GM to Invest in Next-Generation Battery Facility That Will Lower EV Costs, Accelerate

[detmsp]

Man, this thread is getting ridiculous. I'm not sure why you think you're the only one who is aware of China's impact on the lithium market, and that somehow all of the automakers have no idea about this. Maybe you should write them a letter since you clearly think they are oblivious to it.

Also battery costs coming down is not dependent on lithium prices going down or even necessarily staying the same. The goal is smaller, more efficient batteries that use fewer rare earth metals. And guess what? Battery makers everywhere are already making progress on this.

I think you should consider how illogical it is to posit that historical trends in battery pricing is a poor way to predict future pricing. Sure, things change and it's not a given that things will continue this way for forever... but using what we have seen in the recent past as a guide for the future is certainly better than just making random guesses.

I think the bottom line is that you've found every potential problem for electric cars without recognizing that problems can be solved. It would be like at the time cell phones were invented saying "This will NEVER work! What are we going to do, put towers everywhere? All over the world? Even rural areas? Do you even know how many towers that would be?! It's impossible!"

[Richard]

Rare Earth Metals

Rare Earth Elements

2 different things,Rare earth metals are not used in any form in computers,cell phones,EVs etc.

Rare earth elements are not really that rare,the elements are the ingredients used to manufacture.

China controls 80% of all of those ingredients.

I will copy and paste a small sample of the already existing demand,and uses of these materials- BEFORE you add EVs into the picture.

The elements are used to produce smartphones, digital cameras, flat-screen TVs, computer hard disks, LED lights, computer monitors, and other devices that have grown in use over the past several decades.

Crucially, they are also used in clean energy products, such as solar panels and wind turbines.

There are 17 rare earth elements used.

There is a sophisticated and toxic process that removes the elements from the actual earth,that is why it is all done in China.

There is one processing facility in the United States.

I am not sure why you keep going back to saying,after saying you are not reading my whole posts,I am saying it cannot be done.

I never posted that anywhere.

I am drawing attention to the reality of it all and the elephants in the room,that are being ignored.

The demand for rare earth materials for EVs falls right alongside of the same demand for just about every electronic device we have,including fir military use.

A:China is in control of 80% of that supply.

End of story.

We are not in control of the future of EVs or even the electronics aspect,so why are we spending trillions on something before we can even control the base elements needed.

While in the meantime the infrastructure that is needed for that future,is crumbling while we speak,and in comparison,every other means of transportation is being regulated out of existence.

When that time comes and if China still controls the basic materials needed,they will control the flow,those who will not be able to meet the price,because it will not come cheap,will be walking.

With the attitude that we have now of EVs at any cost,while placing us in a position where we will have no choice but to pay any cost,will regulate those EVs to those who can pay the cost.

I do not care about EVs,I will be dead before they impact to any extent,in the meantime it’s the millions of Americans that will be sent to the wayside along the way,the picture of how the world is today,will not be the same 10-20-30 years down the road.

Gasoline in parts of California is already $8 per gallon,expand that to Detroit tomorrow and that eliminates how many drivers in the span of less then 30 days?

How are those living paycheck to paycheck or limited income going to get to work?

Can they use that last resort of mass transit in order to get to work and feed their families?

So in a short span of time we have removed our countries self reliance on fossil fuel,the price jacked up to where it will be not affordable to a large percentage of the population.

Heating costs during the winter will follow in those footsteps increasing 30 to 50%.

Who is going to pay for the lower income to heat their homes?

Everything we buy or eat involves the use of fossil fuels,prices on that stuff have gone up from 40 to 300%.

Do not pay attention to what I write,the people in this country are going to get a taste of what laser focused going green feels like real soon.

You know what position we as a country will be in to counteract those forces - none.

Because we are not in control of our own destiny.

I do not care,I run everything through a business,if gas is $8 per gallon it does not matter to me,I bill the customer $16,every increase in everything I do,gets passed down to my customers.

It does not cost me a dime.

53% of Americans have less then $1000 in the bank,80% of Americans will see a 30-50% increase in the basic monthly requirements to live costs.

How many millions of Americans living near to poverty line will be pushed over it in the coming months?

We are not ready for EVs and the stance of ready or not here they come is going to leave a massive amount of human element in the wake.

