Electric Vehicles

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

GM went all in before 2020......

That announcement was in January of 2021. Go figure

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

That announcement was in January of 2021. Go figure

https://www.wired.com/story/general-...-cars-plan-gm/

Date? 2017

They just didn't have the when ICE sales would end.....

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

I suppose one person's natural extension of state's rights is another person's authoritarian overreach.



That I agree with.

But they are only doing it because they see where government policy is driving the market.

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

And yet most of the automakers making the move did this before 2020...... At a time government was loosening CAFE regulations.....

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

True.

And that was to try to get a piece of the Tesla market... which was a good idea.

But the "all in" mindset has been a more recent thing and, I believe, a response to the idea that ICE will inevitably be legislated out of existence.

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

GM went all in before 2020......

Most automakers that are all in have gone all in for a combination of reasons. As tempting as it is to say “because A did this, B did that”. In the business world, especially automotive things aren’t so clean. If they were I wouldn’t have a job right now.

Legislation and government action is a factor in the shift from ICE to BEV, but it is not the defining reason. In GM’s case, they went all in on BEV before 2020, while fuel economy standards were being relaxed, during an administration that had walked away from the Paris Accord and was friendly to coal generated power.

One of the factors that helped move GM in that direction is the ability to reduce their structural footprint and costs associated with that. Today GM has Alpha, Gamma, Delta, Chi, Epsilon, ZERV, T2, and the Midsized Truck platform. They also have multiple configurations of CSS, HFV6, Small Block, GF, and Duramax engine families and FWD, RWD, and DCT transmission families. All of them require tens of millions of dollars annually in engineering and development costs. With their EV strategy they will have two basic Ultium vehicle platforms, five specific electric motors, all of similar design, and two or three drive units. They’ll save tons of money on vehicle development costs and can put multiple top hats on top of the same basic platform to get different brands and models of vehicles. The Silverado EV sits on the same skateboard as the HUMMER EV, with less battery capacity and less electric motor, but the tops are completely different. Ditto the Cadillac Lyriq and Blazer EV.

Add to that the fact that GM as a company committed to following the Paris Accord, regardless of what the US administration in place at the time chose to do and you can see that GM’s choices were not driven by government. The government now has the option to support or not support the direction GM (and Ford and now Stellantis) chooses to follow. The prior administration did not support. The current administration is strongly supporting. Fact of the matter is GM chose their path and aren’t wavering from it.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Chevy Rules -

OK, so the 2021 announcement must have been to reveal the date they were targeting.

Fair enough.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

That announcement was in January of 2021. Go figure

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

https://www.wired.com/story/general-...-cars-plan-gm/

Date? 2017

They just didn't have the when ICE sales would end.....

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

Chevy Rules -

OK, so the 2021 announcement must have been to reveal the date they were targeting.

Fair enough.

Yes. And 2021 was also when they went public with their long term product strategy, their Ultium battery and platform strategy, and provided some of the technical details of their skateboard and platform strategies. GM usually never discloses this much detail about future product. I think they did it this way in 2021 to show the supply community that they are serious and committed to the direction so that suppliers would start investing in what they needed to do to shift their own product portfolios and technical capabilities.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Most automakers that are all in have gone all in for a combination of reasons. As tempting as it is to say “because A did this, B did that”. In the business world, especially automotive things aren’t so clean. If they were I wouldn’t have a job right now.

Legislation and government action is a factor in the shift from ICE to BEV, but it is not the defining reason. In GM’s case, they went all in on BEV before 2020, while fuel economy standards were being relaxed, during an administration that had walked away from the Paris Accord and was friendly to coal generated power.

