GM Getting Rid of Internal Combustion Engines, Will Go All Electric

OldTimer said:
Trying to help you Charlie:

The broad steps DOE and industry need to take to meet these goals include aggressive, technology-specific, "stretch goals" established in consultation with stakeholders. Achieving these goals can enable the purchase cost combined with the operating cost of an all-electric vehicle with a 280-mile range to be comparable to that of an internal combustion engine vehicle of similar size after five years of ownership.​
https://energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/about-electric-vehicles

Just a little FYI...I work for a power semiconductor manufacturer whereas we are in 50% of every wind power generation unit in the world, we are in 40% of every solar generation system, and we are in over 66% of every electric fork lift...and just so you can actually relate...every single GM hybrid bus has our products in it...in fact I am responsible for that one... six, six pack IGBT units per inverter.

That all being said, unless we change the culture here in the USA, it ain't going to happen. One of my clients are in the final stages of qualifying a class 8 truck that is 100% EV, problem is...it will end up at best a city delivery as even with regen systems it is limited in range and that depends not only environment, but weight too.

We are working in R & D on stuff that will not be ready for at least ten years and probably not twenty...the big thing...we have not been able to advance the range vs regen vs time. How long does it take to put 20 gallons of gas in a car? 20 minutes max from getting off the freeway and getting back on...and then drive another 400 miles. Well...took my Tesla on a 330 mile trip...ended up being a 24 hr trip. My other car, I make it in about five hours including stopping for gas. I do not see that changing much in twenty years. Even a quick charge system might take a few hours to still get max range.
Click to expand...
You sound like you have good knowledge on the subject. Has any of the work being done relate to the idea of electric cars operating on highways being connected to the third rail system?
 
Towmater said:
Rear Wheel Drive vehicles by GM? Stop by a Chevy dealer they will be happy to show you some, but if you need a clue - the Camero comes to mind. On your what they produce to what they race with? Why in the world would a manufacturer that will only be producing electric engines want to race in a technology that is from yesterday? Right, they are going to line up and dump millions to produce a product that does not represent anything they have to do with. That would be like Tesla suddenly wanting to dump money to become a manufacturer in NASCAR.
Click to expand...

I want the new V8 with paddle shifters so bad. Sat in it at MIS, what a badass vehicle
 
Team Penske said:
Has any of the work being done relate to the idea of electric cars operating on highways being connected to the third rail system
Click to expand...
The technology is readily available, unfortunately infrastructure cost and liability issues have been holding these proposals back.

It is basically slot car type energy transfer even though the best proposals are actually wireless and based off of field transfer (what Tesla originally did on Long Island back in the late 19th century). Theoretically the field transfer of power should be safer as people should be in a non conductive state. As of right now, the most promising use of field transfer is in battery regen, there are a couple companies actually in last qauls with them. Nissan is one.
 
Zerkfitting said:
One thing about electric cars, they get full torque instantly, they'll beat any combustion engine off the line. But they do need a sound track of a car with dual exhaust.

They race electric cars (Formula E) but a pit stop consists of changing cars because you can't refuel them.
Click to expand...

Sure, but would you like to bet that within 20 years they will be able to change out the battery in the vehicle or quick charge it? I remember when yard tools had to be plug in. Then they went gas, and now they run on battery power or gas. The batteries change out and you can quick charge them. My Dewalt drill is battery operated.

(Not aimed at Zerfitting)Why is it that people who have been around as long as I have resist change, and can't believe that technology will move ahead to solve a problem that exist today? Seriously, you swap out or fill your propane tank when it goes dry at the hardware or convenience store. Why is that people want to jump up and down about the 300 miles an electric car does today? Christ, 300 miles was unheard of 5 or more years ago. Battery life gets longer, and batteries get smaller. Do you think that maybe your local gas station isn't gonna be a gas station and might be a recharging station in the future or a place that you simply swap out batteries like you do with propane tanks? For that matter if enough people traveled by electric car maybe your hotel would allow you to charge or swap batteries out.

Here is another example, my first cell phone was a brick phone. Kind of looked like a real phone. It had to be plug into my car cigarette lighter to function and had an antenna. 20+ years later I have a phone that remains charged for the day, and fits in my pocket.

I know, I know...change sucks and not in your NASCAR or over your dead body. :D
 
Folks, the world isn't ending. Electric cars won't ruin the world and won't ruin racing. Actually, they may help extend the status quo - here's how:

Remember about ten years ago people were all worried about "peak oil"? That we were going to run out of oil and then the world economy would collapse? That was an exaggeration, as are many of the arguments against electric cars presented in these comments. People look too narrowly and then run wild with imagination...