The cost of the rare earth elements may go down,but that case all of that stuff is packed into,is made with fossil fuel materials,everything that battery powers and moves is fossil fuel related,battery or not,China or not,we do not control 1 part of the equation to even say what the cost will be 90 days from now,let alone 20 years from now.

If anybody believes EVs will be 35,000 because the batteries will be cheaper is stoned.

EVs are technology based,name one thing technology based outside of a actual computer is cheaper then it was 5 years ago.

A IPhone 12 is a hell of a lot more expensive then an IPhone 3 was.

The auto manufacturers are saying the reason vehicles are 50,000 and up is because of the added technology.

Now they are saying the cost of automobiles will go down because of the added technology.

The only reason TVs and the majority of other stuff has gotten cheaper is because it is made in China with little labor cost.

Everything is connected,an EV does not live within it own little box,it relies on everything else.

Pretty cool concept though,this whole saving 1/2 of the planet while destroying the other half,it probably would be easier just to create a virus that wipes out half of the population so there is half the impact.

Funny how we spend trillions in this country under the guise of saving the planet,all we have done is move the toxic and dirty parts to China and then blame them for not doing their part while they supply our needs.

[detmsp]

Rare Earth Metals

Rare Earth Elements

2 different things

Rare earth metals are rare earth elements. Not sure why this matters though.

If anybody believes EVs will be 35,000 because the batteries will be cheaper is stoned.

We already have $35,000 EVs. The Bolt starts at $31k, and that's without any tax incentives.

I'll leave it at that because it's clear you're very confident in your views, so what's the point of debate?

[Wheels]

Rare earth metals are rare earth elements. Not sure why this matters though.

We already have $35,000 EVs. The Bolt starts at $31k, and that's without any tax incentives.

I'll leave it at that because it's clear you're very confident in your views, so what's the point of debate?

Funny you should mention the Bolt.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertb...h=27fcab535f14

[Richard]

Rare earth metals are rare earth elements. Not sure why this matters though.

We already have $35,000 EVs. The Bolt starts at $31k, and that's without any tax incentives.

I'll leave it at that because it's clear you're very confident in your views, so what's the point of debate?

The claim is in 2030 because of the reduction in battery costs EVs will sell for $35,000.

In 2010 $35,000 is $42,216 in today’s money.

If everything froze in time then 35,000 in 2030 would be $49,000.

But we already know things do not freeze in time and wages do not keep up with inflation as time goes on.

As we are experiencing now,in order to encourage people to switch to EVs the cost of anything fossil fuel will be driven up.

Before they can meet the demand of suppling enough EVs,which in turn will drive their cost up because of demand.

2 months ago my electric bill increased 40% because of increased fuel costs,now they have also been approved to raise it again next month another 45% in order to fund the transition into alternative energy sources.

Depending on the winter climate,they are expecting heating cost to increase 25% up to 60% if it is a really cold winter.

In less then 60 days that is a 85% increase in my power bill alone.

That does not include everything else in my life that will increase also because every thing revolves around the cost of fossil fuels.

The cost of producing an EV will also increase because all of its components are produced and shipped by using fossil fuels.

The debate is not in there will not be EVs in 2030,there will be.

If today’s energy related costs increase already 25% to 60% and the goal is only EVs coverage of 40% by 2030,what is it going to be like when the pressure is on to reach that 100% goal?

The debate is in the economics of implementation,the human costs will be enormous,the lower income,the fixed income and everybody else along the line financially will be knocked down a notch.

Take a city that has a 35% poverty rate and add a 25% to 60% increased costs and watch how many more that were borderline fall into poverty,while everybody else that was not in that realm will have to pick up that much more in taxes in order to support them.

You are not debating me,you are debating the economical impacts of the current form of implementing as they are.

The numbers do not lie.

On the consumer side,their basic COL cost increases up to 60% without a 60% wage increase to adjust for it,something has to give and that will create a snowball effect.

Talk about a transfer of wealth to the top,saving the planet is saying,hold my beer.

The #1 topic in the city of Detroit this winter will be,power shut offs,but they cannot shut off the power because it is cold out,so in order to compensate for those losses,who will be covering that?

Power the COD with wind turbines on Zug island ?

