Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
281 - 300 of 433 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
If I had to speculate what happened here, it's probably the same thing that always happens, After Effects, Premiere, Motion, whatever you're using doesn't have spell checks built into its text boxes. Some guy like me but much younger and probably a lot less annoying just typed in "Proffessor" and that was the end of it and no one has caught it. If you tell them, I bet they fix it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
What you don't understand is professor Kelly probably has literal nothing to do with it and the only thing he can be faulted for was not seeing it after the fact. This is a university show and he's a professor, he's not running the cameras, writing the websites and creating the graphics. Behind those things are likely a bunch of students and a faculty member or two overseeing it. Or maybe they got a company to do it for them. Point is, it's just a typo dude get over it.
What you don’t understand is that I do understand all of what you stated. I think you reading way too much in to my original post and vastly underestimating my understanding of how things work.

It was just a question dude, get over it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
What you don’t understand is that I do understand all of what you stated. I think you reading way too much in to my original post and vastly underestimating my understanding of how things work.

It was just a question dude, get over it.
Could give a **** who you are and your expertise level. I'm just responding to things like this which have a very argumentative and judgemental tone about it.

Water Rectangle Font Circle Art


You sound like you want to tweet out to the world what kind of fraud Kelly is in posts like that to me. So, imma take your advice and get over this exchange.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
580 Posts
Discussion Starter · #286 ·
So just to put this thread back on topic if anyone is still interested.....

It won't necessarily take government tax credits to radically boost demand for EVs. All it will take is continued high gas prices. It seems to me that most new car buyer these days are at least considering an EV just to save on gas. What if gas prices continue to rise? Maybe it's as much as $5/gallon. (It's already $4.45 in CA)

Then it becomes obvious to everyone that owning an ICE car is much more expensive and ICE car sales will dry up while people wait for their EV orders.

Now consider GM's cash cow, the Silverado. Before the LG issues arose, the electric Silverado was expected to go on sale in 2024. That's really late as it is. What if that is delayed even more because of these LG issues. What if the Silverado EV is delayed until 2026 and doesn't hit large scale production until 2027 or 2028?

So Tesla, Rivian, and Ford get to dominate the EV truck market for several years while GM can't even give away their ICE trucks that cost up to $140 for a fill-up. (28 gallon tank x $5/gallon)

GM would be decimated.
 

·
Super Moderator
2020 Chevrolet Bolt
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
So just to put this thread back on topic if anyone is still interested.....

It won't necessarily take government tax credits to radically boost demand for EVs. All it will take is continued high gas prices. It seems to me that most new car buyer these days are at least considering an EV just to save on gas. What if gas prices continue to rise? Maybe it's as much as $5/gallon. (It's already $4.45 in CA)

Then it becomes obvious to everyone that owning an ICE car is much more expensive and ICE car sales will dry up while people wait for their EV orders.

Now consider GM's cash cow, the Silverado. Before the LG issues arose, the electric Silverado was expected to go on sale in 2024. That's really late as it is. What if that is delayed even more because of these LG issues. What if the Silverado EV is delayed until 2026 and doesn't hit large scale production until 2027 or 2028?

So Tesla, Rivian, and Ford get to dominate the EV truck market for several years while GM can't even give away their ICE trucks that cost up to $140 for a fill-up. (28 gallon tank x $5/gallon)

GM would be decimated.
In the spirit of merging the topics:
"It seems to me that most new car buyers these days are at least considering an EV..." (actually, it's about 1 in 5)
"What if that is delayed even more because of these LG issues?"
;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
580 Posts
Discussion Starter · #288 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,961 Posts
So just to put this thread back on topic if anyone is still interested.....

It won't necessarily take government tax credits to radically boost demand for EVs. All it will take is continued high gas prices. It seems to me that most new car buyer these days are at least considering an EV just to save on gas. What if gas prices continue to rise? Maybe it's as much as $5/gallon. (It's already $4.45 in CA)

Then it becomes obvious to everyone that owning an ICE car is much more expensive and ICE car sales will dry up while people wait for their EV orders.

Now consider GM's cash cow, the Silverado. Before the LG issues arose, the electric Silverado was expected to go on sale in 2024. That's really late as it is. What if that is delayed even more because of these LG issues. What if the Silverado EV is delayed until 2026 and doesn't hit large scale production until 2027 or 2028?