One of the factors that helped move GM in that direction is the ability to reduce their structural footprint and costs associated with that. Today GM has Alpha, Gamma, Delta, Chi, Epsilon, ZERV, T2, and the Midsized Truck platform. They also have multiple configurations of CSS, HFV6, Small Block, GF, and Duramax engine families and FWD, RWD, and DCT transmission families. All of them require tens of millions of dollars annually in engineering and development costs. With their EV strategy they will have two basic Ultium vehicle platforms, five specific electric motors, all of similar design, and two or three drive units. They’ll save tons of money on vehicle development costs and can put multiple top hats on top of the same basic platform to get different brands and models of vehicles. The Silverado EV sits on the same skateboard as the HUMMER EV, with less battery capacity and less electric motor, but the tops are completely different. Ditto the Cadillac Lyriq and Blazer EV.

Add to that the fact that GM as a company committed to following the Paris Accord, regardless of what the US administration in place at the time chose to do and you can see that GM’s choices were not driven by government. The government now has the option to support or not support the direction GM (and Ford and now Stellantis) chooses to follow. The prior administration did not support. The current administration is strongly supporting. Fact of the matter is GM chose their path and aren’t wavering from it.

Good info and thanks, as always, for taking the time to provide it.

One small quibble, though, is that the Paris Accord is really just de facto government regulation. Maybe not every country, but enough countries to make a difference in GM's global strategy. So GM's decision to follow it is, I strongly suspect, weighed far more to the side of survival than it is to any kind of altruism.

[ChevyRules]

It definitely wasn't made due to any kind of altruism. Don't let marketing fool you there.

I would say Martin's first listed factor is one of the main driving forces. The money saving and profit potential is huge with EV's.

Sure government regulation is another factor, but as Martin stated isn't the main driving factor. At least in the US, government is lagging the movement( simply due to different administrations and policies at the time).

The media especially when it comes to social and political issues is not there to properly inform you. It is there to profit off of you. Right leaning media outlets may be trying to pin the movement as government induced regulation and forcing it down your throat, but it isn't the truth. Companies started in that direction on their own.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

Good info and thanks, as always, for taking the time to provide it.

One small quibble, though, is that the Paris Accord is really just de facto government regulation. Maybe not every country, but enough countries to make a difference in GM's global strategy. So GM's decision to follow it is, I strongly suspect, weighed far more to the side of survival than it is to any kind of altruism.

The heart of the Paris Accord is that governments and industry that join in the Accord all recognize that greenhouse gases are a major cause of climate change. Information presented to and accepted by The Accord identifies the degree of impact multiple industrial sources of GHG contribute to the crisis and set targets at an industry level for reduction of GHG. Transportation is the largest industrial contributor. Transportation includes everything from the manufacture of automobiles to the exhaust of automobiles, ocean liners, tankers, airplanes, etc. GM’s acceptance of the Paris Accord is voluntary and not regulated by any governmental entity. GM has set the target of being carbon neutral by 2050. If they miss, nobody is going to fine them. Nobody is going to prison. Nobody is going to get sanctioned. Most major automakers abide by the findings of the Paris Accord. It’s only called the Paris Accord because that’s were the defining meetings were held.

[docwra]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

Back to electric vehicles and not politics……

Its not me bringing up totally unrelated shit just because Im losing an argument .........

Anyway, to reiterate as it got lost in Wyzz Kydd's attempts to talk with the adults all these "electric cars are more polluting than ICE" arguments are based on using fossil fuels for energy generation, this isnt the case in most countries and by 2030 will be even fewer.

I work in aviation and while electric development is going full speed there hydrogen, potentially augmented with solar seems to be the future, whatever it is fossil fuels are effectively dead technology.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by docwra

Its not me bringing up totally unrelated shit just because Im losing an argument .........

Anyway, to reiterate as it got lost in Wyzz Kydd's attempts to talk with the adults all these "electric cars are more polluting than ICE" arguments are based on using fossil fuels for energy generation, this isnt the case in most countries and by 2030 will be even fewer.

I work in aviation and while electric development is going full speed there hydrogen, potentially augmented with solar seems to be the future, whatever it is fossil fuels are effectively dead technology.

Just an FYI, I spent years managing a major bank’s portfolio of loans to the telecommunications and energy industry. I’m quite qualified to ‘talk with the adults.’

