Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Power

GM Will Sell Only Zero-Emission Vehicles By 2035 (nytimes.com) 334

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: General Motors said Thursday it would phase out petroleum-powered cars and trucks and sell only vehicles that have zero tailpipe emissions by 2035, a seismic shift by one of the world's largest automakers that makes billions of dollars today from gas-guzzling pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles. The announcement could put pressure on automakers around the world to make similar commitments.

G.M. said that its decision to switch to electric cars was part of a broader plan to become carbon neutral by 2040. Its announcement came a day after Mr. Biden signed an executive order to step up the fight against climate change, including a directive for the federal government to electrify its large vehicle fleet. "General Motors is joining governments and companies around the globe working to establish a safer, greener and better world," Mary T. Barra, G.M.'s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. "We encourage others to follow suit and make a significant impact on our industry and on the economy as a whole."

G.M. said it would increase the use of renewable energy, and would eliminate or offset emissions from its factories, buildings, vehicles and other sources. The company plans to spend $27 billion over the next five years to introduce 30 electric vehicles, including an electric Hummer pickup truck that it expects to start delivering to customers later this year. The company said it was working with the Environmental Defense Fund to build charging stations for electric cars and to convince drivers to switch to electric cars.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GM Will Sell Only Zero-Emission Vehicles By 2035

Comments Filter:
  • I'm curious, in the USA, gas is around $2 or $3 a gallon, yes? If you haven't already, how high would it have to go for you to seriously consider abandoning ICE vehicle(s) forever and switch to electric only (or even no vehicle at all) ?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      I want readily replaceable batteries, minutes to swap over from low charge to high charge battery, pay for the swap and the charge. Fixed batteries is stupid, especially for trucks. Who will be the first manufacturer to swap from fixed to swappable batteries, better for them (long term income) better for us, car charged in minutes and never have to worry about replacing old batteries.

      • by galabar ( 518411 )
        At the moment, batteries are too expensive. You aren't going to want to swap your shinny new $30,000 (or whatever) Tesla batteries for the beat-up batteries in the back of that shady looking "gas station". No one will want to do that. We currently swap $25 propane tanks, but that's it. Now, if the "gas station" supplied the initial battery, maybe. However, again, what "gas station" is going to give you that $30,000 battery to begin with?
      • They'd also need massive infrastructure buildup of places able to swap large batteries in a couple minutes. Large robots? It seems extremely impractical and expensive for something that would be of limited benefit. It would also limit how cars could be built...they'd need to be created in a way where the battery is easily taken out.

        I guess I could imagine it happening for a secondary battery, much smaller than the first. But really, it's a stupid idea that has already been brought up and abandoned.

      • I want readily replaceable batteries, minutes to swap over from low charge to high charge battery, pay for the swap and the charge. Fixed batteries is stupid, especially for trucks. Who will be the first manufacturer to swap from fixed to swappable batteries, better for them (long term income) better for us, car charged in minutes and never have to worry about replacing old batteries.

        I love listening to people hype this kind of bullshit solution, especially when they realize it's going to cost them $100 to do a "quick refill".

        You're an idiot if you don't think Greed will fuck you in the ass with the shit you're demanding. Have you seen the mock market lately? Investors demand profits. Good luck.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Which one of you fucking idiots modded this a troll? The OP is correct, fixed batteries are stupid. We should have a standard battery pack for cars that can be swapped out in a few minutes.

        • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday January 29, 2021 @08:23AM (#61005284) Homepage Journal

          It may not be a troll, but there is no moderation option for "stupid" so I presume that is what went on there.

          Anyone who thinks that lack of battery swapping is holding up EV adoption is as dumb as a box of AA batteries. Quick charging is almost as fast as a swap, and doesn't require compromising the rigidity of the vehicle by not using the battery pack as a stiffener.

          • An you are pretty much wrong on every thing you can possibly say there. Quick charging won't be as fast as a swap nor would it compromise the rigidity of vehicle in any way. An here is why. Because the vehicle would be designed around the process of replacing the battery pack, quickly and efficiently.

            See there? its not a stupid or a dumb ideal. There are plenty of other advantages to easily swappable battery packs but I think you can figure them out.

            Oh and while it may not be the only thing holdin

    • I'm curious, in the USA, gas is around $2 or $3 a gallon, yes? If you haven't already, how high would it have to go for you to seriously consider abandoning ICE vehicle(s) forever and switch to electric only (or even no vehicle at all) ?

      Gas (depends on how far you're driving) plus insurance ($500-$2000 a year depending on coverage and your driving record) $50-100 for registration, $20 for yearly inspection.