Each wind turbine needs 1.5 acres of clear cut land,with zero wind resistance for 1 mile,anybody got an extra 20,000 wind turbines in their back pocket along with the 25,000 plus acres it would take to throw them up real quick?

[Wesley Mouch]

Let me get this straight. We are going to kill fossil fuel production and use only clean energy. Our current electric grid is antiquated and struggling to keep up but we are going to kill all the coal plants and eliminate the natural gas plants. At the same time we are going electrify planes trains trucks and cars.

What could go wrong?

If you haven't noticed, nuclear is quietly becoming cool with some environmentalists. There's a long way to go, but they are coming to the realization that only nuclear can provide power without environmental destruction of wind or solar.

Nuclear, and hydro are gonna win. Wind and solar will supplement where they make sense.

But more back on thread, I think we'll figure batteries out. There will be ways to make the so they'll be environmentally safe, and not tear up the third world, and become a disposal nightmare. It'll take a little time.

Everyone in Detroit needs to spend some time behind the wheel of an electric car. Until you do, you won't realize just how much better a driving experience they are than IC.

[Satiricalivory]

Uhh hasn't nuclear already lost? They stopped building nuclear plants decades ago.

[Richard]

If you haven't noticed, nuclear is quietly becoming cool with some environmentalists. There's a long way to go, but they are coming to the realization that only nuclear can provide power without environmental destruction of wind or solar.

Nuclear, and hydro are gonna win. Wind and solar will supplement where they make sense.

But more back on thread, I think we'll figure batteries out. There will be ways to make the so they'll be environmentally safe, and not tear up the third world, and become a disposal nightmare. It'll take a little time.

Everyone in Detroit needs to spend some time behind the wheel of an electric car. Until you do, you won't realize just how much better a driving experience they are than IC.

Maybe that will be the next presidential campaign promise.

A Tesla in every garage verses a chicken in every pot.

What is a better driving experience,a Chevrolet Bolt or a Dodge Charger SRT ?

Not to FLAME the Bolt but I hear they can be quite the HOT ride.

I guess everything is subjective.

[Richard]

Uhh hasn't nuclear already lost? They stopped building nuclear plants decades ago.

Three mile island Kinda put a damper on that lol but the are building lots of them in South America and a few other countries,it has been around for awhile but it was always based on cheap fuel,coal was cheap,gasoline was cheap etc and the cost did not pan out for hydro and nuke

Make gasoline and heating oils hit $20-$30 per gallon and everything else starts to look feasible.

With all of the regulations in this country,it takes 50 years to go through the permit process before you can even start building a new oil refinery,I can imagine if somebody wanted to build a nuke plant.

Then there is the problem what to do with all of the spent rods,the Navy figures it will take 1 billion per nuclear powered ship to decommission the reactors before they can scrap the rest.

I guess it is like everything else,just because we can,should we?

They can make coal burn clean but the quest was always for cheap reliable energy,at the current rate things are going,the cost of making coal burn clean will match the cost of other clean energy.

Copy and paste

• Fossil fuels contributes 67% in total power generated.
• Nuclear fuel contributes 13% in total power generated
• Renewable resources totally contributes 18% in total power generated. It includes Hydro power which holds 16% in Renewable power produced .
• Rest of the power is derived from Bio Fuels [[that 2%).

Solar is less then 1% of energy produced,anybody really believe we are going to be 40% alternative energy efficient in less then 10 years?

We do not have the production capability nor the ability to print enough money to do that.

[bust]

Stop training the artificial intelligence.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

They can make coal burn clean but the quest was always for cheap reliable energy,at the current rate things are going,the cost of making coal burn clean will match the cost of other clean energy.

Copy and paste

• Fossil fuels contributes 67% in total power generated.
• Nuclear fuel contributes 13% in total power generated
• Renewable resources totally contributes 18% in total power generated. It includes Hydro power which holds 16% in Renewable power produced .
• Rest of the power is derived from Bio Fuels [[that 2%).

Solar is less then 1% of energy produced,anybody really believe we are going to be 40% alternative energy efficient in less then 10 years?

We do not have the production capability nor the ability to print enough money to do that.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...-in-the-us.php

looks to me like solar isn’t “less than 1%” but was 2.3% last year [[and growing rapidly). Wind was another 8.4%. And “clean coal” is really just less dirty, especially when factoring in the mining and transportation issues.