I want to point out one very, very wrong statement you’ve made, then I’m done discussing this subject because it’s clear to me that the woke folks on this thread don’t want to hear or acknowledge any evidence that conflicts with conclusions they have already made. You stated that most countries DON’T use fossil fuels to generate energy. That’s to support your contention that EV’s are ‘cleaner’ than ICE vehicles.

Currently 80% of worldwide energy generation is from fossil fuels. That number comes from a ‘green’ organization.

https://www.eesi.org/topics/fossil-fuels/description

Enough with the insults. You may work in aviation and may well be a very smart person, but you’re flat wrong.

Edited to add, the biggest obstacle to dreams of an EV only future can be expressed in a single word. Scalability. None of the auto manufacturers are anywhere close to being able to manufacture the volume of EVs needed to meet global demand for automobiles, and they never will be absent a revolution in storage.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Now to discuss EV’s, I would like to see more focus on hybrids. This is where the opportunity to cut emissions, increase performance AND improve efficiency is. Battery needs are much more manageable, costs of production (at scale) are lower, and a significant amount of wasted energy is recovered.

Imagine a wide body Hellcat with regenerative braking and a couple of electric motors running the front wheels.

Mazda may have a good idea with its rotary engine hooked up to a battery rather than the drivetrain.

Right now, the visceral hate for fossil fuels is blinding the greens to some really good options that could both reduce emissions AND produce some very robust, fun automobiles.

[0stones0]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, a combination of all three (Ice - Hybrid - EV) is the sensible approach, while you transition to the next generation of vehicles on the road. It’ll more than likely go that way in the long run, once the dust settles.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Just an FYI, I spent years managing a major bank’s portfolio of loans to the telecommunications and energy industry. I’m quite qualified to ‘talk with the adults.’

I want to point out one very, very wrong statement you’ve made, then I’m done discussing this subject because it’s clear to me that the woke folks on this thread don’t want to hear or acknowledge any evidence that conflicts with conclusions they have already made. You stated that most countries DON’T use fossil fuels to generate energy. That’s to support your contention that EV’s are ‘cleaner’ than ICE vehicles.

Currently 80% of worldwide energy generation is from fossil fuels. That number comes from a ‘green’ organization.

https://www.eesi.org/topics/fossil-fuels/description

Enough with the insults. You may work in aviation and may well be a very smart person, but you’re flat wrong.

Edited to add, the biggest obstacle to dreams of an EV only future can be expressed in a single word. Scalability. None of the auto manufacturers are anywhere close to being able to manufacture the volume of EVs needed to meet global demand for automobiles, and they never will be absent a revolution in storage.

Most of what you say in the first bold text is true, but you overlook one important measure. Maybe two, but the second one is very nuanced so you may not have even heard of it. For the sake of discussion, let’s ignore the shift of power generation from coal to renewables and assume that coal is the single largest source fuel for generating power. This means EVs get most of their electricity from coal. So how much energy is that compared to what the grid currently generates? In California, the 1 million EVs per year consume less than 1% of California’s grid capacity. Scale that up to 2030 when California is seeing about 5 million EVs per year, it is about 5%. So not a lot of coal going into the generation of power to the wheels.

Now, the nuanced view. More and more EVs are coming to market with bi-directional chargesr. This means that they pull energy from the grid and are also capable of putting energy back into the grid. BorgWarner will be one of the biggest manufacturers of bi-directional chargers. One of their affiliate companies, Rhombus Energy, recently concluded a study where they worked with a school district on monetizing their EV bus fleets. School buses are a great application for EV because we know where they are going every day and because they sit for hours between routes and can be charging during those times. In this case, the buses were set up to charge during off-peak hours at low rates. Then they would drive the morning route. Then they would plug back in and return energy purchased at low off-peak rates to the grid. This project earned an average of $10,000 per bus and supplemented the grid’s capacity during peak times.

