 if hes on low income) and if hes on Universal Credit the house and energy might be provided for free.

[docwra]

Originally Posted by docwra

IMO climate change deniers are doing more harm then even the worst polluters, its like arguing in favour of racism

And seeing as this seems to have been deliberately misinterpreted ........

Im obviously not calling anyone a racist, but youd condemn anyone that told you racism was a good thing, right?

I think people that argue against cleaner, cheaper energy production as the same, how can you be against it?

Sure, get pissed that your gas stove is going to be taken away (it wont) and you wont be able to buy a 7.0 V8 after 2030 but arguing against energy generation that will cost less and wont destroy the planet? I dont get it

[Wyzz Kydd]

Driving an EV in the UK costs more than driving an ICE car.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...r-than-gas-up/

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by docwra

I think people that argue against cleaner, cheaper energy production as the same, how can you be against it?
:

Because it’s not cleaner, it’s not cheaper and it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.


1. EV’s cost more to purchase.
2. In the UK, operating an EV costs more.
3. 80% of world wide power is generated by fossil fuels, primarily coal, so EV’s arguably pollute more.
4. EVs have less range, are slower to refill, and have the problem of battery disposal.
5. Battery production creates large amounts of toxic waste and often involves slave child labor.
6. The inputs needed, cobalt, copper and lithium are not available in the quantities needed to replace ICE vehicles.
7. It’s not currently possible to get even close to 100% ‘clean’ energy production.

All of these statements are facts, not pie in the sky predictions of what ‘might’ or ‘probably’ will be possible ‘someday’.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by docwra

Sure, get pissed that your gas stove is going to be taken away (it wont)

https://www.fastcompany.com/90834734...ies-states-ban

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/09/b...ncy/index.html

Does it bother you at all that virtually every claim you’ve made is demonstrably wrong?

BTW, all that free money the UK is giving out to help with the high energy bills it caused, where do you think that money comes from?

As an economist I suggest you remember TANSTAAFL.

[Martinjlm]

My thoughts in red, interspersed with Wyzz Kidd’s original thoughts….
Because it’s not cleaner, it’s not cheaper and it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.


1. EV’s cost more to purchase. True. But keep in mind that except for a few specific examples we are dealing with first generation EVs and their cost footprints are constantly improving even without generational change. Also, the Total Cost of Ownership is already lower for most EVs when compared to similar model ICE. Can’t get past the cost per mile of electricity as a fuel being way the hell below cost per mile of gasoline.

2. In the UK, operating an EV costs more. The US is not in the UK, therefore irrelevant

3. 80% of world wide power is generated by fossil fuels, primarily coal, so EV’s arguably pollute more. In the US this is changing in parallel to the introduction of high volume EV.

4. EVs have less range, are slower to refill, and have the problem of battery disposal. EVs have more range than the average person drives in a day, take ZERO time to fill up at the beginning of the day because if plugged in over night, you have a “full tank” every morning. Between second use of expired car batteries (energy storage) and a growing recycling / remanufacturing business, there is likely to be competition for expired car batteries, much like their has been high demand for catalytic converters since the mid ‘70s.

5. Battery production creates large amounts of toxic waste and often involves slave child labor. Not wrong, per se, but the interesting thing here is that the same materials are needed in smaller quantities in ICE vehicles. So either way, the issue needs to be addressed. It should also be noted that though most cobalt (as an example) is mined in Republic of Congo and child slave labor problems exist in Republic of Congo, it does not equate to any cobalt sourced from Republic of Congo is mined through child slave labor. The vast majority of cobalt mined in the Republic of Congo is mined through acceptable socio-economic processes. Assuming “all cobalt that comes from RoC is mined through child slave labor is parallel to a thought process similar to “anybody who owns an AR-15 is a likely mass shooter”. Both statements are gross over-reach.

6. The inputs needed, cobalt, copper and lithium are not available in the quantities needed to replace ICE vehicles. This part is not universally true. The issue is not the “availability”, it is the “financially viable” availability. Just like oil in the ‘90s. Remember fracking? There were oil reserves that were not reachable by conventional methods, but if it was worth the expense and process shift (fracking) then “hallelujah! There’s more oil!” The oil was already there. It was just more difficult and more expensive to get to. Same thing with lithium. And cobalt. And copper. Et cetera. The areas that are most problematic are and will continue to be several rare earth metals that are required for electric motor manufacture.