[Zacha341]

^ Yet still cleaner [our coal] than what's being fired up along with the other pollutant factors going full-tilt in mainland China and parts of India!

[Zacha341]

Um, yep. For certain a concern for northern cold weather regions where severe cold weather exposure can kill.

The perineal elite [claiming such unyielding devotion to those they 'eh, 'champion'] will be excluded from the impact of higher heating costs against shrinking dollars and wages. For them it means ABSOLUTELY nothing for utility costs to double, triple, or even quadruple.

They will NOT be impacted. Not on any level whatsoever! In the meantime the poor and struggling middle class?

...Heating costs during the winter will follow in those footsteps increasing 30 to 50%.

Who is going to pay for the lower income to heat their homes?

[Richard]

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...-in-the-us.php

looks to me like solar isn’t “less than 1%” but was 2.3% last year [[and growing rapidly). Wind was another 8.4%. And “clean coal” is really just less dirty, especially when factoring in the mining and transportation issues.

Some fun facts when it comes to solar.

1st solar collector was made in 1767
1947 was the first year solar became popular in the United States.

Because of government incentives,with your link,solar provides 2.3% of the energy in the US,80 years later.

The argument can be,the price per panel has gone down tremendously.

But what is not being discussed is the soft costs,which are the cost of installation,the labor etc.,which is going up,the cost of materials is going up,the cost of transportation is going up.

When it comes to clean energy,it is not the actual cost of the product,it is the cost of implementation and support,which is why the only way it works currently is with government incentives in order to offset those costs.

It is equal to you or myself having a car,if the engine blows and it costs $2000 to replace it but the car is only worth $1000 when we are done,not going to do it.

It could also be argued that gasoline burned in automobiles built in the 1920s is being burned cleaner in 2020.

But it comes at a cost,adding all of the bits needed to make it burn cleaner adds $1000s to the price of the vehicle including parts and labor.

Energy revolves are one word,affordable.

Coal is by far the cheapest form of energy,in mining and delivery,it can be made to burn clean,when it is made to burn clean it no longer becomes affordable,so it is not taken to that point.

That is the balance with energy,it has to be able to be delivered to the end consumer at a affordable rate.

Back in the coal heydays,even the poorest people in the country could walk the tracks and pick up coal that fell off of the cars in transit and cook their food and heat their home.

Back to EVs - they cannot say today an EV will sell for $35,000 in 2030 because of the cost of batteries will be cheaper,it is only one part of the equation,the soft costs will continue to rise,the legacy costs that GM currently has,will not go away.

We already have people all across the country on strike for higher wages,every product and service we touch in this country has increased in price.

As they go through the process of eliminating fossil fuel,those costs also rise of the products used in the manufacturing of anything.

What percentage of the materials used in the manufacturing of an EV. Or any other alternative energy source requires the use of fossil fuels in their production?

If the use of fossil fuels is required in order to produce an alternative energy source,would not that usage also increase as the demand increases?

Until you can produce clean energy,clean,then what exactly are you doing?

I have a friend in the UK ,he had an air extraction company back in the 70s for filtered air for factories,he had revenues of $250,000 to $300,000 yearly consistent.

Bam the clean air act of the 70s kicked in.

Because he was already established with the major corporations,many US based,his revenues jumped over 10 million per year.

Everything that revolves around clean energy has always been subsidized by the government,it peaks when the money is available and ebbs when it draws back.

You can watch the pattern of solar development history across the world,it has been a consistent ebb and flow based solely the given countries government incentives.

So the current commitment across the world with a target date of 2030.

Not just EVs but everything related to energy,there is no way governments of the world can print enough money to implement and support all of that.

It is not just me and my convoluted thoughts according to some,there are 7 other countries in the world that will be attending the upcoming energy summit that are also saying the move to drop fossil fuels is going to fast.

I can afford to cover the additional $300 a month to cover the added save the planet costs,at a conservative rate,just as I can afford to burn $300 on the table today and not worry about it.

But if you do not have $20 - $20 is a lot of money and there are millions across this country and across the world where they cannot afford that $300 added to their monthly costs.

Are they considered expendable in the bigger picture?

