Will GM's Bet on Battery Tech Jumpstart the Transition to Electric Cars? 150
Whether General Motors survives "depends in part on whether its bets on battery technology pay off," writes the Wall Street Journal.
At $33,600 the company's Chevy Equinox is one of the cheapest EVs in America (only $5,000 more than the gas-powered model). "But it also recently announced a novel type of battery that promises to be significantly cheaper, while still providing long range, due to be rolled out in 2028..." Like many of its competitors, GM has made huge investments in EV battery factories, and in production lines for the vehicles themselves, and it faces challenges in generating a return on investment in the short term... In the long run, however, GM's focus on creating a North American supply chain for batteries could prove savvy, says David Whiston, U.S. auto equities analyst at Morningstar. The company is investing $625 million to mine lithium in Nevada. It is working on sourcing every material and every part in its batteries domestically, down to the copper and aluminum foils that go into its cells, says [battery and sustainability lead Kurt] Kelty...
GM recently unveiled a new type of battery the company has been working on for a decade called lithium manganese-rich batteries, or LMR. These batteries combine the low cost of LFP batteries with the longer range of conventional, expensive lithium-ion batteries. What makes LMR batteries more affordable is that they use far less nickel, cobalt and other minerals that have become increasingly expensive. Instead, they use more manganese, a common element... The company's next initiative, says Kelty, is to further drive down the cost of its batteries by putting more of another common element, silicon, into them.
"If GM can continue to grow demand for its EVs, in a few years the rollout of its latest tech could give it a price and performance advantage..." the article points out. While the EV transition is happening more slowly than projected in the U.S., GM hiring Kelty is a bet that the country's current EV struggles are temporary, and that technologists like Kelty will help GM get past them. "When we reach cost parity with [internal combustion engine] vehicles, I think that's one big milestone," says Kelty. "When you get there, then you're really going to see the transition happen very quickly — and we're not that far away from it."
At $33,600 the company's Chevy Equinox is one of the cheapest EVs in America (only $5,000 more than the gas-powered model). "But it also recently announced a novel type of battery that promises to be significantly cheaper, while still providing long range, due to be rolled out in 2028..." Like many of its competitors, GM has made huge investments in EV battery factories, and in production lines for the vehicles themselves, and it faces challenges in generating a return on investment in the short term... In the long run, however, GM's focus on creating a North American supply chain for batteries could prove savvy, says David Whiston, U.S. auto equities analyst at Morningstar. The company is investing $625 million to mine lithium in Nevada. It is working on sourcing every material and every part in its batteries domestically, down to the copper and aluminum foils that go into its cells, says [battery and sustainability lead Kurt] Kelty...
GM recently unveiled a new type of battery the company has been working on for a decade called lithium manganese-rich batteries, or LMR. These batteries combine the low cost of LFP batteries with the longer range of conventional, expensive lithium-ion batteries. What makes LMR batteries more affordable is that they use far less nickel, cobalt and other minerals that have become increasingly expensive. Instead, they use more manganese, a common element... The company's next initiative, says Kelty, is to further drive down the cost of its batteries by putting more of another common element, silicon, into them.
"If GM can continue to grow demand for its EVs, in a few years the rollout of its latest tech could give it a price and performance advantage..." the article points out. While the EV transition is happening more slowly than projected in the U.S., GM hiring Kelty is a bet that the country's current EV struggles are temporary, and that technologists like Kelty will help GM get past them. "When we reach cost parity with [internal combustion engine] vehicles, I think that's one big milestone," says Kelty. "When you get there, then you're really going to see the transition happen very quickly — and we're not that far away from it."
The real issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue is infrastructure. people who live in apartments canâ(TM)t charge their cars and there arenâ(TM)t enough charging stations at work for people to plug in there.
people donâ(TM)t have time to wait 30 minutes or an hour to charge their car. They just plain donâ(TM)t. unless there was charging at grocery stores or something, which there also isnâ(TM)t!
Add to this the fact that about half the United States lives in a place that has really cold weather in winter and loses mileage. Battery heaters be damned.
The people who try and hand wave away these issues in the comments are living in an ivory tower. They have no idea what the average American is struggling through. there is no transition to EVS without enormous infrastructure investment in America, and since that obviously wonâ(TM)t be happening anytime in the next four years, I guarantee you that these EV investments from car companies are going to be a bust.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you live in an area with seriously cold weather people will we using engine block heaters on their ICE vehicles anyhow. So there’s your outlets.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes I've often thought that EVs should come with cords like block heater cords on ICE vehicles in cold climates, solely to keep the battery system warm, not to charge the batteries. There's nothing worse for EV range than cold batteries. In cold climates like Edmonton, this would make EVs the ideal commute to work vehicle for many people.
Re: (Score:2)
The average driving commute in Edmonton is about 6.8km and 24 minutes. Even an original Leaf could handle that!
