Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Transportation

General Motors Plans 20 All-Electric Cars By 2023 (bloomberg.com) 135

Posted by BeauHD from the coming-soon dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: General Motors joined a growing group of automakers promising an emissions-free future for cars by pledging to sell 20 all-electric vehicles by 2023. The largest U.S. automaker, which generates most of its profit with large sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks, plans to have a lineup of both battery-powered cars and hydrogen fuel-cell autos, which also run on electricity. Two new EVs will debut in the next 18 months to follow the Chevrolet Bolt that's been on sale for less than a year. The planned lineup demonstrates GM is doubling down on electrification despite the Bolt's slow start in U.S. showrooms and companies' inability thus far to profitably sell EVs. The automaker has delivered fewer than 12,000 units of the battery-powered Bolt, which goes about 238 miles between charges. Deliveries have primarily been concentrated thus far in California, which mandates sales of emissions-less vehicles.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

General Motors Plans 20 All-Electric Cars By 2023 More

General Motors Plans 20 All-Electric Cars By 2023

Comments Filter:
  • I test drove a GM car the last time I was in the market for a new one, and it was the worst of the 4 or 5 different models.
    Poor quality finish to everything, handled like a bus, and braked like an eel.
    I bought a Mazda for about 2/3 the price, and have been happy.
    They might be better now, but probably not.
    • They're not bad these days on the mid/high end, on par or above comparable offerings from Toyota of VW. On the low end, they're trash.
      • It was a Chrysler 300, can't remember the exact model, but it would have been around 2010.
        Absolute rubbish compared with the Mazda I bought. I also drove a Nissan (can't remember the model) a Toyota Camry and some sort of Hyundai, all of which had better manufacturing standards than the Crysler.
        My sister in law bought a Jeep at about the same time, but got rid of it after it stopped running for the third time inside the warranty period.
        • That's Chryslers for you. They're not GM and they're not even real cars. Never driven a Chrysler that didn't feel like complete amateur hour.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by amiga3D ( 567632 )

            What bullshit. The never ending car snobbery on /. is ridiculous. I've driven the Chevy Impala and Chrysler 300 multiple times from rental agencies over the last couple of years. Both cars were excellent. The only problem with the 300 is that the luggage area is tiny for a supposed "large" car. I drove the Toyota Camry several times also and I'd say the Impala was at least equivalent.

    • I test drove a GM car the last time I was in the market for a new one, and it was the worst of the 4 or 5 different models.

      I test drove a 2015 Camaro Z28 a while back and it ripped my clothes off. I'm holding out for the 2018 Z1 though. I've got a friend with a Chevy dealership and I think it's time I get something nice. My wife says, "nah", but I'm working on it, daily.

    • I own a 2017 ZL1 and a 2016 2SS. Neither is like that. In fact. My 17 ZL1 absolutely stomps 6 figure cars on the track.

      Old gm, yes. My Gen4 and Gen5 FBody and Zeta platform Camaro were indeed poorly braked and rattle traps.

    • Last time I looked at a GM product they were STILL, after a couple decades, building them for drivers with a short left leg and passengers with a short right leg. (The wheel well clearance for the front wheels impinged on the space for the front-seat personnel's footwells. On the driver's side they produced a footrest at the same distance as the height of the fully-retracted brake (and, in the manual shift, clutch) pedal(s), with the accelerator pedal being farther forward.)

      Of course that was quite a whil

    • "General Motors Plans 20 All-Electric Cars By 2023"
      Only 20 cars ?
      Telsa plans 500 000 electric cars by 2023

  • Just 20 ? (Score:4, Funny)

    by alexhs ( 877055 ) on Monday October 02, 2017 @06:01PM (#55297279) Homepage Journal

    They produce around 10 millions cars a year, and expect to sell just 20 all-electric ones in 5 years (to be kind) ?

    (Yes, I understand that "models" was lost somewhere. "Implied" as they pretend :) )

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by zieroh ( 307208 )

      Then why bother to reply, if you understood the intent? Just to be obnoxious?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      What this news story is really all about, is automotive manufacturers are starting to eye the massive new vehicle market that would be created by forcing the swap from the infernal combustion engine to electrics and the likely subsidise that could be had from government, for new electric vehicles and conversion kits (likely to be quite a high subsidy to make it viable). That new electric vehicle market would be huge when ti comes to replacing so many old vehicles.

