[snizzle]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

One of my mentors at GM was Larry Burns. When he was VP of R&D at General Motors he led GM development of fuel cells and EVs and is still very active in fuel cell and autonomous driving circles today. He and Gordon Murray would probably agree on where FCEV may be headed. I will continue to disagree with both of them on this point. Given that GM’s work on FCEV predates GM’s work on modern EVs, I think there are some merits to my position on this.

Given the opportunity to “ refuel” everyday at home while you sleep, or driving to a hydrogen refueling station...for the sake of argument let’s say that you can get hydrogen at 50% of the gas station locations available today...what would most consumers do? I argue that they would refuel at home. Infrastructure for long range EVs (200+ mile range) is only needed for long trips.

Martin, why did GM dump Voltec? It seems it's the perfect stop gap. Was it complexity? I don't get it. I feel like it should have carried across the portfolio.

[ssrs2lt]

Tried the Chevy build a Silverado. What a mess, it built it fine, didn't offer here's a close match. I picked 3 local dealers to contact me, 1 emailed me saying we will contact you (didnt) the other 2 didn't even acknowledge. Its a shame as one dealer has 54 on their lot.. Is Chevy kicking so much sales butt they don't need me? SMH

[shaffe]

The thing I worry about with EV's besides them being total eye sores and the infrastructure not being totally there. What happens to all those old batteries? Isn't it extremely expensive to recycle them?

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by shaffe

The thing I worry about with EV's besides them being total eye sores and the infrastructure not being totally there. What happens to all those old batteries? Isn't it extremely expensive to recycle them?

I think when they're unfit for vehicle usage, they're still sufficient for other use cases such as a solar plant use case. It might kick the can down the road but it's better than nothing.

[90503]

Just to throw it out there, I sort of recall that hydrogen option, a great idea for stopping pollution, is super-expensive to produce. The amount of electricity needed to make hydrogen fuel, or whatever it is, for cars is enormous and costly. Even the Germans gave up on hydrogen years ago. They can build a hydrogen car, but they could never be mass produced. Electricity needed for any realistic production numbers would outstrip what the plants that make hydrogen could ever get their hands on....Maybe all not true...just sayin'.

P.S. Also you would likely never be able re-fill hydrogen at home, like you could plug in an EV at home. Probably more "infrastructure" in place already for EV than hydrogen would ever have.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Martin, why did GM dump Voltec? It seems it's the perfect stop gap. Was it complexity? I don't get it. I feel like it should have carried across the portfolio.

The short answer would be the cost and controls complexity of having two powertrains on the same vehicle doesn’t compare well to just doing a straight up BEV. As battery costs reduce through development, the cost of building a “Volt” would be higher than building a “Bolt” of similar form and functionality. So GM is focused on optimizing BEV and optimizing ICE, and staying out of the business of mixing the two (except C8).

The details are much more involved than that, but as a Readers Digest version, that’s pretty much it.

The electric motors and drive units developed for the Ultium system draw heavily from Voltec technology and learnings, so practically nothing is lost in the strategic shift.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

One of my mentors at GM was Larry Burns. When he was VP of R&D at General Motors he led GM development of fuel cells and EVs and is still very active in fuel cell and autonomous driving circles today. He and Gordon Murray would probably agree on where FCEV may be headed. I will continue to disagree with both of them on this point. Given that GM’s work on FCEV predates GM’s work on modern EVs, I think there are some merits to my position on this.

Given the opportunity to “ refuel” everyday at home while you sleep, or driving to a hydrogen refueling station...for the sake of argument let’s say that you can get hydrogen at 50% of the gas station locations available today...what would most consumers do? I argue that they would refuel at home. Infrastructure for long range EVs (200+ mile range) is only needed for long trips.

A good response. I will say that it makes sense in urban areas.

My life isn't urban, and I am 180 miles to the nearest major center one-way (airport, Costco, etc). So no, EVs do not make much sense as a full replacement where I live, and likely won't ever except as a commuter to work for my wife (65 mile round trip daily).

That said, battery tech must still be improved, recycling of old batteries must be proven, and sourcing of Cobalt must be addressed with actual proof of Tesla's claims...simple statements don't cut it. Also, I am forced to pay distribution and transmission charges on my electrical bill. In fact, 75% of my bill is these charges. They also increase with electricity usage, they are not a flat rate. More power means more surcharges for me. Long distances to the nearest urban center, plus trips we take that are much further than 200 miles without any charging stations means EVs are not a likely successful scenario where I live, nor for the majority of those who live in my area.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by 90503

Just to throw it out there, I sort of recall that hydrogen option, a great idea for stopping pollution, is super-expensive to produce. The amount of electricity needed to make hydrogen fuel, or whatever it is, for cars is enormous and costly. Even the Germans gave up on hydrogen years ago. They can build a hydrogen car, but they could never be mass produced. Electricity needed for any realistic production numbers would outstrip what the plants that make hydrogen could ever get their hands on....Maybe all not true...just sayin'.

P.S. Also you would likely never be able re-fill hydrogen at home, like you could plug in an EV at home. Probably more "infrastructure" in place already for EV than hydrogen would ever have.

Incorrect:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60319918328854

As well - "at home" requires an abundance of home owners to upgrade not only their main panel, but the service to the home from the utility pole as well. 100A panels cannot support EVs being charged at home, so your assumption says these people will not only agree to purchase an EV, but also a costly upgrade to their home power supply...

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by shaffe

The thing I worry about with EV's besides them being total eye sores and the infrastructure not being totally there. What happens to all those old batteries? Isn't it extremely expensive to recycle them?

There are a number of initiatives in place.

1. Since automotive lithium ion batteries have a lot of their capacity locked in reserve, when they are no longer suitable for in-vehicle use, they still have plenty of life left in them, especially for energy storage and release. GM has entered into an agreement with a power supplier who will use decommissioned car batteries to build energy storage banks that will then provide 100% of operating power to several GM plants. I really need to find the article I originally read on this, because it’s come up in conversation about half a dozen times in the past couple weeks.
2. Several companies are working on battery pack remanufacturing. They would take replaced battery packs, identify damaged/dead cells, and replace them. The remanufacturing packs would then be salable as lower cost post warranty replacements. Same principle as remanufactured engine and transmissions. The replaced cells could then be harvested for precious metals and other reclaimable materials that can be sold back into the manufacturing processes.
3. Power companies are already using decommissioned battery packs as energy storage banks for wind farms and solar farms. Similar to point #1 on this list.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Incorrect:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60319918328854

As well - "at home" requires an abundance of home owners to upgrade not only their main panel, but the service to the home from the utility pole as well. 100A panels cannot support EVs being charged at home, so your assumption says these people will not only agree to purchase an EV, but also a costly upgrade to their home power supply...

Cost me about $700 back in 2012. Saved more in gasoline purchases in less than a year.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

Just to throw it out there, I sort of recall that hydrogen option, a great idea for stopping pollution, is super-expensive to produce. The amount of electricity needed to make hydrogen fuel, or whatever it is, for cars is enormous and costly. Even the Germans gave up on hydrogen years ago. They can build a hydrogen car, but they could never be mass produced. Electricity needed for any realistic production numbers would outstrip what the plants that make hydrogen could ever get their hands on....Maybe all not true...just sayin'.

P.S. Also you would likely never be able re-fill hydrogen at home, like you could plug in an EV at home. Probably more "infrastructure" in place already for EV than hydrogen would ever have.

I do agree that the cost of building and deploying hydrogen refueling stations is the biggest lock on the door for now, but I will disagree that German manufacturers have given up on it. They are still in development on FCEV products. So are GM and Honda together, Toyota, and Hyundai-Kia. Thing is, projected launch dates of volume passenger car fleets (beyond the super low-volume, lease by permission only Mirai, Clarity, and Hyundai Nexo) continues to slip and slip and slip.

In the EU, the Zero Emissions requirements are driving automakers to focus on the only two zero emissions paths, BEV, and FCEV. There is also some government funding being waved around as incentive for building a hydrogen infrastructure, though I’ve yet to see any evidence of shovels in the ground. Not saying there hasn’t been, just that I haven’t seen it and I do look for it, since that’s part of my job.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by ssrs2lt

Tried the Chevy build a Silverado. What a mess, it built it fine, didn't offer here's a close match. I picked 3 local dealers to contact me, 1 emailed me saying we will contact you (didnt) the other 2 didn't even acknowledge. Its a shame as one dealer has 54 on their lot.. Is Chevy kicking so much sales butt they don't need me? SMH

I mean it's absolutely BS they didn't contact you, but I would go to the dealer myself if I was looking for a vehicle...just saying.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Cost me about $700 back in 2012. Saved more in gasoline purchases in less than a year.

And would you consider your income above or below the median average in NA?

The reason the vast majority of the public fall for the "never never" payment plans is that they don't have $500 available to them. Same as buying the same car but for more money as an EV...

Why not just look at the demographic of those who purchase EVs - I'm willing bet it supports this position.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

And would you consider your income above or below the median average in NA?

The reason the vast majority of the public fall for the "never never" payment plans is that they don't have $500 available to them. Same as buying the same car but for more money as an EV...

Why not just look at the demographic of those who purchase EVs - I'm willing bet it supports this position.

Good points. In some areas of the US, power companies do provide incentives to install Level 2 chargers (irrespective of income) and some provide assistance (based on income ) to upgrade electrical circuits to accept the Level 2 charger, but those are few and far between. Since there will be ICE products available, that will essentially be a non-issue. Can’t or don’t want to pay for a circuit upgrade? Don’t. Get an ICE vehicle.

There is no doubt that the current population of BEV owners is skewed heavily to the higher end of the income curve. That’s true simply because of the range of product available on the market. As more “affordable” BEVs come to market, the curve will bend more towards normal. The Mustang Mach E and the Volkswagen ID.4 will be the first in that category to come to market soon. The Chevrolet Bolt EV is already in market and reasonably priced, but it has two strikes against it. For one, GM vehicles no longer qualify for the $7,500 tax credit, and two, its form factor (small B-Segment hatchback) is one that has never played well in the US market. VW ID.4 is a compact utility and will qualify for the tax credit, as will the Mustang Mach E. Those are the ones to watch in terms of demographics.