7. It’s not currently possible to get even close to 100% ‘clean’ energy production. But it is already, in the first generation of EV, with old methods of power generation, cleaner over life cycle than ICE will ever be. And EVs and power generation will continue to get cleaner with generational improvements.

All of these statements are facts, not pie in the sky predictions of what ‘might’ or ‘probably’ will be possible ‘someday’.

There is some fact in what Wyzz Kidd says, but a lot of it is misapplied. Sorta like if someone were to drag race their Camaro SS against a Mustang EcoBoost and declare “Camaros are clearly faster than Mustangs”. It’s true for a specific set of facts, but totally ignores the fact that there is a Mustang Shelby GT 500 lurking around. Because UK has some weird policies that allow for price gouging of electric vehicle charging does not translate to US buyers of electric vehicles will pay similar prices to operate EVs which is clearly the more relevant fact set.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

My thoughts in red, interspersed with Wyzz Kidd’s original thoughts….
Because it’s not cleaner, it’s not cheaper and it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.


1. True. But keep in mind that except for a few specific examples we are dealing with first generation EVs and their cost footprints are constantly improving even without generational change. Also, the Total Cost of Ownership is already lower for most EVs when compared to similar model ICE. Can’t get past the cost per mile of electricity as a fuel being way the hell below cost per mile of gasoline.. EV's have been around for decades. As I stated, right now, they cost more. You're simply going back to the 'promise' that at some point that will change. That has yet to be proven. They cost more to purchase, even with subsidies. Not to mention our current grid is nowhere near being able to support an all or even majority EV future.

2. The US is not in the UK, therefore irrelevant Um, tell that to the people who have to purchase and use them in the UK. I'm sure they think it's relevant. If we implement the same measure the UK has (and that's where we're headed) we'll find ourselves in the same situation. Canary in a coal mine essentially.

3. In the US this is changing in parallel to the introduction of high volume EV.. Again, pie in the sky promises about the future. We're not even close to being able to support pure EVs now. That is a fact. We're nowhere near 100% renewables now and there is no indication of how we could get there. Those are facts. Your statement is speculation about what 'might' happen.

4. EVs have more range than the average person drives in a day, take ZERO time to fill up at the beginning of the day because if plugged in over night, you have a “full tank” every morning. Between second use of expired car batteries (energy storage) and a growing recycling / remanufacturing business, there is likely to be competition for expired car batteries, much like their has been high demand for catalytic converters since the mid ‘70s. For the average person in an urban environment yeah, you're right those measure will work, unless of course like many they park on the street. How do they charge overnight then. What about the rest of us? The greens position is - tough crap for you people who don't live in cities, deal with it. And, of course, more talk about what is 'likely' but doesn't exist today.

5. Not wrong, per se, but the interesting thing here is that the same materials are needed in smaller quantities in ICE vehicles. So either way, the issue needs to be addressed. It should also be noted that though most cobalt (as an example) is mined in Republic of Congo and child slave labor problems exist in Republic of Congo, it does not equate to any cobalt sourced from Republic of Congo is mined through child slave labor. The vast majority of cobalt mined in the Republic of Congo is mined through acceptable socio-economic processes. Assuming “all cobalt that comes from RoC is mined through child slave labor is parallel to a thought process similar to “anybody who owns an AR-15 is a likely ass shooter”. Both statements are gross over-reach. Much much smaller quantities. If you're cool with driving a vehicle that depends on forcing 12 year olds to work 12-16 hours a day 7 days a week in a toxic environment I guess that's your decision.

6. This part is not universally true. The issue is not the “availability”, it is the “financially viable” availability. Just like oil in the ‘90s. Remember fracking? There were oil reserves that were not reachable by conventional methods, but if it was worth the expense and process shift (fracking) then “hallelujah! There’s more oil!” The oil was already there. It was just more difficult and more expensive to get to. Same thing with lithium. And cobalt. And copper. Et cetera. The areas that are most problematic are and will continue to be several rare earth metals that are required for electric motor manufacture. . Essentially you're saying if EVs become even more expensive it will become economically viable to extract the materials we need. You're right, all it will take is for the average consumer to pay a lot more for a vehicle to make this work.