It does not matter if a EV is $35,000 by 2030,if 1/2 the country is driven into poverty in the process,what percentage of the market is left?

You are not going to be able to increase taxes on that 1/2 in order to cover the incentives,so you have to increase taxes on the other 1/2,you in Detroit have already experienced what that concept is and how it works.

Detroiteronthewestcoast.

California boasts the cleanest mass transit fleet in the world

It says it right on the busses.

But they have 60,000 homeless in the streets of one city,was the human sacrifice worth it?

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

I never realized that clean transit was the cause of homelessness. How enlightening!

BTW, since it’s a mild day here, no AC or no heat needed, I’m a net contributor to the grid today due to my rooftop solar. Love the days that I make money on electricity.

[Richard]

^ do not take this personally,but you say you,if your solar was installed with government taxpayers dollars,so you are benefiting and making money in your solar installation at the cost to the taxpayers.

Section 8 solar while driving a section 8 car.

If you said - Richard ,I paid for that system out of my pocket in full with no taxpayer assistance,I would say,excellent you are willing to go the extra mile in order to come out of pocket, for something that makes zero personal economical sense,if it did it would not need to be incentivized,and are now reaping the rewards,because you are doing your part for something you believe in and willing to pay what ever it takes or what ever the losses.

That would be true commitment.

Clean transit is definitely related to homelessness,there is a finite pile of taxpayer dollars to draw from,you cannot take from one pile without reducing the other pile.

I do not care if you want solar or drive an EV,it works and makes sense for some,but make it work without asking me to dip into my pocket,because nobody will be sending me a check for any profit they personally receive in the process.

If it cannot stand on its own,then it is not feasible,asking the taxpayers to take the losses for individual benefit is insane.

It is providing a direct service to an individual and not providing a service for the masses as rail or transit would.

I could even deal with one saying,I am a net contributor back to the grid because the weather is nice,and expecting a check in return.

But not expecting a check in return until the taxpayer is paid back their investment in my house,at a reasonable interest rate,with the house as collateral in order to insure the taxpayers investment.

So when the other 340 days in the year when solar is not operating at peak and it runs at a negative flow,we the taxpayers can at least have a means to collect on our return.

That would be true commitment and not pandering.

Now you are asking the rest of the taxpayers to waste trillions more investing in something that already makes zero sense economically,further increasing their monthly debt just so 10% of the population can claim they are saving the planet.

If people cannot eat or are living in the streets,are they really all that concerned about saving the planet?

I guess we can tell them - hey suck it up,your life has no meaning in the grand scale of things.

Kinda makes the planet not worth saving and who are you saving it for,the elite?

[Gistok]

Clean transit is definitely related to homelessness, there is a finite pile of taxpayer dollars to draw from,you cannot take from one pile without reducing the other pile.

I have no dog in this fight... but geeze Richard in yet another one of your long winded soliloquy... you go off on Logic Errors right and left.

The above one is but one example... you are saying there is a DIRECT RELATIONSHIP between clean transit and homelessness. WTF?? No wonder others mock you.

Sorry but that is a great example of a CASUAL FALLACY... I only chose one sentence... there are so many fallacies in your long previous post. One could tear apart the entire post... but it's not our job to un-muck your logic.

Causal Fallacy

Causal fallacies are informal fallacies that occur when an argument incorrectly concludes that a cause is related to an effect. Think of the causal fallacy as a parent category for other fallacies about unproven causes.
One example is the false cause fallacy, which is when you draw a conclusion about what the cause was without enough evidence to do so. Another is the post hoc fallacy, which is when you mistake something for the cause because it came first — not because it actually caused the effect.

[Richard]

I have no dog in this fight... but geeze Richard in yet another one of your long winded soliloquy... you go off on Logic Errors right and left.

The above one is but one example... you are saying there is a DIRECT RELATIONSHIP between clean transit and homelessness. WTF?? No wonder others mock you.

Sorry but that is a great example of a CASUAL FALLACY... I only chose one sentence... there are so many fallacies in your long previous post. One could tear apart the entire post... but it's not our job to un-muck your logic.