      The electric tricycle could be number one s

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • "Major Automakers Pretend To Be Interested In Electric Vehicles At Auto Show" - totally haven't seen that one many times per year for the past decade. Auto shows are a giant displaycase for A) concept cars that will never see the light of day, B) vehicles that will be made only in the minimum number needed to be compliance cars, and C) vehicles that will be produced (also in small numbers) in a radically different form (for the worse) than actually presented.

    If GM cared about selling the Bolt, they'd put a

    • There's been more than half a million electric cars sold in the US, and the largest car company by cap size (for the time being) is entirely electric cars. There are a number of countries which have enabled laws that they will only allow electric cars to be sold within the country. Certainly every single car company is serious about electric cars, because that's just a part of the business now.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rei ( 128717 )

        Certainly said one company is. So far among the others it's just the usual talk and auto show showpieces. Funds invested in actually changing their business models lag far behind the huge sums actually required to do so.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Rei ( 128717 )

          To put a bit of a point on it: Mercedes-Benz recently garnered a lot of positive press for an announcement that they're planning to invest $1B (over the course of an unspecified number of years) in electrifying a vehicle plant to make BEVs. That's great! An order of magnitude less than they actually need in order to stay competitive with Tesla's investments, but hey, good for them!

          So far, there's one company actually pouring in the huge amounts of money to bring EV production to economic scales (and domin

          • Here's a graph that I think is really telling [statista.com]. The size of the market for vehicles with an average selling price of nearly six figures is vastly smaller than that for vehicles with an average sale price in the ~$35-40k range - and the tax credits on the latter far more meaningful to their buyers. Yet both the Model S and Model X still outsell the Bolt and Leaf in the US.

            I don't know how to interpret that. What does it tell you?

        • A small electric car company in my town is expanding again, you've probably never heard of them unless your neighbor owns one because they've pre-sold everything they ever made and factory expansion is the growth limiter. Why advertise?

          There are electric cars all around you. Those little Ev markings on the back of cars are not a new rock band or fraternal organization; those are electric cars!

          Tesla stock may or may not be correctly priced, but they sell everything they can make, too. In the past GM had a ha

    • Re:Wow, I've totally never seen this story before. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Monday October 02, 2017 @06:21PM (#55297423)

      If GM cared about selling the Bolt...

      It costs several hundred million dollars to bring a new vehicle to market, especially with a new drivetrain, as type acceptance on new drivetrains takes years.

      I know a lot of people don't quite get this concept, but companies don't like spending money on things that don't make money.

      If GM DIDN'T care about the Bolt, they wouldn't have spent the time, effort and money developing it.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Rei ( 128717 )

        Yes, they would have, so as not to have to buy credits from Tesla in order to sell cars in ZEV states.

      • You don't actually need a new drivetrain, you can connect a modern three phase electric car motor directly to where the transmission used to be.

        It is a really weak excuse. Electrics do not need an altered drivetrain, and the reason it is altered is to save money.

        You should be able to predict that that would be true just from knowing that hobbyists turn old used internal combustion cars into high performance electric vehicles in their garages.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rei ( 128717 )

          EV conversions are generally lousy. In an EV, batteries should be down low, making up the floor, not crammed into wherever you could find space by removing the ICE and/or giving up trunk space / seat space / etc. The motor should be inline with the wheels, not in in some old ICE space and connected by an unnecessary linkage. The shape of the front should be dictated by aerodynamics and safety alone, not by the constraints of a nonexistent ICE. Etc, etc, etc.

          EVs should be designed, from the start, as EVs.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        This is why a lot of manufacturers have just replaced the ICE with an electric motor, rather than do a proper EV drivetrain. Most of those cars suck immensely.

      • GM also loses $7000 a vehicle on the Bolt, I don't blame them for not pushing it (it is quite ugly too) while they try to work out the best way to manufacture battery electric cars.

        The problem GM has always had is that battery electric requires that you basically go back to the drawing board and redesign the car from the ground up, there are a ton of systems and things on a gas car that simply aren't needed on an electric car. Tesla went this route, but GM as a traditional manufacturer is handicapped by the

    • If GM cared about selling the Bolt, they'd put any sort of real effort into advertising it.

      Perhaps GM doesn't care if the Bolt sold.