7. But it is already, in the first generation of EV, with old methods of power generation, cleaner over life cycle than ICE will ever be. And EVs and power generation will continue to get cleaner with generational improvements. That's a statement of belief, not fact. Again, pie in the sky promises about what you 'think' will happen, but hasn't yet.

There is some fact in what Wyzz Kidd says, but a lot of it is misapplied. Sorta like if someone were to drag race their Camaro SS against a Mustang EcoBoost and declare “Camaros are clearly faster than Mustangs”. It’s true for a specific set of facts, but totally ignores the fact that there is a Mustang Shelby GT 500 lurking around. Because UK has some weird policies that allow for price gouging of electric vehicle charging does not translate to US buyers of electric vehicles will pay similar prices to operate EVs which is clearly the more relevant fact set.

I don't see any comparison between what I said and claiming some type of drag race win. Not a valid analogy. A better one would be that EVs are the equivalent of a Mustang Ecoboost and greens want us to believe that if you wish hard enough they'll turn into Mustang GTs.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

I don't see any comparison between what I said and claiming some type of drag race win. Not a valid analogy. A better one would be that EVs are the equivalent of a Mustang Ecoboost and greens want us to believe that if you wish hard enough they'll turn into Mustang GTs.

It’s an analogy, but I can put it in better perspective for you, with the analogy in background. You have a tendency in your posts to state a specific fact, then imply that the fact you’ve provided is all inclusive, even when additional information is available that would put the facts you offer in clearer perspective.

FACT: A Camaro SS will smoke a Mustang EB
Analogy Implied Message: Camaros smoke Mustangs
Additional Info Available: There are other models of Mustang that will smoke a Camaro SS, but we chose not to include that in the discussion.

FACT: Child labor is used to mine cobalt in the Republic of Congo.
WK Implied Message: EVs are bad because they require material harvested through use of child slave labor.
Additional Info Available: Most of the cobalt mined in the Republic of Congo is mined ethically. All automobiles have some amount of cobalt content. So there should be some consideration of ethical mining practices considered across the board, not just for EVs.

Hope that helps lay out where I’m coming from.

[genxer]

Environmentalism green zealotry is an astroturf fig leaf that doesn't help.

MPG, engine regulations are already expensively stupidly punitive.

It's creating a fraud where Nukes have to get built out. With real environmental waste for thousands of years, with a fusion carrot stick for the gullible.

No body is saving the world cutting emissions. You know what? Dog farts put out greenhouse gas. They waste resources. They should first find out how a campaign versus dogs goes over.

[Wyzz Kydd]

I’m willing to accept the proposition that most civilians who are greens mean well and think they’re doing something important, and they often are.

I remember moving to Germany in the early 70s and being surprised at the air and water pollution. It was pretty bad. Those problems are much less severe now thanks to anti pollution measures.

When it comes to man caused climate change our ‘experts’ clearly know it’s a bogus concept and know the things they propose won’t achieve anything constructive, so I conclude it’s about exercising power and making money.

[genxer]

The better analogy is the City of Atlantis myth. Are they the Grand Utopia that means well? Or are they domineering, usurping the free will of those less important?

It's about using what's out there well, and not being allowed to. If the environmental groups were legit on cars, they'd adopt real-life stances, promote less disrupting vehicle options.

Why should CAFE or cold-start punish anything smallish with a 6? That and in between a small footprint Prius look alike with a 3? 2 valves per healthy cylinder, no turbos. Then, if one wants and can afford a hybrid from there, great. And then, Suburbanite's CUVs moving to plug-ins would save them most of the fuel of BEVs, not need any public chargers, and be easier with the grid.

On the EV side, they don't really need rare earths or cobalt. There's motors with slip ring armatures and induction motors. There's lithium iron phosphate cells. But EV sucks in the cold, and they won't use an auxiliary heater that burns anything.

[docwra]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Because it’s not cleaner, it’s not cheaper and it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

Ive posted plenty of links that show green energy is already cleaner and cheaper, due to improved technology its getting cheaper every day as well. Heres the UN's take on it, but what do those guys know eh?
https://www.irena.org/news/pressrele...il-Fuel-Crisis

As for a problem that doesnt exist ........ sweet Jesus, I didnt think there was actually anyone that actually thought that, but then again what do NASA know though about anything?

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/