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that a Leaf can’t travel 7km in the cold, you could probably win some kind of prize for that level of stupidity
Re:The real issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Best I can figure, digging through some National Household Travel Survey [ornl.gov] data, something like 20% of vehicles are owned by people who rent their homes. Unfortunately it's not straightforward to tease out apartment owners vs. home/condo renters but I feel it's safe to say that people who live in apartments make up less than 1/5th of all vehicle owners. This kinda makes sense since if you live in a city you 1) Have little to no space to store a personal vehicle, and 2) have easier access to work and commerce through mass transit or even walking.
EV owning as an apartment renter is definitely a hurdle, and much can be done to improve the situation, and we shouldn't ignore the problem. And it's a problem that is actively being worked on.
But to imply it's a major problem for mass EV adoption is stupid when we can have something like 80% when it's currently about 8%. Anyone seriously making this argument is either brainwashed by some dipshit podcaster/blogger or just looking for an excuse to pooh-pooh change.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
>"I feel it's safe to say that people who live in apartments make up less than 1/5th of all vehicle owners."
I think that estimate is too low, especially since condos are also often affected and also houses with no off-street parking.
So it is very much off if you limit it to urban residents. Way more than half probably live in a location where they cannot charge "at home" for whatever the reason might be.
Re: (Score:2)
> I think that estimate is too low, especially since condos are also often affected and also houses with no off-street parking.
The 20% already includes condos (and rented homes). I even said as much. So the number of apartment dwellers (that OP is explicitly talking about) is necessarily fewer than 20%.
> Way more than half probably live in a location where they cannot charge "at home"
I further think it's fair to say that not all those who live in rented houses or condos are unable to charge at home, s
Re: (Score:3)
So it is very much off if you limit it to urban residents. Way more than half probably live in a location where they cannot charge "at home" for whatever the reason might be.
You are quite possibly correct.
83.3% of the U.S. lives in urban areas, so if 20% of the country can't charge at home, then if you assume 100% of the 16.7% can, at most 20/83.3 or 24% of urban dwellers who own EVs can't charge at home.
But this isn't a complete picture. Those numbers come from a survey of existing EV drivers, and don't include any of the people who bought non-EVs.
If we use California as a benchmark, where roughly 25% of people bought EVs, and if we assume that EV buying percentages are simil
Re: (Score:2)
But to imply it's a major problem for mass EV adoption is stupid when we can have something like 80% when it's currently about 8%. Anyone seriously making this argument is either brainwashed by some dipshit podcaster/blogger or just looking for an excuse to pooh-pooh change.
=Smidge=
It depends on what mass adoption means. If it means increasing EVs to 80% of all vehicles, that's perhaps doable. If it means 100%, that's likely problematic. The real problem is if gas cars are no longer available, the remaining 20% have a real transportation problem since mass transit is a poor solution for most Americans.
Re:The real issue (Score:4, Insightful)
If it means increasing EVs to 80% of all vehicles, that's perhaps doable. If it means 100%, that's likely problematic.
I don't see 100% adoption of EVs as a goal in itself. For me, EVs are one of the mechanisms for reducing pollution and helping the environment. From this point of view it would be great if we manage to get to 80% EV adoption. Heck, even 50% would be excellent, so I wouldn't be bothered at all if we can't get to 100%.
The real problem is if gas cars are no longer available, the remaining 20% have a real transportation problem since mass transit is a poor solution for most Americans.
Note that there is a feedback mechanism at play. As ICE vehicles become more scarce, their support infrastructure (oil extraction, refineries, gas stations, but also skilled mechanics, spare parts etc) will also dwindle, making ICE ownership more painful. At the same time, with more and more EVs, it will become profitable for businesses to address the related friction points (for example, building more charging stations). As the EV support infrastructure grows, owning an EV will become easier than owning an ICE in more and more places. People who don't care about environmental effect or other similar ideological reasons will end up choosing an EV simply for convenience.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see 100% adoption of EVs as a goal in itself.
You weren't one of the California legislators who voted to ban the sale of gasoline cars by 2035.
But there were plenty who were. They really believe that will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
> You weren't one of the California legislators who voted to ban the sale of gasoline cars by 2035
The legislation is to stop the sale of new gasoline powered cars. That is not the same thing as aiming for 100% EV adoption.
I hope you don't need this nuance explained to you.
=Smidge=
Re:The real issue (Score:4, Interesting)
Noone is talking about 100% conversion of the US auto fleet to EVs in the near future. Norway has been above 90% EV market share for new car sales for a few years now, and it’s only just passed 50% share for the whole fleet, because people (obviously) keep cars for many years, with a thriving second hard market. So we really don’t need to worry about the journey from 80% to 100% of the whole fleet in the US for at least a decade, more likely three. At which point, you could reasonably expect many of the problems we worry about today to be non-issues, as range increases and charge time decreases continue.
Re: The real issue (Score:3)
Banning sales of new ICE vehicles and converting the existing fleet are two different things.