      On non-warranty repairs, figure another $600-$1200 a year for general upkeep, brakes, emission system, tires...

      I know people in other cities paying upwards of $1k a month for a parking spot

      It all adds up pretty quickly.

      I haven't had a car for about 6 years, had one owned or available for ~40 years before that. I was driving about 50 mile

    • About the same as in the UK, which, as I understand it is about $6.00 per gallon right now. (By all mans with in for the cost where you live.) The only reason it is so high in the EU is because those countries tax the crap out of it. The underlying cost is close to the same. I'm guessing you would not see a significant change until it reached $10.00 per gallon equivalent and started affecting the pocketbook more adversely. EVs are ALREADY cheaper to run than ICE vehicles; it's just that there are not a lot

    • I think 100 dollars for a fuel tank fill up will make people come back to senses. Right now everyone is driving ginormous rigs like there is no tomorrow, massive raised pickup trucks, wranglers, and three row SUVs mostly used a grocery getting commuter rig.

    • I'd still buy gasoline for some uses even if it was $10/gal. In fact I pay quite a hefty premium for small cans of ethanol-free or stable premix 2-stroke blends for us in small engines and recreation. And those don't even have the usual gas (road use) tax on them. It's not like an electric motor will be practical for a seaworthy fishing boat, and retrofitting will be prohibitively expensive for decades. This of course probably makes up less than a fraction of a percent of the fossil fuel use in the US, and

    • During the first few years of Iraq war right until the financial crisis of 2009, there were record high oil and gas prices even in the US, and populist politicians were whining about the damn "speculators" driving up the gas prices. Anyways, this was the time when Americans started abandoning pickup trucks and SUVs in masses and started buying compact cars. This was the time when even a "tiny" by American standards Ford Fiesta returned to America. However, the post-2012 fall in oil prices made everyone swit

    • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @06:38PM (#61003638) Journal
      Its not that gas is too cheap. Gas cars are cheap compared to electric cars. Thats why it is not sweeping the market.

      Except for drive train rest of the car is basically the same. 90% of the cost of the electric drive train is the battery. Its price has been falling 15% per year for the last 20 years or so. Or to use Tesla's Moore's Law, half the price in 7 years. So electric drive train will cost 55% of todays electric drive train in 7 years.

      On the ICEV side, the drive train (engine+transmisstion+emission control+fuel tank) nothing is going to cost half of today's prices in 7 years.

      Already electric and icev drive trains are competitive for F, E, and D segment cars. Scroll down for the chart and definitions [cleantechnica.com]

      In 7 years C will be in the bag and Electric will be seriously challenging B. By that time A segment would have been flooded with used ICE from all the expensive models and some electrics too.

      It will be the raw price off the dealer's lot for Electric cars that will spur mass adaption. Gas price spikes might help, but they are transient.

      • by Cyberax ( 705495 )

        90% of the cost of the electric drive train is the battery.

        Not really. Tesla Model 3 battery cost is apparently $9000 for the 75kWh long-range version.

    • by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @06:43PM (#61003660) Journal

      I live in CA, we pay about $3.40 per gallon. I have a 2019 motorcycle, and my wife has a 2015 car. Both have another 10+ years in them, easily. There is no realistic replacement for the motorcycle - so that won't get changed. The car? It would be another $40,000 to replace it. Assuming 15,000 miles a year, for 10 years, at 25 MPG, that is 6000 gallons of gas. Assuming a 6% effective return on my money, electricity at $0.24/kwh (what we pay in SoCal), and 3 kWh per mile, gas would have to be around $13/gallon to make it a viable move.

      The bigger issue is we do not have a hope of moving our economy to electricity by 2050. To replace all the fossil fuel consumption used for energy (not refining into pharmaceuticals, plastics, etc), we'd need to make a 2 GW nuclear plant every day, from now to 2050. Or build 3000 2 MW wind turbines a day. Or about 100 square miles of solar panels every day.

      In other words - it's a pipe dream that has zero chance of actually be achievable, as even if you could move all transportation from fossil fuel - you cannot generate enough replacement electricity. We use 193 PWh of fossil fuel energy a year - that is a massive, massive amount. Replacing that by 2050 - or even 2100 - is a complete pipe-dream. The only way to get close would be nuclear - and that is just not going to fly in most places.

