Slashdot Mirror
General Motors Plans 20 All-Electric Cars By 2023 (bloomberg.com)
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.
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.
Then the car repair guy can't charge me $1,400 to replace an ignition coil because the electric car is so much less complex. And the oil companies can't sell me gasoline. The economy will come to a standstill!
Hmmm... Dammit, time to make up some fake news.
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 :) )
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
WTF you stupid dumbfucks, 20 won't do.
"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 any sort of real effort into advertising it.
If GM cared about selling the Bolt, they'd be trying to ensure that you can actually drive places with it, with reasonable charge times and a complete network with multiple, well-monitored and maintained chargers at each well-spaced stop.
If GM cared about selling the Bolt, they'd be putting as much effort into it in non-ZEV states as they do in ZEV states.
If GM cared about selling the Bolt, they wouldn't make it as a BMW-priced car with a Fischer-Price interior.
Etc, etc, etc.
Perhaps there's some people with GM who thought that all you need to make an EV succeed is a semi-decent range figure at a midrange price. Sorry, but as with all vehicle purchases, there's many different aspects, and you can't just ignore half of them.
(To be fair to GM, the Model 3 has taken a lot of wind out of their sales. Having half a million people on a waiting list for a different vehicle means taking the vast majority of that half million out of your potential sales pool)
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
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 beancounter in a long line of beancounters who has no understanding of the technology her company sells for a living. This too shall blow over.
...to marry a supermodel.
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.
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.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
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!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
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.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
Yes, they would have, so as not to have to buy credits from Tesla in order to sell cars in ZEV states.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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 dominating each market class that they enter, even crushing their ICE competition in sales)... and then there's a bunch of others trying to catch up to where said company was years ago. Yeah, different companies try to have selling points in different regards - GM, for example, by having a moderate range on a BMW-priced (but econobox-styled) vehicle. But when your total sales are 1 1/2 orders of magnitude less than the year and a half line to get a different vehicle in the same price range, well, the market has spoken. And neither GM, nor anyone else, has put forward the capital needed to be able to present and market a vehicle to pose a real threat.
Here's a graph that I think is really telling. 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.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
Huh? They'd be happy to keep buying credits if it was the most cost-effective method of getting around the law. Unless you think companies are controlled by spite. This post is so stupid that it suggests you really shouldn't be part of the conversation any more.
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 hard time selling electric cars mostly because they refused to sell any.
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.
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 each year, only that 500,000 electric cars in total are on US roads right now.
If people wanted electric cars then they can buy them. GM will make what people will buy, excepting the regulations imposed on them as I mentioned above. When people start buying electric cars, like the Bolt, then GM will start advertising them. I realize that this is a bit of a chicken and egg problem but GM is still interested in making a profit. If they don't make a profit today then they won't be around to make electric cars next decade.
Is this announcement showing a shift in what people want to buy? Or, is this just more money spent on electric cars to satisfy regulators and tree huggers? (Or rather tree hugging regulators?) There's still the matter of following through on this announcement. They might quietly reverse this next year, next month, or even next week.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
you can connect a modern three phase electric car motor directly to where the transmission used to be
Considering the Bolt is FWD along with front engine, no you can't. There would be no transmission, there would be a transaxle which also includes the differential. Unless you plan on driving in a straight line everywhere, you're going to want to keep that part.
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 safer (based on studies of deaths per TWh produced), cheaper, and more reliable.
If we go to nuclear power as a primary source of energy then synthesized fuels start to become practical. The US Navy has demonstrated the ability to make aviation fuel using nuclear power and seawater as a feed stock. Scaling this process up to commercial scales should be trivial if given some development funding. The carbon in the fuel is from the environment, not out of the ground, so it closes the loop on carbon. It adds no new carbon to the air.
With nuclear power and synthetic fuels these electric cars don't look so "green" any more. They might have other advantages over ICE cars, such as running quieter or better acceleration, so it might not be complete nonsense in the end. With nuclear power and synthetic fuels even a Boeing 747 is "green".
If we all agree that digging carbon out of the ground and oxidizing it into the air is a problem then we need to find meaningful solutions. I'm not a fan of electric vehicles since they don't really solve anything. Nuclear power does.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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 advertising and distribution really should be fired. Or shot.
Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage
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 only range?" and he says "Battery only? Oh, uhm, 15 miles"... Seriously? I asked "So why are you here?"
For a car that takes two people to open the hood otherwise the carbon fiber it's made of will split in half, to cost a buttload more than a Tesla Model S that would blow its doors off the line? Puhleeze. Whomever buys an i8 (uncomfortable as Hell, visibility blows) they have too much money and should really give me some :)
I'd personally go for the "Fisher-Price Interior" over those pompous asshat blowhard tards at BMW. Why? Because at 238 miles at least they frigging _tried_ to make an actual electric car and not a overpriced sports car with an extra battery.
Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage
You'll have like half a mile of charge on an electric Hummer.