As for the scalability part, sitting here in 2023 it is no doubt difficult to see the path to the high volumes automakers are suggesting. And there is no doubt that not all of them will achieve their numbers. That’s state of the industry. If we (my company) added up all the volume every automaker claimed they were going to produce every year, we’d forecast years with 20 million sales. Our forecasts tend to run 14 - 17 million a year. The best years in the US in the early 2010s we’re just over 17 million. GM has been the most aggressive in stating their timing for eliminating ICE. At the same time, GM has had difficulty in getting some of their electric vehicles up to full volume. Hummer EV and Cadillac Lyriq are both behind schedule in terms of making deliveries. But there is little doubt that they will actually get to full volume, just later than they had planned. Kinda parallels their ability to deliver ICE vehicles lately. Anybody waiting on a Camaro? Check in again about 2026 and we’ll have a better view of the numbers the companies can deliver. For like vehicles, EV versions are actually simpler to produce than ICE vehicles. Fewer parts, fewer variations.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Now to discuss EV’s, I would like to see more focus on hybrids. This is where the opportunity to cut emissions, increase performance AND improve efficiency is. Battery needs are much more manageable, costs of production are lower, and a significant amount of wasted energy is recovered.

Imagine a wide body Hellcat with regenerative braking and a couple of electric motors running the front wheels.

Mazda may have a good idea with its rotary engine hooked up to a battery rather than the drivetrain.

Right now, the visceral hate for fossil fuels is blinding the greens to some really good options that could both reduce emissions AND produce some very robust, fun automobiles.

Toyota and Honda were on this path for a while. Hybrids make a lot more sense for their home market in Japan than EVs do. Both have recently changed their strategies for US and Europe to focus more heavily on EVs. Lots of reasons there. Won’t get into them unless this conversation leads that way. At the end of the day, reality of how quickly automakers can scale to high volume of EV will be the metering factor. But based primarily on the stated corporate strategy of the world’s biggest automakers, including Toyota now, there is full intent on getting to zero emissions vehicles. There are only two configurations that deliver zero emissions vehicles. Battery electric and fuel cell electric. It’s gonna take a long time to get to fuel cell electric and it is more likely to start with commercial vehicles, not passenger vehicles.

Originally Posted by 0stones0

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, a combination of all three (Ice - Hybrid - EV) is the sensible approach, while you transition to the next generation of vehicles on the road. It’ll more than likely go that way in the long run, once the dust settles.

Because of the time it takes to get to 100% electric that is exactly what the mix of available vehicles will be for quite some time. I fully expect that ICE vehicles, probably most as hybrids, will still be available long beyond the day that I’m dead and gone. What we’re seeing play out now is automakers openly stating what their plans are for managing the transition. 2035 is the most popular date out there but it isn’t the only date. And not everybody who says they will be zero emissions only by 2035 will get there be 2035. For some it’ll be 2040. Or 2050. Or later. The problem for some is that the selection of available ICE cars will dwindle accordingly.

[Wyzz Kydd]

The cost of low volume production of EVs 'may' be cheaper than ICE vehicles. But when you scale up, input costs of materials for batteries will become astronomically expensive. Battery technology simply isn't there in terms of power density and there aren't enough rare earth materials for that volume. The same is true of solar and wind. Yeah, it sounds good, until you look at the storage needs to supply power when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, then you realize that we're nowhere close to the storage we need and we don't have the resources to create that storage.

Maybe when we start mining the asteroids we could make it work, maybe.

Nobody alive today will ever see a strictly EV future where regular middle class people can afford to buy cars that are anywhere close to the functionality we currently have.

The only thing that will change that will be a complete revolution in energy storage.

Back to EVs, the only one I would consider currently is the Corvette (hybrid) and my objections to it are purely related to trunk space. If Chevy decided to make a hybrid ZL1 1LE I would place an order right after I buy my wife the new car I owe her.

I considered the Ford Lightning, as I like the idea of being able to use it to power my house in an emergency, but unfortunately it can't haul an RV for long enough distances or do other 'truck like' things that I need. Stick an ICE in the 'frunk' and you would probably have a damn fine truck.