      I read somewhere that the big automakers are really only selling their electric cars to comply with certain state and federal regulations. They are often sold at a considerable loss on each vehicle. Electric cars are still a very small portion of the market, and are likely to remain so for a long time yet. A quick Google search tells me that 17 million cars are sold in the USA each year. A quick Google search didn't tell me how may electric cars have been sold ea

    • They have a buttload of inventory just sitting in California. I can't even come CLOSE to seeing one in person anywhere near Albuquerque. I have to drive all the way to Denver to MAYBE see one in stock. So right now a MAJOR part of their problem is retarded distribution.

      Loved your comment "BMW price with a Fisher-Price interior", by the way.

      Looked at a BMW i8 at an electric car meet here in ABQ about a month ago. Sales dude was reluctant to even let me sit in it (first mistake), I ask "What is the electric

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rei ( 128717 )

        I do give GM credit for one thing, they've certainly been putting more of an effort forth than a lot of their competitors, even if not as much as an actual electric car company like Tesla.

    • Re:Wow, I've totally never seen this story before. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot&worf,net> on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @01:48AM (#55299317)

      The big problem is, and until it's resolved, the dealerships. To get a scope of the problem, a new vehicle really only comprises about 20-30% of a dealerships' revenue. The vast majority of a dealership's income is the service department.

      As such, they HATE EVs. Because the drive train is so simplified, there is actually very little that needs to be maintained (you have your usual brakes and other things, but those don't really need a lot of servicing).

      And a lot of the "no maintenance" parts are prematurely replaced by dealerships just because they can bill you for it - a car may only need an oil change once a year, but you can bet your dealership will have you coming in at least twice a year to do an oil change.

      The EV, you don't really have to bring it in even once a year - maybe once every couple of years just to replace common consumables and check on the brakes (which will last a lot longer since they aren't used as much - regenerative braking reduces brake wear significantly). The biggest parts that will go wrong are the electronics, which can be electronically monitored, and being solid state, are extremely reliable.

      Tesla sells you a bumper to bumper everything-but-tires service package for $600 a year - cheap compared to ICE vehicle services but even overkill for an EV (especially since the tires aren't included, and they're about the only part that wears out at the same rate).

  • Electric cars don't work when the power goes out, ICE powered cars do.
    Electric cars aren't practical for long trips, or for unplanned medium-length trips, ICE powered cars are.
    Electrics cars are a rich man's toy, ICE powered cars are practical vehicles.

    No amount of band-wagon nonsense is going to change these fundamental facts unless there's a fundamental breakthrough in technology to stockpile and transport electrons. So far, there there has been no such breakthrough. Mary Barra is just another beancounte

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MightyMartian ( 840721 )

      Electric cars don't work when the power goes out, ICE powered cars do.

      That is until you go to gas up, and there's no power to the pumps.

      • Electric cars don't work when the power goes out, ICE powered cars do.

        That is until you go to gas up, and there's no power to the pumps.

        I recall this was a laughably common problem in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Those that learned from this have installed backup hand crank pumps and generators that run off the same fuel that's in the underground tanks. Those that didn't learn from this will be like the idiots that packed pallets of canned food but forgot a can opener. The people that did learn their lessons will be able to get fuel from the tanks so long as there is fuel in those tanks.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by quantaman ( 517394 )

      Electric cars don't work when the power goes out, ICE powered cars do.

      Gas pumps need electricity to pump the gas. If your gas station is out of power then you're not getting any gas.

      On the other hand, during an emergency if your charging station does have power then you can charge your car, even if the fuel trucks can't get through.

      And you also have the option of charging your car at your house with a generator or solar panels (though that would be pretty inefficient).

      • Gasoline and diesel are liquids, meaning they can
        Be stockpiled in man-portable containers for an emergency which knocks out power
        Be hand-pumped and/or distributed directly from a tanker truck if push comes to shove

        Sorry guy, not until "electric" cars run on easily storable and portable fuel will they be a viable alternative for "traditional" cars.

          • And here's how it plans out for ICE owners: http://www.chron.com/news/hous... [chron.com]

            Oh it gets better too. These guys idled all their gas out of their exhaust only to find they couldn't fill up at any pump. https://www.dallasnews.com/new... [dallasnews.com]

        • Over half of American households have two or more cars. Electric cars are an ideal second vehicle, used exclusively for commuting or running errands. This is a huge market opportunity and completely moots your points. Two car families can always fall back on their ICE car in the short term. In the long term, the problems you cite will likely be resolved by improved battery and charging technology.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by zieroh ( 307208 )

            Two car families can always fall back on their ICE car in the short term. In the long term, the problems you cite will likely be resolved by improved battery and charging technology.