So Tesla, Rivian, and Ford get to dominate the EV truck market for several years while GM can't even give away their ICE trucks that cost up to $140 for a fill-up. (28 gallon tank x $5/gallon)

GM would be decimated.
Fuel prices aren't likely to stay high, and they really aren't so high now that people are clamoring to sell their SUVs and get a fuel efficient sedan. The only way to keep fuel prices high permanently would be to tax it.

Back to what we've already hashed out, you're assuming EVs are going to be profitable and plentiful soon, and that's where our disagreement comes. If GM missed out on Silverado EV sales for the next decade, my assumption is they would have missed the opportunity to sell the 5% of market share that represents, which is unprofitable. Missing an opportunity to take a loss on every vehicle sold, and which represents a small portion of the portfolio is not so bad in my estimation.

The real missed opportunity is PHEV trucks. They could have alleviated range anxiety, simplified the 4 wheel drive-train, delivered gobs of power on demand, returned great fuel economy, and reduced maintenance, all while gobbling up the $7,500 federal tax subsidies. While everyone is competing for the unprofitable EV truck market, this area has no competition and is instantly profitable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
580 Posts
Discussion Starter · #290 ·
Fuel prices aren't likely to stay high, and they really aren't so high now that people are clamoring to sell their SUVs and get a fuel efficient sedan. The only way to keep fuel prices high permanently would be to tax it.

Back to what we've already hashed out, you're assuming EVs are going to be profitable and plentiful soon, and that's where our disagreement comes. If GM missed out on Silverado EV sales for the next decade, my assumption is they would have missed the opportunity to sell the 5% of market share that represents, which is unprofitable. Missing an opportunity to take a loss on every vehicle sold, and which represents a small portion of the portfolio is not so bad in my estimation.

The real missed opportunity is PHEV trucks. They could have alleviated range anxiety, simplified the 4 wheel drive-train, delivered gobs of power on demand, returned great fuel economy, and reduced maintenance, all while gobbling up the $7,500 federal tax subsidies. While everyone is competing for the unprofitable EV truck market, this area has no competition and is instantly profitable.
If I could predict future fuel prices I'd be very rich. Continued high gas prices is just another scenario that raises demand for EVs, and maybe by A LOT. The same thing happened with the Japanese invasion after high gas prices in the 70's.

It's not the share of the market that hurts GM. It's the share of the profits that ICE Silverado represents in GM's portfolio. Could GM afford to have ICE Silverado sales dry up at the same time they are spending billions to ramp up a long-delayed EV version? And like you say, it takes several years for an EV to become profitable. So in the "Silverado EV delayed" scenario you are talking about massive losses stretching into the 2030's.

We do disagree about near term EV demand. And that's a fair disagreement. If EV sales stay under 5-10% of the market for a few more years you will definitely be proven right. I happen to believe that there is massive pent up demand for EVs right now and sales will skyrocket as production capacity comes on line. If Tesla's projections are correct then Tesla alone will easily be over 10% of US auto sales by 2025.

Agree about PHEV trucks. With high gas prices, those would be very, very attractive right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
I have no idea if an EV is good or bad for the planet. All I know is for now, I pay $76 a year for electricity in a small ev as opposed to $5K a year in gas and oil for a pickup. I'll trade in my Bolt for an EV truck as soon as I can afford it just because I don't really need two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,961 Posts
I have no idea if an EV is good or bad for the planet.
**** sapiens are the only species to think in terms of good and bad and therefore are the only ones to possess moral framework to ask such questions. Since rocks, trees, and zebras don't have an opinion, a better question would be "are EVs good for humans on the planet?". The next question would be "compared to what?". The human environment, both presently and in the future is what matters. With that in mind, EVs are "better" than ICE for society as a whole, but possibly not for individuals who have differing needs for transportation.

You bring up a good point though that people have differing motivations to purchase an EV. I've identified financial, environmental, resource preservation, time saving (less maintenance and "filling up") and reduced dependence on foreign energy. I'm sure there's more.
 

