Automakers make the case for electric pickup trucks


mentalfloss
#1


Automakers make the case for electric pickup trucks

Bollinger has poured tens of millions of dollars of his own money into his eponymous start-up, convinced that Americans would swap their gas-guzzling pickup trucks for battery-powered ones. Without the technical know-how or automotive industry experience, he relocated his 5-year-old business from the Catskills to Detroit to hire engineers, pitching his dream that electric trucks could offer the same ruggedness, excitement and off-roading capabilities that have always appealed to Americans.

"Every bit of starting this company has been extremely challenging," he told ABC News by phone from Michigan. "The odds are crazy stacked against us. The No. 1 thing when I started this is that if we get across the finish line, we can't stop. Let's make something completely different than anyone else."

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/auto...ry?id=71931673
 
Tecumsehsbones
#2
Good luck to him. The market will decide.
 
Hoid
#3
Ask yourself who is developing and making ICE vehicles.

Nobody.

The major automakers are trapped into producing them but even they are now developing only EVs.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
#4
The Mustang EV. What's the f*ckng point?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Ask yourself who is developing and making ICE vehicles.
Nobody.
The major automakers are trapped into producing them but even they are now developing only EVs.

Hmmm. . . Honda, General Motors, Toyota, Ford, Nissan, Mercedes, Fiat-Chrysler, Kia, Hyundai.

To name a few.
 
Hoid
#6
Another one sails over your head.
 
gerryh
+1
#7  Top Rated Post
For me, if it can't tow 10k-12k pounds for 600 km for under 100k, then I'm not interested.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Another one sails over your head.

If you think auto companies aren't doing R&D full time, you're stupid.
 
gerryh
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

If you think auto companies aren't doing R&D full time, you're stupid.

The fact that hoid is stupid, goes without saying.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

The fact that hoid is stupid, goes without saying.

Always state the obvious. You'd be surprised how many people don't get it.
 
Hoid
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

If you think auto companies aren't doing R&D full time, you're stupid.

I think they're doing R&D full time on EVs

I think if they're doing R&D full time on ICE vehicles they are going out of business.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I think they're doing R&D full time on EVs
I think if they're doing R&D full time on ICE vehicles they are going out of business.

Honda's still the most popular passenger-car brand in the U.S. A couple of years ago, they improved the 1500-cc turbo engine, which is now working its way down through the fleet from a the luxury packages to standard, replacing the 1800-cc standard 4-cylinder. Just one example.

You do understand that it's possible to do research on ICEs and non-fossil engines at the same time, right? Honda also has electric cars and hydrogen-powered cars.

Non-fossil cars are probably the wave of the future. But they won't necessarily be Li-ion battery-powered cars (hydrogen and fuel cells are options being tried, and alcohol is a current option, and has been for decades). I figure we'll get to the point where individual-vehicle market is a mix, just like the current power market is a mix of coal, oil, LNG, hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, and a few cutting-edge tech options being researched.
 
Hoid
#13
The big problem is selling all these ICE engines when you know and they know its a buggy whip.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

The big problem is selling all these ICE engines when you know and they know its a buggy whip.

No, the big problem is getting fools like you to understand the environmental costs of going full EV, particularly when paired with the disastrous net-zero by 2050 garbage.
As everyone except the anti-oil crowd knows apparently, mining is easily the most destructive endeavour in which we regularly partake. We've even removed the tops of mountains to get at the mineral wealth inside. Right now, estimates put us at 84% of our mining sustainability. The kind of increase in mining needed to fulfill the green nightmare would blow us well past 100%.


It's already happening in South America. It takes 500,000 GALLONS of water to produce one ton of lithium. Water that is effectively lost to us forever. And here we are being warned about fresh water shortages. Meanwhile, farmers downstream of the lithium mines are seeing their land turn to dust as the water flow slows to a trickle. Currently global output of lithium is around 215,000 tons a year. Multiply that by 500,000 and that's how much fresh water is being destroyed every year so you can have a nice, "clean, guilt-free" EV and your portable electronic crack devices.



Lake Baotou in China is a 120 km2 man made lake of bubbling toxicity. It is literally called "The worst place on earth". One journalist even stated that the desolation of Mordor, Tolkien's fictional wasteland in the Lord of the Rings, got nothing on the nightmare that is Baotou.


 
Tecumsehsbones
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

The big problem is selling all these ICE engines when you know and they know its a buggy whip.

The big problem is your fallacy-laden magical thinking.

You are the mirror image of the oilsuckers. Neither of y'all makes a damn bit of sense.
 
Hoid
#16
That is the basic problem I suppose - that electric vehicles which are faster cheaper less polluting do not make sense.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

That is the basic problem I suppose - that electric vehicles which are faster cheaper less polluting do not make sense.

No, your hallucination that next week every ICE in the world is going to magically disappear and be replaced by a fairy-powered vehicle.
 
Hoid
#18
I know electricity is invisible but it isn't magical.

But as you say all these electric trucks don't make a lick of sense.

And you even threw in a "y'all" which is one of your passive aggressive tells.

Clearly you are upset.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

But as you say all these electric trucks don't make a lick of sense.

I didn't say that. You're a liar.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

That is the basic problem I suppose - that electric vehicles which are faster cheaper less polluting do not make sense.