CA and the CARB are discussing making internal combustion engines illegal in California. So it's not a surprise GM and others start their big moths going about their investment in an electric future. But remember, they were the bastards who pushed the hydrogen hype lines and sold it to CARB so they would drop their Elecric Vehicle requirement numbers and then GM collected and destroyed their EV1. Ford bailed on the EV car and showed up with a stock Ford Ranger with ICE pulled out and batteries thrown in the bed.
I say, who the fork cares what GM says, it has little relationship to what those inside GM are saying and doing.
"General Motors Plans 20 All-Electric Cars By 2023"
Only 20 cars ?
Telsa plans 500 000 electric cars by 2023
aaaaaaa
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?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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).
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!
...which is why it is only a small part of the € 10 billion Daimler is investing in electric cars over the next eight years.
So far, there's one company actually pouring in the huge amounts of money to bring EV production to economic scales (and dominating each market class that they enter, even crushing their ICE competition in sales [electrek.co])... and then there's a bunch of others trying to catch up to where said company was years ago
Renault-Nissan may be the market leader, but they are not dominating the market. There is plenty of competition and the number of different electric cars on the market is increasing quickly.
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.
The US may be diferent (cars in general are comically cheap over there and American car buyers have very different wishes), but in general, Tesla is only succesful in markets where expensive EVs are taxed favourably and even in those countries Renault-Nissan and VW often sell more electric cars than Tesla.
More importantly, it will be impossible to meet CO2 targets in the near future without a large fraction of new cars being EVs. If car manufacturers don't meet the targets, they will have to pay billions in fines. There is a solid business case for electric cars.
10 billion over 8 years = a pittiance.
I was very obviously talking about Tesla. The only company pumping many billions per year into EVs, and the company with both of the top slots on EV sales despite being priced out of the vast majority of EV consumers' budgets, in a normally tiny market segment, where they're even beating their ICE competition.
False. The US incentive - being a fixed value - is more favourable to low-end EVs, versus countries where incentives are percentage based (such as VAT deductions).
And to reiterate: Tesla has both of the top slots in the US - and is still high ranked in Europe - despite being in a vastly smaller market segment. A market segment 1 1/2 orders of magnitude smaller than that in which its cheaper competitors are competing in. Which is why reservations for the Model 3 are 1 1/2 orders magnitude larger.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
1) Companies generally don't like paying competing companies.
2) It's only incentive to sell just enough to meet compliance specs
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
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. You get a worse car when you make it as a conversion. Worse handling, worse range, worse performance, just worse. When you see a company selling a conversion EV, it should scream at you, "I Do Not Believe EVs Are The Future; Otherwise I Would Be Investing In A Proper EV Platform".
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
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.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
10 billion over 8 years = a pittiance.
Yet it is the amount you claimed necessary in your previous post. Daimler thinks it is an appropriate amount of EV investments at this time. If you disagree, you are more than welcome to argue why at the next shareholder meeting.
I was very obviously talking about Tesla.
It wasn't that obvious, since your description did not fit Tesla.
The only company pumping many billions per year into EVs
Tesla does not pump many billions per year into EVs. Others, however, are.
and the company with both of the top slots
Not true, unless you are willing to claim that the Nissan Leaf is a Tesla product.
False. The US incentive - being a fixed value - is more favourable to low-end EVs, versus countries where incentives are percentage based (such as VAT deductions).
As I said, the US may be an exception, but in general this is very true. Just compare Tesla sales by country to the incentives in that country.
Which is why reservations for the Model 3 are 1 1/2 orders magnitude larger.
USD 1000 refundable deposits for a product that is strongly hyped and will be in short supply because it is made by a company that does not know anything about mass production and keeps making empty promises. Let's not read too much in that.
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.
Wrong. 10 billion per year would not be a pittiance. Over 8 years is nothing. Especially considering that they're most likely considering it backloaded.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this was a conversation about how serious manufacturers are about EVs, not an attempt to convince a given manufacture to take EVs seriously. My bad.
Wrong on both counts. A) R&D != total investment; and B) others don't.
100% of the money Tesla spends (excepting powerwall/powerpack/solar city, which are at present a vanishingly small percentage of their business) is toward EVs. And at present, that's an order of magnitude more than the (backloaded) amount Mercedes is claiming.
Funny, I didn't know that "The US" is now "The World". Did I miss a war?
I'll repeat what I wrote: Tesla has both of the top slots in the US - and is still high ranked in Europe - despite being in a vastly smaller market segment. A market segment 1 1/2 orders of magnitude smaller than that in which its cheaper competitors are competing in. Which is why reservations for the Model 3 are 1 1/2 orders magnitude larger.
1) Model 3 is most definitely Not strongly hyped. Tesla has an active strategy to anti-sell it, because they want to instead convert people to Model S / X sales, which they can get profit on immediately. The Tesla website is packed full of pages trying to convince people to buy an S or X over a 3 - even on the reservation pages for Model 3.
2) Tesla deposits (as with most car deposits) have long strongly tracked with actual sales.