Re: (Score:3)
A
Re: (Score:2)
Are you not embarrassed to have replied so stupidly?
I literally pointed out the difference between new sales and conversion of the whole fleet, and you replied by focusing on new sales and let the point about the conversion of the entire fleet float straight over your head
Re: (Score:2)
You wanna suck my what? You pervert.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't need to point out that you're homophobic and shit at making jokes, it was reasonable to infer this from the nature of your previous post.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of single family or town houses in dense urban areas that have limited or no off-street parking. Another issue is your electrical service. Older houses often have only 100A electrical service. Adding even a 30A charging circuit might not be possible without an expensive electrical service upgrade. And that's if you can get one. The utility can deny a service upgrade request if the service in your area is already near capacity. I'm very pro EV. I own one myself, and I think there are plenty
Re: (Score:3)
In the worst case, there are workarounds for that, like smart clothes dryer circuit splitters.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no workaround for the lack of generating capacity, and there's no workaround for lack of available power in a neighborhood. Because you're not talking about wiring one house for a charger, you're talking about wiring all of them. In an apartment complex with 200 units, they'd need about 1 1/2 megawatts coming in, in addition to current service. Single family neighborhoods aren't as bad, but there are a lot of them.
And bringing in those circuits means tearing up streets for months, at millions of dol
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that the only way to solve the climate crisis is to use ICE engines with genuinely carbon-neutral fuels.
That's going to be about $20/gallon.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that the only way to solve the climate crisis is to use ICE engines with genuinely carbon-neutral fuels.
That's going to be about $20/gallon.
We are already at or near the point at which biodiesel from algae need not be more expensive than petrodiesel [archive.org] even using very low technology. You can already buy "green diesel" for under $6/gallon, though it's not available in very many locations. Because it's basically normal diesel but made from bio sources, it doesn't have the drawbacks of biodiesel. You can mix 2-5% biodiesel into it in order to get the desired lubricity without causing any problems, as well.
After separating the lipids for making diesel
Re: (Score:2)
Only in your diseased imagination. I said we aren't going to be able to replace IC vehicles with electric in less than several generations. That's pretty much all I said. Anything else you say, you made up.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at your own post. You didn't say anything about "generations" at all.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I'd love to replace my 15l diesel semi tractors with electric, it's just not going to be practical for a long time. So, yes, carbon-neutral fuels are the only viable option for many applications where large, diesel engines are used (agriculture, construction, long-haul transport). And if carbon-neutral chemical fuels were more cost-effective, it would solve the problem without requiring a massive shift in infrastructure. As cool as BEVs were, choosing them as the winners over carbon-neutral fu
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in the US it will be a long time, due to policies and incentives, but it's already starting to happen in Europe
https://www.google.com/maps/d/... [google.com]
This guy has an electric semi, and has just done a 3000 mile trip across Europe. This rig isn't yet up to US long distance hauling, but for short and medium haul, it's good enough, and that's about 60% of all US trucking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Then those people need to learn how to ride a bicycle, or use public chargers.
The average commute in southern California is about 20 miles. Good luck with that. (Aside form people who are not physically capable of it.)
Public chargers are everywhere,
The grocery store across the street from me has, I believe 2. On an average day, at any given time, they have 50-100 cars in their parking lot. That they have chargers at all is unusual.
Good luck with that, too.
it isn't like those are in any danger of being all used at the same time. Don't like it, move to an apartment that has chargers, vote with your feet.
Translation: "Fuck poor people, they should - literally - go die somewhere else so I don't have to look at them."
Typical, and I mean that literally, of the left.
Re: (Score:2)
I always wonder if people genuinely think that when America was first colonized, the Mayflower people got off the boat, said 'wow, there's gas pumps, like, EVERYWHERE, I wonder what they're for.'
Every argument against EVs that have to do with 'infrastructure' was also an argument against gas cars. "Wait, you're saying that where I can just let my horse eat some goddamn grass, in order to run this 'automobile,' we need to pump oil out of the ground, ship it to a refinery, refine it, ship it to a local gas st
Re: (Score:2)
My cousin just went all electric and his house is a 100A panel. His two car chargers are smart enough to measure the total panel electrical draw and throttle themselves accordingly. Fortunately at night, electrical draw in the house is quite low most of the time, so charging proceeds at near maximum rates. If the AC, close drier, and induction cooktop are all running, the car chargers throttle way back.
Re: (Score:2)
You can very happily run an EV charger on a 100a service; just don't run the charger, the electric stove, the electric dryer, and the air conditioner all at the same time.
Either set your charger to only run after hours when everybody is asleep anyway, and you'll still be full in the morning, or keep track of what other appliances you're running.
Or get one of the chargers that can measure total load, and throttle itself accordingly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Best I can figure, digging through some National Household Travel Survey [ornl.gov] data, something like 20% of vehicles are owned by people who rent their homes.