Causal Fallacy

Causal fallacies are informal fallacies that occur when an argument incorrectly concludes that a cause is related to an effect. Think of the causal fallacy as a parent category for other fallacies about unproven causes.
One example is the false cause fallacy, which is when you draw a conclusion about what the cause was without enough evidence to do so. Another is the post hoc fallacy, which is when you mistake something for the cause because it came first — not because it actually caused the effect.

You spend way to much time worrying about what others think of you personally,sorry to burst your causal fallacy but I am not a weak person,I do not need to feel loved or excepted by everybody in order to justify my existence and am not going to jump off of a bridge because people may think I am a moron,it’s a free country,it would suck spending my life trying to make everybody like me.

Are you seriously going to debate that there is not an unlimited supply of funds in order to fix the ills of society?

Then throw out some argument about Casual Fallacy as an excuse?

You blindly living in a city that is a prime example of what happens when you move investment from one target to another.

If there was an unlimited supply of funds,Detroit today would be a city of 1 million with public transportation lines running every block and zero poverty.

Let me guess,when you draw funds from your bank account,funds just magically re-appear and replenish it.

If you had a working transit system in place,then spend 10 million conservatively,that 10 million did not just appear out of nowhere,it had to be raised,that 10 million could have also been raised to provide housing solutions.

But that was the choice they made in investments buses over a roof over ones head,and they do not even get to sleep on the bus.

Where I am at 1 year ago they spent $7 million to convert the fleet of public transit buses over to NG including building little filling stations to replenish them.

Now that the price of NG is getting ready to go through the roof,they are asking for $150 million to convert the buses over to alternative energy sources.

Every time somebody mentions clean energy or saving the planet,it is code speak to the taxpayers of bend over and open up your wallet.

In case if you have not noticed the impact locally in the last 50 years,you can only squeeze people so far,this is why there is a debate.

Because people that are comfortable have lost site of the reality of the majority of the population.

You are correct,I do not have a dog in this fight,out side of all the extra funds that inflation is costing that has to come out of somebody’s pocket,but I remember times when I did not have a dime to my name,where every single price increase or tax increase directly effected even with a gallon of gas made a difference on how much I was able to eat that month or if I was going to be able to pay the electric bill.

There are millions of people in this country that are in that situation today and will be tomorrow.

People need to get off of their high horse and think things out a little more and how it effects people,while they are ripping the rug out from under them,while looking for false gratification that they are actually saving the planet.

Being fortunate does not give me a place in society where I can justify stepping on others less fortunate,or try and degrade others because of where I am at,it does not make me any more special or intelligent or privileged and none of that matters in the end.

Intelligent people are a dime a dozen,because the amount that actually use that intelligence productively is a rarity,even less so when it comes to basic common sense.

You are acting like I am some kind of an alternative energy anti christ,I am not,I am just one voice amongst millions that feel the same way.

What part of,it is not going green that is the issue,it’s the implementation that is the problem.

Long word I know,but you can Google the meaning of it sense it is so hard to understand.

If GM was all that concerned about green energy and converting production to EVs.

Why did they spend millions in developing the newly released 1000 Hp crate motor?

The public is so easy to manipulate,just weaponize their emotions and they fall in line like dominos,while others fill their bank account in the process.

Metro’s electric buses cost $1.15 million each. The project includes the deployment of the electric buses and associated charging equipment and infrastructure improvements. The total cost of buses, equipment and improvements is $80 million.

https://thesource.metro.net/2021/10/...g-line-orange/

$80 million dollars it cost them to change out a fleet that they had just spent millions on converting to CNG - for 40 buses.

The city of Detroit runs 170 buses,got an extra $250 million plus laying around to convert that fleet? Where you going to get it?

In 2019 the price of an electric city bus was $800,000 - One year later that price rose to $1.15 million when the call comes out that cities will change out at any cost,what do you think the price will be then?

The state of Michigan collects $900 million plus in gas tax every year,as the price of gas goes up people drive less,what do you think the state of the roads will be in 2030 when over 40% of that revenue is removed from the equation?

One of three things will happen,they will either raise the tax on gas even more to offset the cost,which in turn will continue in a downward cycle.

Or they will find a way to tax EV owners to make up for the difference,which in turn removes the economical edge over ICE when adding the increased electricity costs to charge the thing.

Or they will increase the taxes on everybody and include the road costs out of the general cycle.