3) Quite to the contrary, Tesla has always fulfilled its promises - with the Roadster, with the S, and with the X. And yes, I don't plan on forgetting the flood of naysayers who - almost exactly as you are doing now - insisted that they're vapourware, will never be delivered, nobody will buy them, Tesla will crash and burn, etc.
Go create a new version of TTAC's "Tesla Deathwatch", why don't you ;)
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
That is a regulatory case, not a business case. And regulations are flexible, since politicians are heavily involved.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Wrong on both counts. A) R&D != total investment; and B) others don't
You don't get to have it both ways. If you want to count all investments, then others are investing much more than Tesla. If you want to count only R&D, than Tesla doesn't come close to billions a year.
Funny, I didn't know that "The US" is now "The World". Did I miss a war?
Who said anything about the US? Your original claim was that Tesla was "the company with both of the top slots on EV sales", which I showed you not to be true. You are now retroactively restricting your original claim to some random country were that happens to be true at the moment, but that doesn't make your original claim any less wrong.
I'll repeat what I wrote
Good, just keep doing that until it becomes relevant. Go on choosing arbitrary definitions to make things seem better for Tesla than they are.
Tesla deposits (as with most car deposits) have long strongly tracked with actual sales.
Normally, when one orders a new car, it is delivered in two or three months. For the Tesla Model 3, the honest answer is that nobody knows when a car that was ordered a year ago today will be delivered. Moreover, most people who ordered a Model 3 had never actually seen one. Tesla hadn't finished the development and design when they started taking orders and even today, it is not in mass production. On top, the deposit can be refunded and Tesla fanboys are probably lining up to pay more for an ahead spot in the queue. All of that seriously changes the dynamics of the whole ordering procedure.
Model 3 is most definitely Not strongly hyped
You are not really making an effort to be taken seriously, are you? While Tesla indeed prefers Model S and X sales, because they generate revenue, that doesn't change the Model 3 being one of the most overhyped vehicles in the history of motoring.
Except that they're not. I'm sorry, but you don't get to just make up facts. In Q2 alone Tesla took in $2,8B, spent all of it, and 404M in debt, and did a $1,8B capital raise. In one quarter. Mercedes promising to spend a backloaded 10B over eight years is a pittiance. Period. It's missing a zero.
Are you blind? Do I need to repeat it again? Will boldface help? "Tesla has both of the top slots in the US - and is still high ranked in Europe -"
If you're going to be this intellectually dishonest, this conversation ends here. Goodbye.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
Except that they're not. I'm sorry, but you don't get to just make up facts.
Good, because I don't plan to. The question remains: why do you feel the need to make up facts?
In Q2 alone Tesla took in $2,8B, spent all of it, and 404M in debt, and did a $1,8B capital raise. In one quarter. Mercedes promising to spend a backloaded 10B over eight years is a pittiance.
You do an excellent job comparing all of Tesla's expenditures in Q2017 to Daimler's EV investment plans, but a very poor job in explaining why that comparison would be relevant at all. Why not take (a) only investments in both cases, or (b) also include all expenditures in actually building the EVs for Daimler? Comparing apples and oranges is completely pointless.
Are you blind? Do I need to repeat it again? Will boldface help? "Tesla has both of the top slots in the US - and is still high ranked in Europe
You may repeat that a million times more if you like, but the fact remains that your original claim was that Tesla were
the company with both of the top slots on EV sales
which is simply not true. You are now referring (for the second time) to another claim in the same post, which is indeed factual, but that is not what I replied to and it is more than a little dishonest that you are now trying suggest that what you are now repeating over and over again was your original claim.
I get it, you really like Tesla and you won't let the truth stand in the way of your faith, but please accept that others may have different priorities.
Investing in EVs does not produce an EV today or tomorrow. Converting an existing internal combustion car to an EV does, even if it is not perfect. There is nothing wrong with doing both at the same time. If a company does both, that shows that they are serious about EVs more than anything, IMHO.
Or, is this just more money spent on electric cars to satisfy regulators and tree huggers? (Or rather tree hugging regulators?)
Have you ever hugged a tree? It's quite pleasant.
If GM DIDN'T care about the Bolt, they wouldn't have spent the time, effort and money developing it.
Do they care because of the goodness 'inherent' in the Bolt, are do they 'care' because they're forced to through government mandates?
And market 0 of them..
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 their supply chain already producing all these things that could be 50% cheaper if they were redesigned around an electric drivetrain with energy recovery. As it is GM is putting gas designed parts into the electric car which dramatically increases the cost, decreases efficiency etc.
Have you ever hugged a tree? It's quite pleasant.
Yes, I have. It's not that great. It also smells like cinnamon.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So I'm guessing the people behind all this, must be the save the ecology minded types. What will these people be saying when we have to damn up a bunch of rivers, build many more nuclear or coal plants. Or whatever else we have to do in order to support the drain on the already depleted power system, to accommodate all these new and wonderful toys they've brought upon us? It's like trying to save the Polar Bear by clubbing, and then feeding it the dead baby Seals. Idiots!