It's over 40% in California, with one of the highest electricity prices in the US, and where most rentals are apartments or condos (which also don't have places to install chargers). And without California, EVs will never take over from IC. Ever.
and 2) have easier access to work and commerce through mass transit or even walking.
Mass transit? In the US? Dude, that's some excellent dope you're smoking. Especially in areas where cars are currently the most common. People own cars because they can't use mass transit or walk to work.
EV owning as an apartment renter is definitely a hurdle,
I live
Re:The real issue (Score:4, Informative)
I worked on a large open parking structure with 2% of the spaces having level 2 chargers and the electrical infrastructure to add chargers to another 18% of the spaces - including the up-sizing of the service to the building, the switchgear, transformers, conduit, and wiring. It came out to about $6,000 per parking space with a current or future charger. Note that this price included all the electrical upgrades to "tear up the streets for miles" as well as miles of wires within the parking structure. You didn't describe the particular layout of the complex, but if it is a low rise with dedicated parking near each unit, you might get away with tapping into each unit's electrical and not need a dedicated new service.
$6,000 per unit does give the same high cost impression as saying "at least a million dollars."
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, in a built up area like this, there's no way in hell you're going to bring an additional multi-megawatt circuit in without tearing up the streets for months (or longer, sometimes such projects turn into years) for less than millions per mile, not even taking into account the legal fees when the lawsuits fly.
And second, the cost per unit is fuckall irrelevant. 200 chargers at $6,000 each is, in fact, $1.2 million. So play whatever stupid math games get you off, it's still not going to happen wi
Re: (Score:3)
You don't actually need multi-megawatt circuitry, though, especially for the scale the parent poster was talking about. Charging stations with built-in batteries are changing the calculus. Chargers in this sort of situation (say a large parking lot of a store) aren't being used all the time, so they can charge up internally over many hours at low amperage (30kw say), and then fast charge a car occasionally. All without over-stressing the local grid connection, or requiring a large feed. It's one more pi
Re: (Score:2)
> there's no way in hell you're going to bring an additional multi-megawatt circuit
It's a parking garage, right? 200 parking spaces? Which is crazy huge BTW but whatever.
*whips out calculator*
That's about 750kW I reckon. You can probably get by with significantly less with some smart management, staggering/prioritizing chargers. Far from the "multi megawatt" power you're claiming. Turns out L2 ain't shit in terms of power.
Of course you'd probably not install a charger in every single spot either because
Re: (Score:2)
Whether he understands or not, he definitely doesn't want to engage with the fleet conversion point.
On your other point, we had this confected outrage when streetlamp chargers started being introduced in the UK -- "there's 100 houses on this street and only 30 streetlamps!". ignoring the fact that most people will be charging their car once every 10 days or so, so one charger could easily serve five cars, and probably 10.
Re: (Score:3)
> It's over 40% in California
Okay. So what I'm hearing is we can go from the ~8% national average today to at least 40%.
> with one of the highest electricity prices in the US
Irrelevant, but okay.
> and where most rentals are apartments or condos (which also don't have places to install chargers)
[Citation Needed]
> Mass transit? In the US? Dude, that's some excellent dope you're smoking.
It does exist, y'know. The US ranks #11 globally for passenger-miles traveled by train for example.
> And that
Re: (Score:2)
The US ranks #11 globally for passenger-miles traveled by train
Now try passenger-miles travelled by train per head of population. Taking the 25-country list you're presumably using [wikipedia.org] and dividing miles per year by population has Japan first with 3285 and the US third-last at 131. The average is 975. The list only includes countries with at least 5 billion passenger kilometres per year; there will be many others with fewer miles but which are far ahead of the US on a per-capita basis due to their small populations.
Re:The real issue - is buyers (Score:3)
Most people buy used cars so "adoption" really means adoption by people who buy new cars. I think price compared to a new ICE car is really the issue. Once AEV's are as cheap or cheaper than a comparable ICE vehicle sales will explode. I think GM is smart to focus on the real issue - cost.
I don't think infrastructure matters much. The fact that some people live in apartments that lack charging facilities will be solved when buying a used car requires having a way to charge it. Because people who need a car
Re: (Score:2)
keep the EV mandates
No, we need to stop incentivizing the purchase of new EV's and start disincentivizing the purchase of new ICE vehicles, especially those that use a lot of gas. Add an additional registration charge for every gallon used per $100 miles. And provide a refund when it is junked, so low mileage cars are worth more as junk than people are willing to pay for them.
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right that EVs are some way from price parity for large SUVs and trucks, and that those are popular in the US. But I was surprised to learn that only six of the top 25 light vehicles in 2025 were trucks. Another 13 were SUVs and crossovers, mainly large. The final six were all sedans. I'd say we're pretty close to price parity for sedans, not that far off for smaller SUVs, some way off for larger SUVs and not there yet for trucks. I don't know if price parity will now happen, because the g
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with some of that and disagree with other parts, but I was responding specifically to your point about pricing, which you described as “the issue”, ie implying that all the points you raise in your second post, which aren’t about pricing, are *not* the issue.