Michigan is already one of the highest gas tax states in the country.

You cannot rob from Peter to pay Paul forever.

[Jimaz]

The highway where trucks work like electric trains

In Lübeck, Germany, there's one of several eHighway test projects: overhead catenary wires, where electric trucks with pantographs can pull power directly from the grid.

[Richard]

^ interesting concept.

Considering the UK has a land mass similar to the state of Florida,not seeing how that is even feasible,outside of the billions they say it would cost.

People in this country lobbied for decades to have billboards removed from the highways,because they blocked the scenery,imagine what happens if mile after mile of highway is laced with spaghetti wires running down the length.

The UK like the United States used to supply the population with a network of rail systems,it cost pennies per mile for the electrical trains they run now and it is hard to beat their efficiency.

I am thinking if we go with rail then EV for last mile,you could eliminate 3/4 of the trucks on the road to start with.

Thats the thing,they are trying to established EVs based on how we currently operate verses changing how we currently operate to a more efficient system that would actually require less EVs.

The UK is going through a bit of a tizzy right now,they eliminated coal and fossil fuel production and switched to alternative energy,they figured that they could always buy Nat gas on the open market,problem is,now they need the Nat gas and they are having a hard time finding it on the open market because of demand.

That is my whole beef,the process of eliminating everything fossil fuel related - before you have the alternative means in place.

You are using your horse n wagon to deliver to local markets,you hear about a newfangled contraption that some refer to as a horseless carriage.

So do you sell your horse immediately then figure out how to acquire a homeless carriage,or do you buy the homeless carriage and slowly transfer responsibility over to it after you are 100% sure that it is the way to go.

Once you shoot your horse,you cannot go back,if it was the wrong decision you are out of luck.

What most do not realize while painting with a broad brush of eliminating fossil fuels or increasing the cost so high that it makes it feasible to switch to EVs ……

Is the millions of pieces of farm equipment that puts food on our tables,the millions of pieces of construction equipment that build our houses and roads,the airplanes in the sky even the police helicopter buzzing an out chasing bad guys.

All of that is no different then everything else,when you raise the fixed costs,those costs will get passed down to the consumer.

At the rate we are going,everybody is pricing themselves out of their current income.

Everybody from this point on just has to figure their monthly fixed costs when it comes to energy,and everything revolves around energy,are going to increase 30 to 60% not by 2030 but right now.

That is the reality of it,if you own a business it is easy,you just pass the costs down to the end consumer,but if you are the end consumer,the buck stops with you.

England made it easy,passed a law that said in 18 years it will be illegal to sell new ICE vehicles. Good luck with that.

[oladub]

If anybody believes EVs will be 35,000 because the batteries will be cheaper is stoned.

EVs are technology based,name one thing technology based outside of a actual computer is cheaper then it was 5 years ago.

But computer chips are now in most everything. Computer chips increase the mileage of gasmobiles for examples.

I previously mentioned that I purchased my new 2020 Bolt in January 2021 for $19,000+. Including taxes, registration, an extra $100 to help pay for roads, transport costs and other dealer costs, it cost me $21,000+ so $35,000 is not impossible and I proved it.

Tesla had some good news. Hertz car rental showed its confidence in EVs by ordering 100,000 new Teslas. I wonder what the impression of a lot of car renters will be when they experience a quieter but more powerful ride than in any car they've ever owned. Tesla just pulled off a sales coup in that so many people will test drive their product.

In other EV news: GM will be building an EV Hummer. EV fire trucks are being imported and may begin to be produced in MN in 2023. NC fire chief says his EV fire truck drives like a golf cart on steroids.

[Richard]

^ and it jumped Tesla’s perceived value to over a Trillion dollars,mind boggling.

When you look at numbers like that,and the fact that if anybody can raise funds and start a EV company, while trying to be the next Tesla,when the dust settles in the future what standing will the current big players be in?

We have already seen through history at the start of every new age,the new players made insane amounts of capital,then as competition kicked in they went by the wayside.

We already saw that with technology,computers,solar and now maybe will see it with EVs,it’s a gold rush of sorts.

I have friends who’s parents made millions in a matter of a few years with technology based stuff in the early days,all of those companies only lasted a few years but created a pile of money that will last generations for the rest of the family.