            Pfffft. This is slashdot, whose denizens are far too absorbed in being snarky to ever even contemplate having a "family".

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by torkus ( 1133985 )

            Over half of American households have two or more cars. Electric cars are an ideal second vehicle, used exclusively for commuting or running errands. This is a huge market opportunity and completely moots your points. Two car families can always fall back on their ICE car in the short term. In the long term, the problems you cite will likely be resolved by improved battery and charging technology.

            You realize commuting and running errands comprise the large majority of miles put on a car, right? Most people average about 30 miles a day which is well within the range of any EV. Electric cars are the ideal PRIMARY vehicle.

            And for long trips beyond battery range (which are infrequent for most people) from home there's the supercharger network. Not perfectly convenient, but free 'gas' for your road trip isn't the worst thing in the world.

            If you're like my friend who drives between RI, PA and NY most w

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Nissan offers car-to-home battery backup for your house in the event of a power cut. Instead of all your food rotting and you being unable to power up the CB or turn on a light, your car keeps the power on for a few days. That's a few days with the old 24kWh Leaf battery.

        • Gas cannot be stored for more than about a month, it sucks water out of the atmosphere and will be so saturated with moisture in a month that it will be worthless.

    • Electric cars don't work when the power goes out, ICE powered cars do.
      Well you can't charge them if the infrastructure gets wiped out, I suppose, but you also can't re-fill a tank of gas if the infrastructure gets wiped out.

      Electrics cars are a rich man's toy, ICE powered cars are practical vehicles.
      You can lease an electric car for $200/month, with very small fuel charges. They're not a rich man's toy unless you buy an expensive one...same as with ICE cars.

      Mary Barra is just another beancounter in a long

      • Or she reads the news and sees that many countries are mandating all-electric driving fleets in the future, and the there are already cars that are good enough to make this law practical. Giving up on electric cars means giving up on China, India, France, etc.

        News written by English majors quoting politicians who went to law school or B-school. Not people who understand the basics of cars.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by zieroh ( 307208 )

        You can lease an electric car for $200/month, with very small fuel charges.

        Less, even. I'm paying $129/mo for a 3-year lease.

      • You can lease an electric car for $200/month, with very small fuel charges. They're not a rich man's toy unless you buy an expensive one...same as with ICE cars.

        In college my roommate bought an ICE car for $500. I sold my old car for $500 on trading up, and it likely to sold in the $1000 range once they fixed the gas leak, changed the oil, and scrubbed the cola I spilled from the carpet. $200/month may not be in the realm of a "rich man's toy" but it is still a lot more than a rust box on four wheels that gets people from point A to point B and back in relative safety and comfort. A cheap car in the $1000 range can be saved up for in 5 or 6 months instead of 5 o

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nasch ( 598556 )

          Relative safety? A $500 car is safe compared to what?

          • It's safer than a $500 motorcycle. Safer than a $500 bicycle. Safer than trying to walk to work in freezing rain, or waiting for a bus in a crime ridden neighborhood.

        • When is the last time you bought a $500 or $1000 car? People are holding onto cars a lot longer now, so these types of cars are basically junk - or they'd keep it.

          • Okay then, let's assume a $500 to $1000 is somehow unacceptable. There's a lot of $5000 to $10,000 cars out there and they are not junk. Can anyone buy an EV in that price range? One that doesn't need a new battery or some other high dollar repairs?

    • Electric cars are the perfect commuter car. Most trips are not "long trips." They are to the grocery store or to work. Electric cars can be "re fueled" at home with solar panels, which are getting cheaper by the day. They are hardly a "rich man's toy." They are the working man's salvation. And BTW, how many ties have you been without electricity in the last year? you plug the sucker in when you get home. We will all be driving the within ten years. And when the do-gooder governments prevent ICEs from being

      • But what do you do if you run yours down to 40% one day and then you find out you have to escape from a forest fire or a hurricane? Tell the emergency to wait until your car charges? Or do you not use your EV if you know an emergency is coming just so that it will be ready when you have to evacuate?

        • To be clear are you talking the kind of forest fire that you didn't know was coming and could not be escaped by driving over 100 miles? If so, man you're screwed. No ICE car will save you there.