Wait a second. I thought there was supposed to be a growing fresh water shortage. How is destroying 500,000 gallons of water/ton of lithium not going to exacerbate the problem? Assuming it's actually a problem.
Let's do the math by weight shall we. Based on 10lbs per gallon of water, yes that's pretty much what a gallon of water weighs, that's 5 million lbs of water. Converted to tons, lithium production destroys 2500 tons of water for every 1 ton of lithium. Less polluting? I doubt it. And that's just one single element where mining and refining is going to have be ramped up substantially to meet the 2050 target date bullshit.


Here's what the "intelligentsia" of the left has decided. They are simply going to replace one form of environmental problems with an even bigger, different set of environmental problems. There seems to be a complete disconnect between seeing "clean energy" on the end-users end, and the massive environmental, ecological and habitat destruction on the production end that the "Green Devolution" ideology will require.


Then again, as the old saw goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Good, poorly thought out intentions.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

Wait a second. I thought there was supposed to be a growing fresh water shortage. How is destroying 500,000 gallons of water/ton of lithium not going to exacerbate the problem? Assuming it's actually a problem.
Let's do the math by weight shall we. Based on 10lbs per gallon of water, yes that's pretty much what a gallon of water weighs, that's 5 million lbs of water. Converted to tons, lithium production destroys 2500 tons of water for every 1 ton of lithium. Less polluting? I doubt it. And that's just one single element where mining and refining is going to have be ramped up substantially to meet the 2050 target date bullshit.
Here's what the "intelligentsia" of the left has decided. They are simply going to replace one form of environmental problems with an even bigger, different set of environmental problems. There seems to be a complete disconnect between seeing "clean energy" on the end-users end, and the massive environmental, ecological and habitat destruction on the production end that the "Green Devolution" ideology will require.
Then again, as the old saw goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Good, poorly thought out intentions.

I would very much like to see an analysis of the environmental effects of producing and using storage batteries vs. producing and using petroleum products. I'll have to do some research.

NB: A gallon of water weighs eight pounds. Remember "a pint's a pound the world round?" Two pints to a quart, four quarts to a gallon. Eight pints per gallon.

In metric it's easier (always is): a litre of water weighs a kilogram.
 
Hoid
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I would very much like to see an analysis of the environmental effects of producing and using storage batteries vs. producing and using petroleum products. I'll have to do some research.

NB: A gallon of water weighs eight pounds. Remember "a pint's a pound the world round?" Two pints to a quart, four quarts to a gallon. Eight pints per gallon.

In metric it's easier (always is): a litre of water weighs a kilogram.

Jesus Christ.

If this was 20 years ago I would have applauded your due diligence on the battery vs fossil fuel debate..

Unfortunately it's today so all I can do is laugh at your intellectual laziness.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Jesus Christ.

He can't come to the computer just now. Can I take a message?

Quote:

If this was 20 years ago I would have applauded your due diligence on the battery vs fossil fuel debate.

Unfortunately it's today so all I can do is laugh at your intellectual laziness.

And yet you offer nothing to back up your opinion. Funny how that works, enit?

Actually, comprehensive examinations of all the environmental effects of things are rare, because they're hard to do. Convinced partisans like you and Jin take an emotional point of view, then make arguments based on cherry-picked facts.

Remember when the lefties were railing against disposable diapers? They kinda shut it down when some researchers demonstrated that the environmental costs of laundering and sanitizing cloth diapers were equal to or higher than the environmental costs of disposable diapers in landfills. Or so I hear. Never actually read the studies myself. Don't use diapers.

I know, I know, you have THE TRVTH, and anybody who disagrees with you is a greedy polluting fascist.

And Jin has THE TRVTH, and anybody who disagrees with him is a shrieking commie eco-fascist.

Not buying it from either of you.
 
Hoid
#24
Start here Seeker of Truth:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/23/tesl...itability.html

Tesla revenue hit $6.04 billion during the second quarter of 2020, with about 7% of that, or $428 million, coming from sales of regulatory credits.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Start here Seeker of Truth:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/23/tesl...itability.html
Tesla revenue hit $6.04 billion during the second quarter of 2020, with about 7% of that, or $428 million, coming from sales of regulatory credits.

What makes you think Tesla's financial position says anything about the environmental impact of its products?
 
Hoid
#26
I think it says a great deal when a company that is emblematic of the electric automobile gets paid hundreds of millions of dollars to give their environmental credits to companies who are emblematic of internal combustion engines.

Of course it would require you to look into what these credits are and why they are being traded.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I think it says a great deal when a company that is emblematic of the electric automobile gets paid hundreds of millions of dollars to give their environmental credits to companies who are emblematic of internal combustion engines.
Of course it would require you to look into what these credits are and why they are being traded.

And particularly whether they are "carbon credits," or whether they actually take into account all of the environmental costs of producing a vehicle.

Not that I have any problem with carbon taxes and carbon credits, mind. They're a good way to drive innovation.
 
Hoid
#28
You would have thought that they would have looked into the battery vs fossil fuel thing before creating these credits.

You would have thought that Ford and GM would look into it themselves before paying Tesla hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

Oh wait.

They did all look into it. Years ago.

You remain one one key player who has not been convinced.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

You would have thought that they would have looked into the battery vs fossil fuel thing before creating these credits.

If you're hopelessly naive about politics, that is.
Quote:

You would have thought that Ford and GM would look into it themselves before paying Tesla hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
Oh wait.
They did all look into it. Years ago.
You remain one one key player who has not been convinced.

I remain the one key player who hasn't looked at the direct evidence in depth.

And no, argumentum ad populam ain't gonna make your case.
 
Hoid
#30
OK we'll all hold our breath until you come up with the answers you're looking for that everyone on Earth already has.