In your case,as long as it does not self combust with you in it,that bolt makes sense for you,but we are dealing with millions of vehicles of all types across the world,driven by millions of independent thought drivers.

It’s becoming a case of to much ,to fast.

There are regulators that are putting the brakes on some of Tesla’s technology because people are getting killed while depending on it.

What is really interesting is when a death is involved with a GM - Ford -Chrysler or any other manufacturer,the civil suits are front page news,In Tesla’s case,it is kept quiet out,my guess is because they do not want the public to be privy to any negative news in regards to EVs and potential dangers they may have from rushed production and what it appears a system of real-time testing on the public.

What is even more interesting,Tesla announces a contract of 100,000 vehicles and it pushes them over the Trillion dollar valuation,based solely on that announcement.

GM,Ford and Amazon have made similar announcements and their valuations amounted to chump change comparatively.

Tesla holds a lot of technology patents that they sell to the other manufacturers,which helps them advance more rapidly,I wonder what role that plays in the grand sceme of things.

[401don]

I'm trying to figure out who wants to rent an electric car, not knowing where charging stations are located or not knowing how long a charge will last when they're on vacation and are not even sure how far they're driving. Hertz stated they are planning to build stations at their rental locations but who wants to drive back to the airport to charge their car mid-week? Also, they usually turn around hundreds of rentals in a couple of hours in places like Tampa on Fridays and Saturdays. That's not enough time to charge a car and clean it up.

[JBMcB]

I'm trying to figure out who wants to rent an electric car, not knowing where charging stations are located or not knowing how long a charge will last when they're on vacation and are not even sure how far they're driving.

I'm not sure how it works as a rental, but the Tesla app has navigation and trip planning that will tell you where to charge and how long it will take if you are driving a long way. The Chevy OnStar app for the Bolt does the same thing.

[Richard]

I'm trying to figure out who wants to rent an electric car, not knowing where charging stations are located or not knowing how long a charge will last when they're on vacation and are not even sure how far they're driving. Hertz stated they are planning to build stations at their rental locations but who wants to drive back to the airport to charge their car mid-week? Also, they usually turn around hundreds of rentals in a couple of hours in places like Tampa on Fridays and Saturdays. That's not enough time to charge a car and clean it up.

Hertz has over 425,000 rental cars in their fleet.

My nephew is pretty high up with them in Orlando,peak tourist season,they are turning over up to 25,000 rentals a week,so many that there are at least 3 to 4000 that are in limbo,where they do not even know where they are at,the ones that are turned in waiting for processing in order to rent out again.

He used to describe it as,you could go to the return parking lot and take a car without anybody knowing it and drive it around for 3 weeks,bring it back and nobody would know it was ever missing.

If Orlando has over 150,000 rental cars,there is no way they can charge them up,keep them charged,expect tourists that stay lost,find a charging station and sit there with 9 screaming kids while it charges after spending all day at Disney world,waiting for hours in order to take those 9 screaming kids in a ride,while standing in 90 degree heat with 120 percent humidity,after already paying $75 to park in the first place.

You could say Disney can install chargers and charge them to charge their batteries.

Disney probably has over 50,000 parking spaces,they do not do anything for nothing,the millions it would take to put those charging stations in,they would be charging $150 to park for the day.

That is only one rental car company and one tourist attraction,imagine applying that to the millions of tourists that visit Orlando alone.

Last thing a tourist wants to be doing,in a strange city on top of everything else,is looking for a charging station amongst the mayhem.

Tampa is a 1/3 of Orlando in tourist numbers,when the car rental companies were shut down during the pandemic,60 acres at the fair grounds and hundreds of vacant parcels 10 acres and up were used just to store the rental car fleet.

No way they are going to change their fleet over to all EV,maybe offer a few as an alternative,which it is bad enough where tourists shoot across 5 lanes of traffic so they do not have to drive 1 block to turn around when they miss a turn,imagine what happens when they have no juice left and they spot that lonely little charging station.

Peak time in Orlando it would take over 2 hours in order to get 15 miles or less,if there is an accident,make it 3 then fight with 15,000 other rental cars while waiting at the Hertz rental office to charge a battery?

Looks good on paper but no way it’s happening,in places like that,maybe in a small town with 50 residents.