GM Spokesperson admits energy to charge cars comes from coal

[FishOnOne]

Just like the title says...

Link

[blt2ski]

See all encompassing ev thread on general

[Timmo_]

https://www.abc10.com/amp/article/news/nation-world/lawmaker-us-rules-barring-gas-powered-cars-by-20...

To increase sales of electric vehicles, the administration plans to spend $15 billion to build a half-million charging stations by 2030 as well as offer unspecified tax credits and rebates to cut the cost.

However, experts say it will be difficult to replace the 279 million passenger vehicles now on U.S. roads — most of which burn gasoline — with electric vehicles in less than 15 years. The average U.S. vehicle is now nearly 12 years old, so they stay on the roads longer than in the past. And without an immediate change, the number of gasoline-powered vehicles will continue to grow. IHS Markit predicts it will be 284 million by 2025.

Each year, automakers sell about 17 million new vehicles in the U.S., most of them running on gasoline. If every new vehicle sold were electric starting today, it would take more than 16 years to replace all the gasoline vehicles.

$15 BILLION for 500,000 chargers equates to $30,000 each. Hmmm, on a different thread, I used the $30k price tag when discussing the cost for campgrounds to install EV chargers and was "ridiculed"; now I am proved correct--price tag is $30k not $3-5k.

[JRscooby]

pitch wrote:

Lynnmor wrote:

JRscooby wrote:


[sarcasm]Yep, yep. I'm sure that's right. After all, the last 4 years with a administration trying to stop any chance of slowing climate destruction, there was no development in EVs[/sarcasm]

I thought that your political views weren't welcome here.

They're ok with me. I mean his statement is true!

I'm not sure what is political about that statement. From what I see, there was no pause then increase in the development of EVs related to the changes in administrations.
And like the policy or not, there are many recordings of 45 promising (threating?) to block all environmental regulations. Also many recordings of him bragging he did block.

[pitch]

GDS-3950BH wrote:

pianotuna wrote:


If a highway has coils installed there would be no reason to stop to refuel an electric vehicle at all.

LOL, let's dig up all roads and install coils. A tall order seeing that it's almost impossible to keep up with maintaining the road surface itself, let alone burying coils along with the infrastructure needed to feed them.

Would it not be easier to mill in slots, or how about installing overhead catenary and equip EVs with trolley poles?

Where is Nicola Tesla when we need him and his wireless electricity?

Just caught the end of a commercial for some new brand EV, forget the name, reservations being taken at the low low price of $69K and change.

When the cost of a KWH of power triples you EV proponent knuckleheads on here will be the first ones bellyaching.

knuckleheads??????? seriously?

[pitch]

Lynnmor wrote:

JRscooby wrote:


[sarcasm]Yep, yep. I'm sure that's right. After all, the last 4 years with a administration trying to stop any chance of slowing climate destruction, there was no development in EVs[/sarcasm]

I thought that your political views weren't welcome here.

They're ok with me. I mean his statement is true!

[Cummins12V98]

free radical wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

Lynnmor wrote:

pianotuna wrote:

Lynnmor wrote:

free radical wrote:

If its profitable why is it bad?

Because using tax money to compel the citizens to purchase a product that is unnecessary, harmful and wasteful only for the purpose of buying votes, is a bad thing.

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. It is clear that by year 5 a Bev is better for the world than an ice.

I guess some cannot see the woods for the trees. Ethanol has been pushed on us and taxes to fund the EV debacle have been pushed on us. I think people should pay their own way and get out of the pockets of others.

What SUCKS is paying MORE for Ethanol free gas. Subsidized Ethanol costs us all $$$.

See IF you drove EV you wouldnt need to buy gas ! 🙂

No thanks, I live in NW WA and I would be killing Salmon.

[free_radical]

Cummins12V98 wrote:

Lynnmor wrote:

pianotuna wrote:

Lynnmor wrote:

free radical wrote:

If its profitable why is it bad?

Because using tax money to compel the citizens to purchase a product that is unnecessary, harmful and wasteful only for the purpose of buying votes, is a bad thing.

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. It is clear that by year 5 a Bev is better for the world than an ice.

I guess some cannot see the woods for the trees. Ethanol has been pushed on us and taxes to fund the EV debacle have been pushed on us. I think people should pay their own way and get out of the pockets of others.