On a couple of the points in your second post:
- ICE cars have *less* potential redundancy at home than EVs, not more. EV + solar = the ability to charge indefinitely, and you can’t do that with ICE, even if you take the (
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
While there's no question that charging at home is definitely a big benefit most of the problems you identify have been largely resolved in the last few years. The modern superchargers will add 200+ miles to the car in under 5 minutes, so you're in the same time frame as a gas-stop.
I also believe that superchargers are the only viable solution to a 100% EV solution for the future. However, we're not there yet. The fastest Tesla Superchargers only do 325kW, so in 5 minutes, that's 27 kWh, which at 4 miles/kWh is around 100 miles. The Chinese car makers are claiming far higher power delivery, but we don't have that in the US so far.
Remember also that these fast charges are only 80% of total battery capacity. So, the true range of all affected cars would be cut by 20%.
Re: (Score:2)
The 80% rule is valid, but for a realistic trip, you're
Re:The real issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Those concerns are all slowly being addressed and in time will become an even bigger joke than they are today. BEVs won't work for all people in all places today. Much like a compact sedan won't fit the needs for all people in all places.
My old condo was going to need $20k to install two common-use chargers 5 years ago, and the prospect died on the vine when I moved out. Three years later they installed (IIRC) 12 stations for residents that were interested for about the same $20k. I think they have done another round of installations now and have 17-20 installed. This was a median priced condo in an expensive city, so cost was an issue. It would be nice if the cost were a bit lower, but it is not out of the realm of reason.
Apartment buildings with just surface lots can be more work to have dedicated chargers, but if there is a need they will be installed. Public chargers are also becoming more prevalent, although most non-BEV drivers aren't really aware of them.
Re: (Score:2)
>"there aren't enough charging stations at work for people to plug in there."
And it isn't even that there aren't enough. Many are crap. I wanted to know if the general negativity I was hearing was true. So I went to inspect the closest rapid charging station to me, it was "EV Go" at a WaWa. I did this YESTERDAY...
They have only two slots. Both were empty. Both had CSS and also ancient CHAdeMO cables. The first one I looked at said "CSS not available", even though the connector looked fine to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Economics has shown time and again that when there's demand, the supply with catch up. My region of the US has a high EV adoption rate, level 2 (around 30 miles of charge/hour) and level 3 (DC fast charge) are quite common. Many larger companies have installed charge stations for their employees and more and more shopping centers have them as well.
If GM (or some other OEM) has a battery breakthrough in the next couple of years, ad
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, my local norcal safeway has numerous tesla charging stations, some of which are actually sometimes occupied. Of course, my local safeway also offers free online ordering and "curbside" pickup, so it only takes 5 minutes at most to do your grocery shopping, never leaving your car.
I just wonder who has $600 a month (Score:2, Troll)
There's a reason why if you go to the carvana car loan calculator it defaults to $20,000. That's what most people can afford. Barely.
I'm not sure how things are going to play out. By the look of things we've got about 10 or 15 trillion dollars it's going to exit the economy in the next 4 years and it's never coming back. I'm not sure how we are going to be able
Re: (Score:2)
Blue Kool-Aid and red Kool-Aid both taste like almonds. [wikipedia.org].
Both parties (which both have billionaires at the highest levels) have spent the last century creating the world we live in. Pretending otherwise makes you part of the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Both sides! Name one illegal immigrant billionaire actively running the government under a democrat.
Well there was Obama, he was born in Kenya...
Just kidding, but hey, there are real ways in which the Democrats have willfully contributed to getting us to where we are now. The largely overplayed Fairness Doctrine did little to nothing to keep the news honest, there were simple ways around it like just not covering certain stories. But the restriction on not being able to own multiple media outlets in a given market was wiped away by the TCA, signed into law by Bubba. It's responsible for much of the succes
I love this line of reasoning (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that I'm a big fan of Bill the Clinton but that shit started under Reagan and yeah he signed the bill after Congress had enough votes to override his veto.
The problem with the Democrats is they are representatives. So if you convince the public to do something boneheaded and stupid the Democrats will just go along with it because they're Representatives not leaders.
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats didn't stop the Republicans from doing all the evil things that the Republicans did so the Democrats are at fault...
The Democrats didn't bother to try to stop the Republicans from doing things they wanted, so they are complicit. The sentence looks a lot different when you write it from a vantage point outside denial.
Thank you for proving my point (Score:2)
You are in a hostage situation. The Republican party is threat to shoot you dead. The Democrats are negotiating with the hostage takers because in the real world where you don't have action heroes to bust in and save us you actually do negotiate with terrorists to save hostages.
Problem you'r
Re: (Score:2)
Harris would have had to get 5 of those 7 million people, over 70% of the vote. A margin achieved by either candidate only in the District of Columbia. Trump got 3 million more votes than he got in 2020 and Harris got 6 million fewer votes than Biden got. The idea Trump won because of voter suppression is wishful thinking.