          Also to be clear are you talking about outdriving a hurricane? Travelling at 0 km/h in a traffic jam won't help you. Also there's those facts that more people die during an evacuation than the hurricane itself. I mean the USA just got hit with an almost unprescedented storm and had a death toll of what ... 60, after

          • The point is, you still can't use the EV the day before you have to leave. Unlike gas, which you could buy a month before if you want.

            • Sure you can. In fact the chances are that when you get into your fancy EV to escape your last minute doom it will have a full charge, whereas your car could be mostly empty and if you didn't plan ahead you'll find yourself either at an empty station or in a queue for a nearly empty station.

              The odds are if you're better off with the ICE then you're also a disaster prepper (because if you're talking about buying gas a month before, they you could just out-walk your disaster scenario), in which case why are y

              • I'm not sure why you are being so snarky. It's not like it is unheard of for people to have to flea certain situations at last minute. Recently we had a forest file up here in canada and there are pictures of people fleeing in their vehicles with the fire raging behind them on the highway. These people wouldn't have had an EV charging station available to them on this highway, but they did have gas stations. People were caught unaware by gas shortages and there was an hour wait for fuel which was limite

                • I'm not sure why you are being so snarky.

                  I'm only snarky where people come up with ridiculous doomsday scenarios involving activities that don't affect the majority of a population with scenarios that never actually play out in real life (really we're not talking fleeing last minute, you can do that in your EV, you specifically added criteria to it like having a flat battery and storing your own gas months in advance), as justification for something.

                  Your justification was poor.

                  These people wouldn't have had an EV charging station available to them on this highway

                  Tell me again why they would need to flee more than 300 miles in a fore

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by zieroh ( 307208 )

      No amount of band-wagon nonsense is going to change these fundamental facts

      No amount of armchair prognostication is going to change the fact that there are lots of people out here in sunny California driving around in electric cars. Somehow, all of these people make it work, despite your dire predictions that it will never work. In fact, it already does.

      Why should I listen to anything you have to say, when I can see with my own eyes that you are dead wrong?

    • No amount of band-wagon nonsense is going to change these fundamental facts unless there's a fundamental breakthrough in technology to stockpile and transport electrons. So far, there there has been no such breakthrough.

      It reads like you have been living with your eyes shut. Feel free to make a public display and repeat your nonsensical rant in 20 years because I'd love to laugh at you in person. ;)

    • Electric cars don't work when the power goes out, ICE powered cars do.

      Gas cars don't work when the gas goes out.
      During a disaster you can make your own electricity but you can't make your own gas.
      If you get really stuck you can use gas to make electricity making this complaint of yours probably the single dumbest thing I've ever heard said about electric cars.

      Electric cars aren't practical for long trips, or for unplanned medium-length trips, ICE powered cars are.

      Electric cars are fine for both, unless your long trip includes travelling so far for so long without break that range becomes a problem. But you won't get to that point because you'll have driven your car into a tree wh

  • ...to marry a supermodel.

  • The Volt (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    To me the Volt remains the sweet spot for people in the suburbs. Most days you can get by on using little or no gasoline at all but if you need the freedom to gas up and hit the road you retain that option.

  • Set the goal to "sell 20 all-electric vehicles by 2023". You end up selling 35 per month through 2023, and you total somewhere over 2,000 sold. You crushed the goal by two orders of magnitude! Bonuses all around!

  • Dumb decision. (Score:3)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Monday October 02, 2017 @06:51PM (#55297629) Journal
    I dont own a boat right now. But I am just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire planning to buy a boat and haul it once a year to lake Tahoe from Vermont. If the truck can not make the entire round trip without refueling, it is not worth it. And no one would buy such a truck. Hence I pontificate from the lofty hills that this move is doomed to fail.

  • Electric vehicles that are charged from coal are not "green". They might be "greener" than most any ICE vehicle but it's still nibbling about the edges rather than taking a big bite of the problem. Driving an electric car might mean producing 1/4 the carbon footprint than an ICE but commuter cars are really a small part of our total carbon output.

    To make an electric car a true "zero emission vehicle" (or as close to zero as we can get) means nuclear power. Nuclear power is as "green" as wind or solar, is

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nasch ( 598556 )

      Why not biofuels? No nasty radioactive waste to deal with.

      • Why not biofuels? No nasty radioactive waste to deal with.