What SUCKS is paying MORE for Ethanol free gas. Subsidized Ethanol costs us all $$$.

See IF you drove EV you wouldnt need to buy gas ! 🙂

[Timmo_]

I have never received a government subsidy to specifically buy an IC car or truck.

I did receive a tax break for depreciation and deducting the operating costs of my wife's Mercedes Benz we used in business.

Oil producers also receive a tax break for "depreciation", but it is called "intangible drilling costs".

I guess we can conclude, if you drive an EV, then you support strip mining.

On Edit:

If biofuel subsidy is soo bad, then why did the Senate Democrats release a plan to achieve 100 percent global net-zero emissions no later than 2050, which includes proper implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)?

You know, Prez Trump tried to quash the subsidy.

From the Senate Democrats Climate Change Report--

https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SCCC_Climate_Crisis_Report.pdf

Currently, the primary driver of alternatives fuels in the United States is the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS). The RFS creates a mandate for volumes of renewable fuels that refiners and
blenders must use in transportation fuels, and sets up a trading system so those volumes can
be used most efficiently. If implemented properly, the RFS gives farmers revenue stability,
allowing U.S. agriculture to play an important role in reducing U.S. oil usage and further
supporting rural economies. Although biodiesel use has expanded, the advanced biofuels
segment has not otherwise developed as rapidly as the authors of the RFS envisioned. This
is at least in part because the Trump administration continues to lower biofuel volumes and
waive blending requirements under the RFS, jeopardizing the market stability that the RFS
was intended to create. New policy tools may be needed to encourage growth of new advanced
fuels beyond just corn starch ethanol and soybean biodiesel.

[Cummins12V98]

Lynnmor wrote:

pianotuna wrote:

Lynnmor wrote:

free radical wrote:

If its profitable why is it bad?

Because using tax money to compel the citizens to purchase a product that is unnecessary, harmful and wasteful only for the purpose of buying votes, is a bad thing.

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. It is clear that by year 5 a Bev is better for the world than an ice.

I guess some cannot see the woods for the trees. Ethanol has been pushed on us and taxes to fund the EV debacle have been pushed on us. I think people should pay their own way and get out of the pockets of others.

What SUCKS is paying MORE for Ethanol free gas. Subsidized Ethanol costs us all $$$.

[Cummins12V98]

Lynnmor wrote:

free radical wrote:

If its profitable why is it bad?

Because using tax money to compel the citizens to purchase a product that is unnecessary, harmful and wasteful only for the purpose of buying votes, is a bad thing.

YUP

[FWC]

Lynnmor wrote:

I guess some cannot see the woods for the trees. Ethanol has been pushed on us and taxes to fund the EV debacle have been pushed on us. I think people should pay their own way and get out of the pockets of others.

It is a bit odd that this view seems to only be selectively applied. EVs and renewable energy do appear to be winning the tax break/subsidy game at the moment. But fossil fuels and the ICE vehicle manufacturers have received similar incentives for almost a century now, which is part of the reason these industries are so entrenched in our society.

To suddenly say 'no incentives for EVs or anyone else' is akin to having a 10km running race where one competitor gets to start at the beginning (EVs) and the other gets to start 5km into the race. Unfortunately this cat is well out of the bag. EVs are inevitable, and unless we want the US to be at a huge competitive disadvantage they need the same assistance that these other industries have/are receiving.

[Lynnmor]

pianotuna wrote:

Lynnmor wrote:

free radical wrote:

If its profitable why is it bad?

Because using tax money to compel the citizens to purchase a product that is unnecessary, harmful and wasteful only for the purpose of buying votes, is a bad thing.

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. It is clear that by year 5 a Bev is better for the world than an ice.

I guess some cannot see the woods for the trees. Ethanol has been pushed on us and taxes to fund the EV debacle have been pushed on us. I think people should pay their own way and get out of the pockets of others.

[pianotuna]

Timmo,

Do check out oil/tar sands. They pollute and use a heck of a lot of energy.

[pianotuna]

Lynnmor wrote:

free radical wrote:

If its profitable why is it bad?

Because using tax money to compel the citizens to purchase a product that is unnecessary, harmful and wasteful only for the purpose of buying votes, is a bad thing.

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. It is clear that by year 5 a Bev is better for the world than an ice.