Its time to stop talking about Trump and start talking about the future. What kind of country do we want and how can we get there. Have we learned nothing from whining about Trump for the
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway you don't understand American politics. Harris would have more than likely gotten 90% of those 7 million because voter suppression targets Democrat voters. That's the entire point of photo suppression.
Never mind the fact that voted suppression is targeted in swing States and it's the swing stays to the side everything.
You also don't understand how close the election was. Trump won 49.8% of the vote. He barely ee
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway you don't understand American politics
No, you don't understand American politics. There is no way to "target" 90% Harris voters.
Never mind the fact that voted suppression is targeted in swing States and it's the swing stays to the side everything. You also don't understand how close the election was. Trump won 49.8% of the vote. He barely eeked out of victory.
First you note that elections are determined by winning states and then you talk about how close the popular vote was. As I pointed out, Harris would have had to get over 70% of your 7 million estimated suppressed votes to win the popular vote. And yes, if those votes had been split properly between Michigan AND Wisconsin AND Pennsylvania that may have altered the outcome by giving Harris enough electoral votes. But i
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is wrong with you?
Re: (Score:2)
Bitter almonds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your entire post reads like it was ghostwritten by a fossil fuel lobbyist who got laid off in 2015 and has been angrily forwarding himself outdated policy memos ever since. Every argument here is a stale rerun of industry spin—completely out of sync with the current state of EV tech, infrastructure rollout, and market momentum. It’s like someone trying to win a debate about streaming by citing Blockbuster’s 2003 annual report—the same year they laughed Netflix out of the room.
“The real issue is infrastructure.”
Oh good
Re:The real issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks for the colorful profanity—it’s nice to know someone can mine lithium and salt in the same post. Now let’s unpack your tirade, one delusion at a time:
“Where the fuck is that power going to come from if the power plants aren't being built?”
Oh no, not enough power plants! Tell me you haven’t read a grid forecast since 2006 without telling me. First, EVs don’t crash the grid; they flatten demand curves. They charge mostly overnight—when grid utilization is lowest, not during peak. Second, utility-scale renewables and battery storage are being built faster than you can say "load profile." Third, EV adoption is staggered—not everyone plugs in tomorrow. It’s not a light switch, it’s a ramp. Unless you’re secretly working for ERCOT, you might want to calm down and let the grown-ups manage capacity planning.
“Curbside charging? Have you ever met a fucking meth addict before? That station will be GONE.”
Ah yes, the classic Meth Zombie Apocalypse scenario—where infrastructure is too fragile to exist because some guy might steal a cable. You realize streetlights, parking meters, fiber hubs, and traffic cams all exist on public curbs, right? We don’t abandon public works because of hypothetical tweakers. We secure them. And just FYI, EV chargers are already hardened against vandalism in urban trials. Try again.
“Not a single one of those in my area has chargers... This is Southern California.”
And somehow you think your neighborhood represents a nation of 330 million people? Newsflash: data exists beyond your driveway. California has over 100,000 public EV chargers as of 2024. If your specific store hasn’t caught up yet, that’s not proof the system’s failing—it’s proof it’s still scaling. Come back when you’ve zoomed out.
“Baseload generation is not being built... except for AI bullshit.”
Baseload generation is a legacy framing. What modern grids need is dispatchable, flexible, distributed capacity—and guess what? That includes demand response, batteries, and smart charging infrastructure. You’re clinging to a grid model from the Hoover Dam era while calling everyone else outdated. Hilarious.
Also: renewables are outbuilding fossil fuels globally by orders of magnitude. If you think the only thing getting power is “AI bullshit,” maybe stop reading LinkedIn headlines and start reading grid interconnection queues.
“I’ve been to those ground breakings. Nothing's happened afterwards.”
Congrats—you went to a photo op. That doesn’t mean nothing’s happening. Site prep takes time. Regulatory permitting takes time. Civil engineering takes time. But you’re acting like a year-long lead time means the project is vaporware. I hate to break it to you, but the rest of the world doesn’t move at Reddit refresh speed.
“Brightline West is a failure in the making.”
Based on... what? Your opinion while stuck in traffic on the 15? It’s a public-private rail project. Those always have delays and growing pains. Just like the original interstate highway system, which everyone whined about until they realized it worked. Dismissing every new project because it’s imperfect is like quitting a marathon at mile 2 because your feet hurt.
“Toyota is backing away from EVs. You should listen.”
Toyota is late to the game and trying to save face. They actively lobbied against EV mandates, doubled down on hybrids, and now they’re scrambling to catch up because even their investors are pissed. Quoting Toyota’s caution as proof of industry wisdom is like quoting Blackberry’s 2011 earnings call as
Re: (Score:2)
But what you’ve posted here isn’t critique—it’s bitterness marinated in anecdote, wrapped in ego, and served up as policy.