·
Registered
Premier, Yo, with every goodie!
Joined
·
1,314 Posts
The only way to keep fuel prices high permanently would be to tax it.
Agree!
And spend it only on transportation infrastructure!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
The only way to keep fuel prices high permanently would be to tax it.
Or start to remove the subsidies that are keeping the prices low?
As people overseas frequently remind us, when we post about "high" gas prices... ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,961 Posts
Agree!
And spend it only on transportation infrastructure!
Should tax revenue from tobacco only go towards mitigating cancer caused by use of those products? Why force funds to be spent in only particular ways?

When you earn income, do you put a fixed percentage into an account reserved just for housing, and other account just for food, and another account just for insurance, and another account just for...

Wouldn't it make more sense to put all tax revenue into the general fund, and then allocate based on priority, especially when priorities are constantly changing?

Or start to remove the subsidies that are keeping the prices low?
As people overseas frequently remind us, when we post about "high" gas prices... ;-)
Tell me, what are those subsidies people talk so much about?

The vast majority of what people say are subsidies are the same subsidies all businesses get when they reinvest their income into purchasing assets to expand services and operations. If a bakery purchases a new oven so they can bake more bread, that money doesn't get taxed. We don't normally consider that Big Bakery subsidies though.

I'm all for the elimination of most all subsidies, but it's incorrect to include the normal tax exemptions all business receives when they make operational expenditures. All that is nonsense anyhow, and economists agree that corporate taxes should be eliminated altogether because corporations don't pay taxes; consumers pay taxes. The tax is merely reflected in the price of goods and services. In fact, our goods and services could have a global competitive advantage if they were not taxed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
I remember always being worried about regulations and price increases when I was addicted to tobacco.

After I quit smoking, I could give a horse’s pitooty about any of it. I now agree that increasing the price is a good motivator to get people to decide to quit.

Now that I don’t need gasoline for anything but a 20 year-old lawnmower. I hope they raise the price to $10/gallon LOL, in fact I would vote for it given the chance just to piss off the people who want to use it forever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
580 Posts
Discussion Starter · #299 ·
Tell me, what are those subsidies people talk so much about?
We do have specific direct subsidies for the oil and gas industry. It's in the billions of dollars per year and we should get rid of those.

But the largest subsidy is that they don't have to pay for the air pollution their products create. You have to pay to put garbage in a landfill but we pretend that dumping stuff into the air should be free.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,961 Posts
I remember always being worried about regulations and price increases when I was addicted to tobacco.

After I quit smoking, I could give a horse’s pitooty about any of it. I now agree that increasing the price is a good motivator to get people to decide to quit.

Now that I don’t need gasoline for anything but a 20 year-old lawnmower. I hope they raise the price to $10/gallon LOL, in fact I would vote for it given the chance just to piss off the people who want to use it forever.
It's not quite so simple in the case of fossil fuels though, because absolutely everything in our modern life depends on them. That means that even if you aren't paying at the pump, you'll be paying via increased prices of everything, possibly including loss of jobs as industry moves to where energy is cheaper.

Raising fossil fuel taxes is something that would need to be done extremely delicately over a period of time to minimize the pain felt across all industries and by consumers.

We do have specific direct subsidies for the oil and gas industry. It's in the billions of dollars per year and we should get rid of those.

But the largest subsidy is that they don't have to pay for the air pollution their products create. You have to pay to put garbage in a landfill but we pretend that dumping stuff into the air should be free.
Yes, agreed that direct subsidies should be eliminated. That would massively disadvantage renewables though as they receive many times the subsidy per generated GWh compared to fossil fuels.

Regarding pollution, consumers are often the ones the burden falls on, and is part of the responsibility of being a consumer. When I buy groceries from the store, they don't come and collect all the cans and glass and plastic, paper and other waste once I'm done. I'm responsible for the waste products from that consumption. They provide a marvelous service that allows me to not have to work the land to produce my food, and for that convenience I have waste that must be dealt with. Such is the life of a consumer.

Naive people are happy in their fantasy land where they are uniquely saintly while evil oil tricks unsuspecting victims into consuming their products. The only people not consuming oil live in teepees, wear clothing made out of the animals they killed with their bare hands, and their most sophisticated tools are made of rocks and wood. I'm not making a value judgement on that lifestyle, only pointing out that very few people are so saintly that they voluntarily live so humbly.
 
281 - 300 of 433 Posts
Top