      • by xwin ( 848234 )
        In CA we have blackouts when it gets too hot or the wind blows in the wrong direction. So EV replacing IC engines completely is a pipe dream until we have reliable electricity supply. At least one can fire up the car and drive around with AC on when there is a blackout because of the heat. Good luck with your EV unless you have a solar panels, which is another substantial investment. The numbers just do not add up for an average person.
        • Like you, I lost power for 2 whole hours this summer thanks to California's energy crisis. It's a wonder we didn't die. Everyone in the state using their air conditioners full blast at the same time is surely just as easy to load balance as car charging, there's no incentive system that can make people not charge their car at 5 PM on a hot day, so we're doomed.

      • $40,000 to replace it. Assuming 15,000 miles a year, for 10 years, at 25 MPG, that is 6000 gallons of gas. Assuming a 6% effective return on my money, electricity at $0.24/kwh (what we pay in SoCal), and 3 kWh per mile, gas would have to be around $13/gallon to make it a viable move.

        This calculation is absurd. It assumes you would give away your current car for $0 (or just jump it off a cliff) and buy a new electric car to recoup that loss on fuel savings. You're just being silly to get the result you'

      • by poobah75 ( 2883043 ) on Friday January 29, 2021 @09:35AM (#61005526)
        Your math is wrong. The electric cars get about 3 miles per kWh, not 3 kWh per mile. That means the EV costs $0.08 per mile, while the gas car costs $0.136 per mile. That is $840 dollars saved per year or $70 per month. If you want to get nit picky, the current Tesla model 3 is actually EPA rated at (25 kWh per 100 miles, or 4 miles per kWh). At 4 miles per kWh that will save you $0.076 per mile, so @15000 miles per year that translates to saving $95 per month.
    • I'm curious, in the USA, gas is around $2 or $3 a gallon, yes? If you haven't already, how high would it have to go for you to seriously consider abandoning ICE vehicle(s) forever and switch to electric only (or even no vehicle at all) ?

      American born and raised. My guess is it would have to get at least to $10 a gallon to get a significant number of Americans to give up on gasoline powered cars. GM and other manufacturers will simply have to do this because otherwise most Americans will never choose electric cars. I leased a Nissan Leaf for 3 years and I loved it. I was paying about $1 a day in electricity to drive 40-something miles round trip to and from work vs. about $6 a day in gasoline (my car did not get great gas mileage). M

    • by vux984 ( 928602 )

      I'm equally curious, where are you? And if your fuel is heavily taxed, and the entire fleet of vehicles switches to electric, how long before the electricity price rises and you get new taxes either on electricity itself or perhaps taxes on mileage via odometer readings/gps tracking.. or both?

      You don't really think the government is going to let that tax revenue just go away do you? In civilized countries at least those fuel taxes fund the transportation infrastructure. That maintenance is required, and tha

    • I'm curious, in the USA, gas is around $2 or $3 a gallon, yes? If you haven't already, how high would it have to go for you to seriously consider abandoning ICE vehicle(s) forever and switch to electric only (or even no vehicle at all) ?

      I drive a 21 year old SUV. My kids drive 10 and 11 year old SUV's. The price of gas would have to go up to $10/gal before I'd look to replace any of them with new EV's. But when I do, I will need to install charging and switching gear to support three cars in my garage.

      My motorcycles will never be replaced by electrics. Engine noise is part of the fun!

  • What about synthetically generated liquid fuels that are "carbon neutral?" Is battery technology the only solution? Why commit to one particular solution when you have no idea what your options will be?
    • Short sighted? This is literally the longest sighted option.

      when you have no idea what your options will be?

      Tesla shows there is enough demand for electric cars. They have plenty of ideas what the options will be, and burning things, not even synthetics, to move is not one of them anymore.

    • by Ksevio ( 865461 )

      Well there are plenty of ways for battery technology to go, but in general it's probably going to be an electric charging solution. It makes so much more sense than relying on a single fuel source since electricity can be generated in lots of ways and it's already being distributed

    • Using electricity and the air to create synthetically generated liquid fuels is an extremely inefficient process. Burning fuels to move a car is less inefficient than using batteries. Ultimately, it would take maybe 20 times as much electricity to do it this way as just charging a battery powered car. So it doesn't make sense except for niche applications.

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      I imagine "zero emission" means "zero net emission".

      Synthetic gasoline isn't likely to be big for personal vehicles though. Battery electric vehicles are pretty much superior in all areas except up front cost now, and will likely be overall superior by 2035. Synthetic fuel is going to inherit all the problems of current gas vehicles plus the extra inefficiency of making the fuel in the first place.

      • They said, "zero tailpipe emissions."

        I would interpret this as ruling out synthetic gasoline, but not ruling out hydrogen, since the air and water "emitted" from that are not pollutants.

    • by Cyberax ( 705495 )

      What about synthetically generated liquid fuels that are "carbon neutral?"