We won't be seeing that sort of writing coming out of an AI anytime soon :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The real issue (Score:5, Informative)
The people who try and hand wave away these issues in the comments are living in an ivory tower.
Correcting the record != handwaving.
1. I have an EV with several generation old charging tech, and I've never waited 30min to charge on a fast charger. Even that car is done in under 20, to say nothing of the actual state of the art today.
2. No where near half of the the USA live in an area cold enough for EVs to be a problem. A small portion do, that's for sure, but EVs do perfectly fine in freezing weather. Sure when it drops below freezing mine puts a little ice symbol on the dash to tell me battery range *might* be reduced, but in practice the effect is about 10%. You have to be in brutally cold weather for this to have any effect on you at all, and in a car that you get in every morning with a full battery (much of America does *not* live in an apartment) it doesn't matter if even 50% of your battery charge is lost (which it isn't even in the coldest of weather).
They have no idea what the average American is struggling through.
We know what the average American is struggling through. A deluge of uninformed bullshit. We can see it.
anytime in the next four years, I guarantee you that these EV investments from car companies are going to be a bust.
Car companies don't invest in designs for the coming 4 years, they barely have time to get a model facelift done in that period. Investment in underlying platform is a 10+ year plan.
Re: (Score:2)
people who live in apartments canâ(TM)t charge their cars
So don't buy an electric car if you're in an apartment that doesn't have chargers?
Americans have been poo poo'ing EVs since day one with rationalization after rationalization, and the result is that China is RAPIDLY taking over the automotive world.
Houses are the bigger issue (Score:2)
The result would be installing/maintaining multiple chargers, all over the driveways. Another coworker already had me repair his EV charger wire after he hit
Re: (Score:2)
You don’t need to charge every car, every night! A charge lasts 10 to 14 days for typical commutes and the average range for a new EV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could just get a longer cable...
I don't really understand the point about the rain. It takes under 30 seconds for me to unwind the cable and plug it in. I have to be in the rain to get in the car anyway
Re: (Score:3)
The real issue is infrastructure. people who live in apartments canâ(TM)t charge their cars
Location, location, location. Where I live many of the larger apartment complexes have chargers available. They are more likely L2 EVSEs, than fast DC chargers, but if you are home for the evening, they can do the job.
and there arenâ(TM)t enough charging stations at work for people to plug in there.
It again depends (and it is a chicken/egg problem). Many local companies installed chargers before there was a higher demand, and many employees bought EVs, and now the company has to install new chargers (which takes time). I often walk past companies where there
Re: (Score:2)
I get it, with the rise of ADHD they might not be able to think 30 minutes ahead.
Life in an apartment has always been one of sacrifices. Welcome to apartment life.
Those of use with an actual house have the space to charge their EV. Many homes even have an attached garage so needing to heat the battery in winter is a non-issue most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the eternal struggle: how can the average American possibly survive in a world where their car doesn't magically refill in 3 seconds while they throw a Big Gulp in the trash?
Let’s unpack the apocalypse. No one can charge at home? Except for the 70% of U.S. households that can. No charging at work? Odd, because major employers and parking structures have been installing them for years, but I guess you only park at 7-Eleven. And no charging at grocery stores? I must’ve hallucinated the 15
Re: (Score:2)
First, we don't need chargers. An L1 charger can do a lot - if you park at your apartment say, 10 hours a day, an EV will g
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's a problem in the USA, given how you seem determined not to import Chinese technology. But the rest of us are able to buy Chinese cars that charge in 5 minutes [arstechnica.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian EV owner here. I drive around 60km to work each way. 99% of my charging is done at home (no charging at work). Whether it's 30C+ or -25C outside, I've never had any problems in the 4 years I've owned an EV.
I've driven to Connecticut in the EV with zero problems. Yes, I had to make stops to charge along the way but the GPS figures all that out and I kinda want to take a 30 min break after driving 4 or 5 hours, even though FSD makes it so much easier. Some people might
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I notice you make no attempt whatsoever to refute any of his claims.
And you never will.
(One of them has some pretty compelling evidence that it's . . . not the issue he claims, but I'll leave it you to fail to figure out which.)
In before ... (Score:2)
I'm sure the introduction of the automobile was much the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's my two big reasons, neither of which you list.
Re: (Score:2)
There is one nice thing about EVs. They are damn quick. They can be fast, but the quickness is nice, and in urban areas, you don't need top end. You need quick, to get on the highway, to get around obstacles, to go from 60-0 when someone tries a "crash for cash" on you, or gets in a lane ahead, panics because cars ahead are stopping, etc. They drive very smoothly, and the fact they are so quiet is a blessing. They are not for everyone, but they are "good enough" for many people.
Another thing is that so
Re: (Score:2)
"Jumpstart"? (Score:2)
The EV1 GM? (Score:3)
That had a perfectly fine electric vehicle 30 years ago and shit canned it and crushed them?
Fuck em
Re:The EV1 GM? (Score:4, Insightful)
That had a perfectly fine electric vehicle 30 years ago and shit canned it and crushed them?