        Because bio-fuels don't add up.
        http://www.withouthotair.com/c... [withouthotair.com]

        I think one conclusion is clear: biofuels canâ(TM)t add up â" at least, not in
        countries like Britain, and not as a replacement for all transport fuels. Even
        leaving aside biofuelsâ(TM) main defects â" that their production competes with
        food, and that the additional inputs required for farming and processing
        often cancel out most of the delivered energy (figure 6.14) â" biofuels made
        from plants, in a European country like Britain, can deliver so little power,
        I think they are scarcely worth talking about.

        The problems of nuclear waste is not only solvable but largely already solved. Encasing the waste in glass and burying it in the ground is a completely viable solution.
        http://www.withouthotair.com/c... [withouthotair.com]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nasch ( 598556 )

          Wow, I don't think I'm going to read the 50 page paper but looks interesting. Biofuels from food crops is stupid. It sounds like he's saying biofuels from cellulose won't work either, though apparently he's talking about the UK and it might work better in the US. Researchers are looking into biofuels and lots of other stuff from algae, which might solve all the shortcomings.

          Nuclear waste is solved in theory, but nobody has found an acceptable location for permanent storage, at least not in the US. Maybe

    • Claiming electric cars don't really solve anything while nuclear does is ridiculous. Over a quarter of current emissions come from the transportation sector [epa.gov], second only to electrical generation. Electric cars bridge the gap; sure, if they're fueled primarily by coal they're not an orders of magnitude improvement, but as coal is replaced, they get cleaner without upgrades as their source of power gets cleaner. In the Pacific NW, they're way lower emission (because half the power is hydro), and across the U.

      • An electric engine becomes instantly cleaner the moment a coal plant is turned off, and anything else is turned on.

        What would that "anything else" be? There's not a whole lot of choices out there. We'd need something reliable, cheap (at a cost comparable to coal), safe, and if we agree that CO2 output is a problem then it needs to have a low CO2 output. There are only two energy sources we have today that meet those requirements, hydro and nuclear. We've already dammed up nearly every river worth a dam. That leaves nuclear. This might change in the future with some future technological development but that's what

    • commuter cars are really a small part of our total carbon output.

      Passenger transport accounts for over 20% of our CO2 output.

      Electric vehicles that are charged from coal are not "green".

      Electric vehicles are not "charged from coal". Coal is baseload and is running regardless of what is happening in the country. If the USA switches to electric cars it will put more strain on generation requiring the construction of new power plants. These are not powered by coal.

      • Passenger transport accounts for over 20% of our CO2 output.

        Let's do some math, shall we?

        Transportation is about 30% of our CO2 output, but only about 1/3rd of that is passenger cars. The rest of that is aircraft, ships at sea, and so forth that cannot run on batteries. Replacing an ICE passenger car with an electric car cuts the CO2 output to 1/4 of what it was, because the electricity we use now comes largely from coal and natural gas. So, by replacing every passenger car with an EV we take maybe 10% of the total CO2 output and turn that into 2%. I am not impr

        • You focus a lot on the efficiency of natural gas, the fact that EVs are actually coal powered, and then proceed to conclude exactly what I said: Rising EVs will increase power demand which will not be coal powered. While I'd like to see people choose nuclear as well it will be a mixture between gas and green for political reasons which will make a huge dent in our carbon numbers.

          Also you're getting different numbers than I am on the contribution of passenger vehicles, so I looked up another source and got d

          • As long as my previous post was I failed to complete my thought. If we do not burn natural gas efficiently, in combined cycle plants, then it produces as much CO2 output as coal. Mix unreliable energy like wind and solar with natural gas turbine backup and you end up with as much energy per CO2 as if you burned coal.

            Wind and solar do not reduce CO2 output per energy produced because we have no other technology to back that up than natural gas and coal. What else is there? Nuclear. Any other technology,

  • If Chevy wants to sell more Bolts? Those tards need to move some of the inventory that is clogging up all the dealers in California to rest of the !@#$% nation!

    I saw a Bolt locally at an electric car meet. Nice car! Sadly the guy had to order it from Denver and it took a while. But if you look online for any style/color/option you want? You'll find it all over California!

    Wanted the wife to look at one, and they cannot keep them in stock in the Midwest. None to be found.

    Whomever is in charge of their adverti

  • You'll have like half a mile of charge on an electric Hummer.

  • The announcement is simply a means to satisfy potentially stricter EPA rules and for PR. So far most manufacturers build ugly or grossly overpriced EVs to satisfy the emissions rules that are applied across all offered models. Add a bunch of EVs designed not to sell and keep cranking out the gas guzzling trucks and SUVs.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close