We are depleting the finite amount of oil available. Maybe we'll find more, but the easiest to find (and procure) has already been found and procured so we can expect that costs will rise (more expensive to find and get the remaining oil). But why hasn't "peak oil" happened? Because we grudgingly built and accepted an overall fleet of vehicles that get better fuel mileage, and we've changed to some different ways of producing power. Solar and wind and other alternative systems allow more petroleum to be used elsewhere. If we add more electric vehicles to the fleet, and if we charge those vehicles using other than petroleum, we'll extend the availability of oil and also help keep its price in check.

Gasoline and diesel vehicles will be around for many decades yet. Automakers like GM are grabbing PR points now more than they are really changing their production. If we shift more energy applications away from oil then the oil will last longer, and there will be a market for petroleum fueled cars. And we already have substitute fuels that can work in those cars too. We're definitely not suddenly going to take all petroleum fueled vehicles off the road.

Sure, the technology isn't quite ready today. But realize that technology is far from stagnant and that breakthroughs happen frequently. We shouldn't assume that tomorrow's electric vehicles will be as unsatisfactory as today's may be. Already in about ten years we've gone from battery ranges of about 70 miles to around 300 miles, and full charging times from over eight hours to less than three hours (and down to about 20 minutes if you've got the right equipment). Viable cars that can handle all roads have dropped in price from around $100k to about $35k. Hard to say how these will improve in another ten years, but pretty safe to say that they will improve. And when you make comparisons, please compare apples to apples - for example, the lead-acid starter battery in your petroleum car is very different from the lithium-ion batteries used to propel an electric car. Also, please use current data to make predictions instead of obsolete data - for example, lithium-ion batteries are not failing within a few years (most are out-living their 8 to 10 year warranties by quite a lot) and if they do fail you can get the pack rebuilt instead of having to buy a whole new pack (which costs less).

If NASCAR stays its traditional course then it will run gasoline cars long after those cars are obsolete, just like how they dragged their feet on EFI and still do not run front wheel drive. Their business model accommodates fans that like gasoline engine noise so they will not give that up easily. NASCAR has problems other than electric cars that could kill it first.
 
OldTimer said:
The technology is readily available, unfortunately infrastructure cost and liability issues have been holding these proposals back.

It is basically slot car type energy transfer even though the best proposals are actually wireless and based off of field transfer (what Tesla originally did on Long Island back in the late 19th century). Theoretically the field transfer of power should be safer as people should be in a non conductive state. As of right now, the most promising use of field transfer is in battery regen, there are a couple companies actually in last qauls with them. Nissan is one.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input and info. I think this will be the result if extended battery can't do the job.
 
gone said:
Solar and wind and other alternative systems allow more petroleum
Click to expand...

Would task you to tell us even ONE commercial/public power plant that runs on a petroleum product. Natural gas is not considered a petroleum product, but a by product. or what used to be considered waste. The only electric power stations that run on oil based fuel are emergency generators and some UPS systems, not grid systems.

Also, alternative energy costs are still not competitive without government mandates and support. In addition, the amount of heavy metal pollution in production of alternative energy (i.e. batteries, PV panels, etc) yields higher toxic environmental waste than what CO2 does to the earth.
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Call me when they produce an affordable 1 ton electric pickup that can pull m 14,000 lb 5er 900+ miles to/from the beach twice a year. Until then I'll continue to fill up @ the diesel fuel stops.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the exact same thing.
 
ah the Toyota Prius has some redeeming qualities but it is a hybrid and it charges itself. Some people use them to camp in and the temperature control system A/C or heat will continue to run on batteries until they get to a discharge point and then the engine starts automatically and the process starts all over again.
 
OldTimer said:
Would task you to tell us even ONE commercial/public power plant that runs on a petroleum product. Natural gas is not considered a petroleum product, but a by product. or what used to be considered waste. The only electric power stations that run on oil based fuel are emergency generators and some UPS systems, not grid systems.

Also, alternative energy costs are still not competitive without government mandates and support. In addition, the amount of heavy metal pollution in production of alternative energy (i.e. batteries, PV panels, etc) yields higher toxic environmental waste than what CO2 does to the earth.
Click to expand...

There are commercial power plants that still utilize petroleum fuels, but I'll let you do your own homework to find them. But you're correct that most of them are used to augment the grid when demand is high, and that they are being phased out. I did not intend to make you think that I advocate shutting down petroleum-fired power plants as the answer to our problems - I was just using them as an example of a use of petroleum products that could be substituted so that petroleum could be diverted to uses where it is better suited.