      Gas engines are overall about 20% efficient. So you'll be wasting 4 times the energy you get from fuel.

      This simply is a bad idea. It might be acceptable for airplanes, as they are MUCH more efficient and batteries are nowhere near energetically dense enough. Maybe for ships as well.

    • by ahodgson ( 74077 )

      Dude, Elon doesn't become the richest person in the world if you just spend $2K to convert your F-150 to run on ammonia.

    • You dont argue with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Heat engines, small enough to be mounted on cars, are just 30% efficient or less. So carbon neutral fuel will never compete with batteries due to efficiency.
    • What about synthetically generated liquid fuels that are "carbon neutral?"

      That requires more energy to produce than it's worth. Also, ICE cars are highly prone to mechanical failures because both the engine and transmission have lots of moving parts. You go a million miles in an EV before mechanical issues arise. Batteries are improving to the point where they will be sufficient to reach the million mile point before needing to be replaced. Soon there will literally be no advantage to using a car with a combustion engine.

      Is battery technology the only solution?

      No but it is the most economically solution.

  • by algaeman ( 600564 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @06:03PM (#61003430)
    This is just a PR stunt. It is very simple to say this, and it will likely delay a government mandated migration. Then, in 2032, they can just say that they only meant light duty vehicles, or whatever categories are profitable and easy.
    • You can't accuse them of secretly plotting to do that, since they did it already: "The move toward ending tailpipe emissions won't affect medium and heavy duty trucks, but it will include everything from cars and crossovers to full-size SUVs, such as the light-duty Silverado and Yukon, a company spokeswoman said."
    • True enough. by 2035, this will have disappeared down the memory hole. File this one under more easily said than done.

    • by im_thatoneguy ( 819432 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @08:10PM (#61004014)

      I think it's exactly the opposite. By 2035 nobody will want to buy a gas powered car. If by 2025 Tesla has cut the price of their batteries by 50% then a 300 mile range electric vehicle with fast charging will be cheaper, not just in the long run, but on the sticker at the dealership.

      This is like Intel promising that they will only sell x64 CPUs by 2035. No shit, you and everybody else. You're only promising to do what everybody is going to do long before that. This would have been like Canon in 2000 promising that they would only sell digital cameras by 2025.

      Nobody is going to weasel into selling ICE cars which just can't sell in 2035.

  • by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @06:05PM (#61003446)

    The 2030 Corvette will be available in two versions: an electric 3-row SUV, or an electric heavy duty crew cab truck.

  • by PinkyGigglebrain ( 730753 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @06:08PM (#61003462)

    just 25 some years ago GM was doing everything in it's power to NOT make electric cars. [wikipedia.org]

    I can't help but wonder where the EV market would be today if GM, and the other interests involved, hadn't done so much to kill GM's EV1 in the 1990s.

    • The EV1 wasn't really a viable production vehicle. One might suggest that the first actually practical EV was the RAV4 EV. Toyota did their best to murder that one, though, so the industry was consistent back then. Only a few people got to convert their leases to sales. Reportedly pretty much everyone who had one adored it, and it was made mostly out of commodity parts so it actually could have been supported, unlike the EV1.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by Cyberax ( 705495 )

      where the energy you carry with you is not just miles rolling down the road, it's also power to wedge this tree out of the path

      Moving a tree requires an insignificant amount of energy. Less than a couple of miles of a freeway drive.

      running your vehicle all day because it's the only source of warmth

      What? This is just crazy. A car is horribly inefficient way to make heat. A proper kerosene or propane heater would be an order of magnitude cheaper to run.

    • Buy a horse. LOL!

    • by im_thatoneguy ( 819432 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @08:06PM (#61004000)

      Being able to carry enough fuel with you efficiently to operate for weeks at a time without convenient access to infrastructure.

      "There are dozens of us... Dozens!"

      How many people need to use their car for warm for weeks at a time without access to solar or wind or grid electricity?

      What a fucking stupid complaint. Nothing constrains you to "infrastructure" (as if the market of people who live in their F-150 for 3 weeks without a power outlet available exists) more than needing gasoline.

      You could throw some solar panels in the bed of your truck and just prop them up on a rock and recharge your electric vehicle. You could have a tower and some guide lines to prop up if it's windy. You could throw a water turbine into a creek. You could operate your electric vehicle for the rest of your life without tapping civilization's infrastructure.

      What do you do in this absurd, rugged-individualist lifestyle fiction you've imagined when you need to refuel an internal combustion engine? Are you going to mine crude oil and then refine it into diesel?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @06:28PM (#61003586) Journal
    GM Will Sell Only Zero- Vehicles By 2035

    There. Fixed it for you/.