The EV1 was all bespoke, expensive to build, unprofitable to sell. It was a test project to see if the tech was viable against gassers yet, and it wasn't.
Re: (Score:3)
And then they bought the patent holder of NiMH* battery technology and essentially killed off [wikipedia.org] the production of vehicle sized batteries.
Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. GM can just die in a fire.
*At the time, the front runner for EV use. Only later to be supplanted by Lithium chemistries.
Re: (Score:2)
That had a perfectly fine electric vehicle 30 years ago and shit canned it and crushed them?
"Perfectly fine". You heard it here first boys. It was perfectly fine. Your EV range only needs to be 70miles and full of lead. That is perfectly fine even when it costs far more than the media car of the day. Forget the fact that GM made a $50k loss on each car made. It was "perfectly fine". I mean sure TopGear didn't feature the car, but The Fin Review did calling it "economically infeasible". Truly a work of perfection.
Calling the car that literally started the concept of range anxiety "perfectly fine" i
Don't forget the Chevy Volt... (Score:3)
The Volt was something that addressed the range anxiety issue in a decent manner, with a usable range extender. Charge it, take it to a gas station and fill it up... who cares. One could just use it as a regular car if one didn't have a dedicated charger, or an EV with one. Best of all worlds.
GM killed it.
The only thing similar are bespoke Edison retrofits and the RAMCharger, which isn't even in production yet (and weighs ~7500 pounds.) It would be nice to see more serial hybrids.
Probably the best solut
GM is toast (Score:2)
They will survive a short bit longer than Stellantis, but after that - it will be a quick death. The number of mistakes the leadership under Barra has made are too plentiful to name, but the most idiotic one by far has to be the removal of CarPlay/Android Auto.
I have to laugh .. (Score:2)
Everytime I read about how GM is now trying to jump on the EV car market after they and the oil companies spent so much money and effort in the mid 1990's to kill the electric car.
GM had an electic car sure it only had a range of 80-175 miles with batteries available at the time but given that there was a demand for it and for most drivers even 40-60miles a charge would be enough.
Add to that that Li-ion batteries were just becoming available, those got waylaid by the oil/car companies too, GM could have be
Re: I have to laugh .. (Score:2)
Yes, GM killed the EV1. I saw the documentary in the theater. I also looked at it in the year 2000. It was a crappy 2 seater you could only lease, not buy. Its MSRP was $43k, for purpose of computing the lease. I bought a 2001 Prius for $20k as my first car instead.
Toyota has been left behind GM in the BEV market, though, at least in the US.
I still drive my 2015 Volt PHEV. My husband drives his 2017 Bolt EV. These are good cars.
6 weeks ago, my Volt recently insisted on burning the entire content of the gas
Walls or Speed Bumps (Score:2)
There are two sets of arguments here. People who claim, or apparently want to claim, there are no real barriers to EV adoption. And people who seem to believe every speed bump is a wall.
Frankly, the biggest barrier/ speed bump to EV adoption is people buying new ICE cars. They are all going to be driven until they are junked, no matter how many EV's are bought. Every new EV just adds another vehicle to the road along with its associated emissions. How quickly EV's are adopted depends on new car buyers, peo
Hybrids are the sweet spot for the next decade (Score:2)
Gas and Diesel isn't going anywhere - it's still the cheapest, highest energy density source of power for a vehicle and has enormous infrastructure in place to support it.
Hybrids take advantage of this infrastructure by capturing otherwise wasted energy, like braking, traveling downhill, or idling in traffic to expand the efficiency of ICE engines while asking for zero behavioral changes from the consumer.
Live in an apt or don't have easy access to charging stations? Local infrastructure can't handle the l
GM Should Make Their Own Batteries (Score:2)
Are electric cars the future, I think the E
Re:Betteridge's law of headlines? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are the specific metrics you are referring to when talking about diminishing returns for battery advances, and what source can you point to that demonstrates that this is more than a little fantasy burbling around in your head?
Because:
- In 2015, I got my first EV with a range of 90 miles (Renault Zoe)
- In 2018, I replaced it with a new Zoe, with a range of 186 miles
- In 2020, I replaced it with the third gen Zoe, with a range of 245 miles
- The price of those cars was constant, adjusting for inflation
- And in 2024, I went upmarket and bought an EQA with a range of 330 miles
So it ain’t range. Charging speeds continue to increase substantially, so it can’t be that. And cost per kWh continues to drop substantially, so it can’t be that. So what is it, exactly?
(Also, range is not affected by ageing anywhere near as much as people make out. Likely to be at 80% after 1000 cycles. For my EQA, that means it will be more than 300,000 miles before its range drops to 260 miles. That’s a helluva long time in its future.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you understand what “diminishing returns” actually means as a phrase? It means you would have to show that the yoy advances for a particular metric for batteries have been falling consistently over time. Which metric do you have in mind?