Please don't put words in my mouth - I never talked about "alternative energy costs are still not competitive without government mandates and support" or "heavy metal pollution in production of alternative energy (i.e. batteries, PV panels, etc) yields higher toxic environmental waste than what CO2 does to the earth" nor inferred those might not be problems. But since you brought them up...

Like any other emerging technology, alternative energy systems are relatively expensive until they mature. It is not bad for the government to help support new technologies that it views as potentially beneficial to its citizens. We have lots of modern technologies that wouldn't be here (or at least so far advanced) without help from the government. This Internet that you enjoy using to view this site and post comments is an example of that. Thanks to government support some alternative energy systems are becoming cost competitive and have the potential to offer additional benefits such as lower pollutant emissions. If you don't like the government doing this you should complain to your Congressmen and State Representatives - not me.

I'd like to see some real data to back up your claims about heavy metals used in some components of some alternative systems doing more harm than CO2. Are you comparing that to the CO2 produced by status quo systems? Also are you aware that as the technology matures these components are requiring less heavy metals? I hope you aren't relying upon stale data or alternate facts..

I didn't come on here to debate the pros and cons of alternate energy or propulsion sources, and I apologize to everybody that I allowed OldTimer to drag me into it. I'm just saying that the sky isn't falling just because technology is changing and electric vehicles are coming onto the scene.
 
OldTimer said:
Also, alternative energy costs are still not competitive without government mandates and support. In addition, the amount of heavy metal pollution in production of alternative energy (i.e. batteries, PV panels, etc) yields higher toxic environmental waste than what CO2 does to the earth.
Click to expand...

This isn't true anymore. For an example, google "Texas Wind Farms."

The key is that alternative energy requires different infrastructure than traditional power plants. Also, we do a great job managing toxic waste these days.
 
Musrat#2 said:
GM is gonna need another government bail out. That's exactly what every American guy wants is an electric truck.:lol2:
Click to expand...
GM Reports Net Revenue of $37 Billion and Income of $2.4 Billion from Continuing Operations
General Motors Co. (NYSE: GM) today announced strong second-quarter earnings and revenue from continuing operations driven by robust results in North America and China, solid improvement in South America and continued growth of GM Financial.


http://www.gm.com/investors/earnings-releases.html
 
aunty dive said:
GM Reports Net Revenue of $37 Billion and Income of $2.4 Billion from Continuing Operations
General Motors Co. (NYSE: GM) today announced strong second-quarter earnings and revenue from continuing operations driven by robust results in North America and China, solid improvement in South America and continued growth of GM Financial.


http://www.gm.com/investors/earnings-releases.html
Click to expand...

Never underestimate the ability of Generous Motors to go from the penthouse to the outhouse in short order.
 
sloggie said:
The key is that alternative energy requires different infrastructure than traditional power plants.
Click to expand...

Really...based on what credentials that you might possess? All forms of energy production have unique characters and require a power quality system to tie together, does not matter what form of energy production is used.

The only "infrastructure" changes are the physical embodiment, wind needs to be in the air, solar needs ground coverage, hydro need dams, and the others need power plants. Surprisingly the last, more traditional power sources have less physical intrusion.

Toxic waste is toxic waste, whether it is buried in your yard or laying in the street.
 
gone said:
I hope you aren't relying upon stale data or alternate facts..
Click to expand...
I am in the business...have been since the alternative energy kick started. My products are in over 50% of every wind generation unit on earth, and almost 2/3rds of every PV system.
 
OldTimer said:
Really...based on what credentials that you might possess? All forms of energy production have unique characters and require a power quality system to tie together, does not matter what form of energy production is used.

The only "infrastructure" changes are the physical embodiment, wind needs to be in the air, solar needs ground coverage, hydro need dams, and the others need power plants. Surprisingly the last, more traditional power sources have less physical intrusion.

Toxic waste is toxic waste, whether it is buried in your yard or laying in the street.
Click to expand...
If you are interested (I suspect you are not) then Google 'Texas windfarm infrastructure project' and look for the link to the article in the MIT technology review. I am on my phone or I would do it for you.

Texas would be the 6th largest generator of wind power in the world if they were a seperate country. All made possible by Investment by the state of Texas into the transmission grid.

Without a modern electrical grid capable of moving large amounts of electricity across vast distances the Texas wind boom doesn't happen

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
sloggie said:
So you worked on the Infrastructure improvements that made Texas Wind farms possible and you don' think they are needed? :idunno:
Click to expand...
Could have been accomplished with traditional energy producing technologies for a lot less money. But...the DOE likes to spend your money, my money, and your neighbors money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom