RIP Internal Combustion Engine - General Motors to go all-electric by 2035 and carbon-neutral by 2040

Go4Broke

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
4,445
Reaction score
1,229
Points
113
I am not against people flying around in their carbon guzzling private airplanes. I don’t care how they get around.
Then stop using the stupid right wing argument that anyone who supports the fight against climate change can only travel using commercial airplanes and not carbon-emitting private planes. Until there are safe, reliable and carbon neutral private airplanes available that's what people who can afford it are going to use. The don't have to apologize for it no matter who they are.
 
Last edited:

balds

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
323
Points
83
Sounds great, just know that it will come with an equally (probably much more) horrific toll on the earth and likely devastate our economy.

Put simply: the infrastructural engineering capability required to provide for electric cars and electric heating by 2050 is a massive and probably unachievable ambition. To attempt to accelerate it, to 2025, is madness. The rest of the world can look at New Zealand and choose whether to laugh or weep. One thing it shouldn’t do is emulate NZ. Elsewhere I have done the equivalent analysis for the UK[4].

There is another battery issue regarding electric vehicle concerns. If we replace just the whole UK traffic fleet of today with electric vehicles (assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries), it would make the following materials demands[3]:

  • 207,900 tonnes of cobalt – just under twice annual world production.
  • 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE) – three quarters of world production.
  • at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium – nearly the entire world production of neodymium.
  • 2,362,500 tonnes of copper – more than half the world production in 2018
 

scools12

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
1,301
Points
113
Then stop using the stupid right wing argument that anyone who supports the fight against climate change can only travel using commercial airplanes. Until there are safe, reliable and carbon neutral private airplanes that's what people who can afford it are going to use. The don't have to apologize for it no matter who they are.
I made my original post for a reason and it wasn’t for the reason you and the rest of the progressives think.

Like I said “It’s just too easy”
 
Last edited:

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,732
Reaction score
1,485
Points
113
I made my original post for a reason and it wasn’t for the reason you and the rest of the progressives think.

Like I said “It’s just too easy”.
We know why you made it and also why you refuse to back it up. You've been caught in a lie/reading comprehension error.
 

scools12

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
1,301
Points
113
We know why you made it and also why you refuse to back it up. You've been caught in a lie/reading comprehension error.
Cool story bro 😎

I am not lying but to humor you let’s say I was.

Why are you so triggered by it?
 
Last edited:

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,400
Reaction score
4,040
Points
113
Sounds great, just know that it will come with an equally (probably much more) horrific toll on the earth and likely devastate our economy.

Put simply: the infrastructural engineering capability required to provide for electric cars and electric heating by 2050 is a massive and probably unachievable ambition. To attempt to accelerate it, to 2025, is madness. The rest of the world can look at New Zealand and choose whether to laugh or weep. One thing it shouldn’t do is emulate NZ. Elsewhere I have done the equivalent analysis for the UK[4].

There is another battery issue regarding electric vehicle concerns. If we replace just the whole UK traffic fleet of today with electric vehicles (assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries), it would make the following materials demands[3]:

  • 207,900 tonnes of cobalt – just under twice annual world production.
  • 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE) – three quarters of world production.
  • at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium – nearly the entire world production of neodymium.
  • 2,362,500 tonnes of copper – more than half the world production in 2018
Here's the banner for the site cited here

 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,860
Points
113
Sounds great, just know that it will come with an equally (probably much more) horrific toll on the earth and likely devastate our economy.
Neither of these claims is likely anywhere near correct.
 

balds

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
323
Points
83
Here's the banner for the site cited here

Yes. I was aware of this guy's work and when I googled it this is what popped up. Care to refute the substance or his qualifications?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,189
Reaction score
989
Points
113
China has announced it wants to be carbon neutral by 2060.

What is "clean burning"? It seems like a nice sounding phrase, but with no details I'm not sure it is anything more than nice sounding.

What is "efficient"? It's always nice to have higher mileage per gallon, if that's what you mean, but emissions are the issue here.
Whoopi! China has announced that they have no human rights violations, yet they continue ethnic cleansing.
Do you see how those announcements work? China is presently polluting the world at a higher rate than any other country and it doesn't give a f&ck. That's your socialist democracy on display.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
14,148
Reaction score
1,657
Points
113
Whoopi! China has announced that they have no human rights violations, yet they continue ethnic cleansing.
Do you see how those announcements work? China is presently polluting the world at a higher rate than any other country and it doesn't give a f&ck. That's your socialist democracy on display.
Yup.

And Joe and the GT, along with the Jam Jam Clan, are supportive of the USA being in the Accord and USA citizens toking over millions and millions to clean up!!!!!!

Jam Jam Clan = :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,860
Points
113
China is presently polluting the world at a higher rate than any other country and it doesn't give a f&ck.
It does care about becoming the world leader in green energy/economy technology, though. This is their chance to do that, and I do believe they are taking it very seriously.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,189
Reaction score
989
Points
113
It does care about becoming the world leader in green energy/economy technology, though. This is their chance to do that, and I do believe they are taking it very seriously.
No they don't. They are happy to build the expensive tools that the US will buy from them while their own factories spew carcinogens into the atmosphere at higher and higher rates. Kowtow Joe will bow to them and buy more to spend on a joke of a Paris Accord.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
599
Points
113
Then stop using the stupid right wing argument that anyone who supports the fight against climate change can only travel using commercial airplanes and not carbon-emitting private planes. Until there are safe, reliable and carbon neutral private airplanes available that's what people who can afford it are going to use. The don't have to apologize for it no matter who they are.

ever heard of zoom, but zooms just not as fun. Let’s all fly or take our carbon emitting boats to an exclusive to take climate change.
 

balds

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
323
Points
83
They have the band back together, I can't wait for their second album. Their first album was well publicized but fell flat. I have a good feeling about this one.

1611973805833.png
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
51,506
Reaction score
8,903
Points
113
I am not against people flying around in their carbon guzzling private airplanes. I don’t care how they get around.
Neither am I. But I'm sure that won't stop you from baseless attacks and name calling anyway.
 

scools12

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
1,301
Points
113
Neither am I. But I'm sure that won't stop you from baseless attacks and name calling anyway.
Probably not but what I won’t do is wish for your death, say you’re a waste of a human life or declare war on you. I’ll leave that for your side.
 

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
3,064
Reaction score
2,150
Points
113
General Motors has committed to transitioning its entire fleet of light-duty vehicles to zero-emissions powertrains by 2035 as part of an effort to go carbon neutral across the company by 2040. GM is in the process of launching 30 all-electric models by 2025 and expects the roll-out to accelerate in the following years. The 2035 goal applies to cars and light-duty trucks, with heavy and medium-duty trucks following by 2040.

With the move, GM becomes the first major legacy automaker to put a hard date on finalizing an all-electric vehicle lineup.“General Motors is joining governments and companies around the globe working to establish a safer, greener and better world,” GM Chairman and CEO Mary Bara said in a release on the pledge. “We encourage others to follow suit and make a significant impact on our industry and on the economy as a whole.”

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/general-motors-all-electric-2035
1612008252208.png
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
6,209
Reaction score
3,029
Points
113
There are logistical, distribution and other issues with any fuel source for powering motor vehicles. I don't think we should rule anything out. If you begin with the end in mind, hydrogen is the most attractive energy source in terms of cleanness and renewability. Electrical power needs to be generated in some way, and that's not always very clean itself.

I've been saying for decades that we need a Manhattan Project to fully investigate and develop hydrogen fuel for motor vehicles. I'm standing by that.
Electric will be the way, we already have an electric grid to distribute fuel.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
14,148
Reaction score
1,657
Points
113
WALLACE!!! Doesn't care about the environment, the leftovers of the "clean" energy farce......
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
10,512
Reaction score
1,549
Points
113
Why does a private plane burn 40 times more carbon than a - presumably much larger plane - commercial flight?
It's not that private planes burn more fuel - they burn far more fuel per passenger. According to this article, private jets consume 8X more CO2 "per passenger" than commercial jets. So if you're an elite and pretend that you give a sh&t about the environment, and then live a lifestyle that causes you personally to use more CO2 than the average Joe, you're a f*cking hypocrite and complete fraud who shouldn't have a voice.

How bad are private jets for the environment? | The Independent | The Independent

The reason travelling by private jet isn’t considered particularly green is because, although the amount of fuel burnt and therefore CO2 emitted is a lot lower than a commercial jet, generally speaking there will be far fewer people on board. Private flights are therefore considerably less efficient, and the personal carbon footprint of passengers who choose to travel this way is much higher.

Some estimates say private jets produce 10 times the amount of carbon per passenger, although calculations clearly vary depending on the make and model of aircraft being compared, the length of journey and the number of passengers per flight.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, jet fuel produces 9.57kg of CO2 per gallon burnt. Let’s take an example flight – a Boeing 737, one of the world’s most popular commercial jets, will burn somewhere in the region of 750 gallons an hour. Over the course of a three-hour flight, it will therefore burn 2,250 gallons of fuel, producing 21,533kg of CO2. Depending on the model, the plane can hold around 200 passengers, making the amount of CO2 produced per passenger around 108kg if we assume a fairly full flight.
Take the same idea, but imagine we’re going by private jet. The Cessna Citation XLS is one of the most popular models on the market. It burns around 210 gallons of fuel per hour, producing around 6,030kg of CO2 in a three-hour flight. Typically the jet is configured to seat between six and eight passengers; if there were seven on board, the average amount of CO2 per person would be 860kg.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,860
Points
113
Climate change depends on total carbon put into the atmosphere.

You can certainly note that a private plane puts out more per passenger than commercial, but the overall carbon added is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the fleet of commercial airliners operating in the world, or the fleet of passenger vehicles, or the fleet of commercial vehicles.


In other words: if a small group of people need to have a large carbon footprint themselves, compared to the average person, to spread the message that the total needs to come down significantly, and then it does, well then it was worth it.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,860
Points
113
They have the band back together, I can't wait for their second album. Their first album was well publicized but fell flat. I have a good feeling about this one.

View attachment 11516
Every other comparable startup company that didn't receive any DOE investment, was a success?

Otherwise, what is your point?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
4,860
Points
113
No they don't. They are happy to build the expensive tools that the US will buy from them while their own factories spew carcinogens into the atmosphere at higher and higher rates.
That's not correct.
 
Top Bottom