  • Not a big promise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rbrander ( 73222 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @06:33PM (#61003616) Homepage

    This is going to be one of those funny ones where apparently bold, courageous decisions now turn out to be timid, like claiming "by 2000, every desk will have a computer" in 1985.

    I remember looking at a graph of declining prices for both tube and LCD monitors, about 2001. Both were in constant price decline, but the lines were linear enough to plot them crossing about 2007. I predicted to friends that CRTs would vanish in 2008.

    Because LCD, of course, was lighter, lower power, less room, looked better - the ONLY positive was cost, so the instant that was lost, CRT was dead. I noted in a story about Denmark selling over 50% EVs this year that the difference between a percent more expensive and a percent cheaper,(due to subsidies) was many tens of percent higher sales.

    By the time EVs get cheaper - they already are, for most people, if you figure the five-year TOC - the other negatives, like range anxiety, will be gone, the charging infrastructure will be up. As all that converges, sales will take off exponentially with price reductions.

    Bottom line, by 2035, it'll be more like the last internal-combustion fanboys begging them to keep their commitment to keep making them as late as 2035.

    • By the time EVs get cheaper - they already are, for most people, if you figure the five-year TOC - the other negatives, like range anxiety, will be gone, the charging infrastructure will be up.

      I'd love to see your calculations for cost to boost charging infrastructure globally to all GM markets to support the 8 million vehicles they sell each year.

  • Has anyone calculated how many power plants (solar, wind, nuclear, whatever) will need to be built to charge all of these vehicles?

    • by crow ( 16139 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @07:02PM (#61003756) Homepage Journal

      Maybe zero.

      Most charging is done at night when current power plants are operating below capacity. Also, we're just starting to see people installing batteries with solar, which will further reduce the need for new power plants.

      In any case, we'll continue to see lots of wind and solar being added, as they're cheap. And we'll see both residential and grid-scale batteries that will reduce peak demands and shift renewables to be available around the clock. The extent to which that new production is consumed by new demand or results in closure of fossil fuel plants is yet to be determined.

    • Small fry but presumably offices will blanket their roofs with solar panels so that workers can charge their vehicles while the sun is shining.

      But do projections for companies becoming carbon neutral include their employees' energy needs too? :)

    • by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @09:38PM (#61004266)
      Not many, actually. An average commute in the US is 40 miles per day, this would require around 10kWh of energy on Tesla Model 3. You can replenish that easily overnight (10 hours) at a mere 1kW, this is well within the power budget of existing infrastructure.

      Even doubling that (to account for commercial traffic, etc.) would not change much. Of course, some places might need local improvements but overall we'd be fine.
  • No way they're replacing a 3500 diesel with an electric any time soon, though I want to live in the world where that's feasible.

    So they will spin out GMC Truck as its own company and probably hold a controlling interest. Corporations lie with shell games.

  • Because when we're still buying GM ICE vehicles in 2036, we'll point and laugh.

  • by jensend ( 71114 ) on Thursday January 28, 2021 @11:07PM (#61004492)

    Some form of hybridization is going to make sense for a lot of vehicles for a long time.

    And I say this as someone who drives an electric car.

    For instance, electric cars do poorly in bitter cold. Lots of reasons why - battery performance in the cold, the need to get working components up to temperature, the need to keep the occupants at temperature.

    Some enterprising DIYers have discovered ways to add tiny fuel-burning heaters to their electric cars (largely, using aftermarket heaters intended for diesel trucks). It makes complete thermodynamic sense. Use electricity - pure low entropy energy which took a lot to generate - for doing work. Use a fossil fuel for generating your max-entropy heat.

    The efficiency losses in electricity generation and transmission and storage and the coefficient of performance of a small heat pump just mean it's vastly more efficient to have a fossil fuel do some of that. It could substantially improve the car's "eMPG" in severe winter conditions. You'd be using maybe a tenth of a gallon of gas an hour (as compared to say 2 gallons per hour used by a conventional car) while saving a *ton* of your electricity for propulsion. In some cases people report nearly doubling winter range.

    But you won't see manufacturers adopting it, simply because "all-electric" is the sales pitch and too many "green buyers" don't know what actually makes things efficient and environmentally-friendly.

    There's a whole range of ways to better use our energy options, and saying you'll only produce zero-emission cars (which, there's no such thing really till grid is 100% renewables) is almost as silly as people still producing gas-only cars. (At least some mild hybrid features like stop-start should be completely universal by now.)

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Working...