GM Full Size Trucks In General - 2019 Debuts
- Thread starter CodeRedR51
- 524 comments
- 44,552 views
- 8,828
- Ottawa
- Automotive_Buff
Let's be real here, going electric was never going to help the environment.
Keef
Premium
- 24,550
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Where's the thumbs down button? Do more research on energy and economics and logistics, I think you'll find an obvious answer.
- 8,828
- Ottawa
- Automotive_Buff
You can use the poop emoji.
I'm sorry but as long as you're mining for lithium, cobalt, and nickel, you're producing more green house gases just to build an EV compared to an ICE. It doesn't matter what the long term effects are, which in the U.S. alone could yield a 36 gigaton reduction in emissions, if you're not looking for a greener way to power an EV, you're still failing at the overall goal; remember, only 17% of the vehicles on the road in the U.S. market are light vehicles. You still have buses, trucks, construction equipment, etc.
Every time you talk about how green EVs are, there is always a long footnote associated with that claim because it doesn't matter how green the car itself is after, say, 20k miles when they equal ICE cars in emissions, you are always reliant on the power grid and how you produce said power.
EVs are not the future, imo. Hydrogen, on the other hand, is a more viable solution, always has been.
- 1,035
- United States
- LM7325
I won't lie, that W/T trim looks tempting just a little bit. The thing about EV vehicles compared to ICE is that EV at least has the potential to be relatively clean one day. With ICE, as much as I love a good V8, like Sammy said "there's only one way to rock".
- 15,316
- TRAPPIST-1g
- ProjectWHaT
This is from Volvo's carbon footprint report
Although the manufacturing of the batteries does cause a large portion of a car's total pollution, an ICE's main contribution is from driving and at the moment, there's no way to decrease the emissions from that, but we are able to generate electricity from through renewable methods.
Also, hydrogen is not the solution unless we move its production to renewable methods.
From the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-02/documents/subpartp-tsd_hydrogenproduction.pdf
Currently, most hydrogen production is from natural gas, which releases a lot of emissions. Until we move hydrogen production to renewable energy sources, hydrogen isn't the solution.
However, I do agree that the sudden and immediate rush to EVs is probably not the best solution. It's crazy to think that the best solution we currently have is to suddenly force everyone to scrap their current cars and to buy a brand new vehicle.
If there is a way to retroactively modify old vehicles to produce less emissions while driving, it may give us some time to create a better hydrogen producing infrastructure? The old saying is "Reduce, reuse, recycle", with the level of importance in that order. We need to reduce our usage and reuse what we do have, instead of making more things.
Anyways, the bigger problem isn't with individuals, but rather large corporations and general capitalistic motivations causing loads of pollutions
Although the manufacturing of the batteries does cause a large portion of a car's total pollution, an ICE's main contribution is from driving and at the moment, there's no way to decrease the emissions from that, but we are able to generate electricity from through renewable methods.
Also, hydrogen is not the solution unless we move its production to renewable methods.
From the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-02/documents/subpartp-tsd_hydrogenproduction.pdf
Currently, most hydrogen production is from natural gas, which releases a lot of emissions. Until we move hydrogen production to renewable energy sources, hydrogen isn't the solution.
However, I do agree that the sudden and immediate rush to EVs is probably not the best solution. It's crazy to think that the best solution we currently have is to suddenly force everyone to scrap their current cars and to buy a brand new vehicle.
If there is a way to retroactively modify old vehicles to produce less emissions while driving, it may give us some time to create a better hydrogen producing infrastructure? The old saying is "Reduce, reuse, recycle", with the level of importance in that order. We need to reduce our usage and reuse what we do have, instead of making more things.
Anyways, the bigger problem isn't with individuals, but rather large corporations and general capitalistic motivations causing loads of pollutions
Last edited:
- 8,828
- Ottawa
- Automotive_Buff
From what I've studied there are two main issues regarding hydrogen fuels. Technically one issue with a sub section.
The most efficient and renewable method on a large scale is electrolysis. The plants themselves cost a lot of money to build, so you'll need a few central plants, you can't produce it on-site in any significant volume.
The next issue is with electrolysis and transportation. You lose about 46% of your fuel before it makes it to the car as opposed to a 5% loss over wires for EVs.
Once those two crucial hurdles are overcome, they'll be the way. But as you, and many others agree, suddenly shifting to EVs does not solve anything.
DIY EV projects are on the rise but not on any large scale.
I'm sure when big power corporations can think of a way to monetise hydrogen fuels as they have fossil fuels, development will drastically speed up 😒
On the topic at hand, as much as I like the Hummer EV, the fact that the Chevy shares the same platform is great imo. It's already looking like a proper competition between GM and Ford is on the way. Soon you'll be bragging about horsepower figures, total range, whose car powers a house more, and whose car has more outlets 😂
The most efficient and renewable method on a large scale is electrolysis. The plants themselves cost a lot of money to build, so you'll need a few central plants, you can't produce it on-site in any significant volume.
The next issue is with electrolysis and transportation. You lose about 46% of your fuel before it makes it to the car as opposed to a 5% loss over wires for EVs.
Once those two crucial hurdles are overcome, they'll be the way. But as you, and many others agree, suddenly shifting to EVs does not solve anything.
DIY EV projects are on the rise but not on any large scale.
I'm sure when big power corporations can think of a way to monetise hydrogen fuels as they have fossil fuels, development will drastically speed up 😒
On the topic at hand, as much as I like the Hummer EV, the fact that the Chevy shares the same platform is great imo. It's already looking like a proper competition between GM and Ford is on the way. Soon you'll be bragging about horsepower figures, total range, whose car powers a house more, and whose car has more outlets 😂
Last edited:
Keef
Premium
- 24,550
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Hydrogen is not the solution for one simple reason: The infrastructure doesn't exist. It doesn't even matter how much we make or how we make it if we can't get it to consumers, which we can't. Now look at the existing gasoline infrastructure which has developed over the past 100 years and is (annoyingly) still developing further, and all the industrial efforts it took to create it and maintain and operate it. The same exact thing will be true of hydrogen.
But electricity? The infrastructure already exists. And the space required to make it more accessible already exists too. And the technology and logistics required to actually get that energy to consumers is exceedingly basic. I mean, they can install a charging station in the nether regions of a Walmart parking lot within days. And not a single tanker truck will ever have to show up and refill the tanks. Wild.
Hydrogen has been a stupid idea since Day 1.
- 2,744
- Columbus, Ohio
Both electric and hydrogen have limitations beyond infrastructure that everyone is ignoring, which make neither of them a suitable wholesale replacement for petroleum. Electric primarily gets the nod because people were tinkering with it decades ago, so the whole "reinventing the wheel" part was already out of the way by the time we realized that the single point of failure was inevitable.
Realistically the world should have been developing as many alternative fuel sources as possible when the fuel crisis of the '70s hit and worked to apply them in smaller scope depending on their best use cases, so as to minimize the need for a main source or fuel for everything. But of course that costs money in the short term to do, and everyone wants a single market they can attempt to gain a monopoly on, so that wasn't ever gonna happen.
(also that asinine "the earth just makes more oil so it will never ever run out" line of thinking that some people still believe really didn't help)
Keef
Premium
- 24,550
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
What's the limitation, power generation? I think we've got that covered. Here in the Midwest first of all we don't struggle with power generation at all like some parts of the country, and we've got massive renewable projects on the horizon, particularly offshore wind in Lake Erie which will literally be off the horizon. The real hurtle isn't the amount or the economics, it's conservative politics in the Midwest that are stifling public support and blocking incentives to transition quicker. I think the transition to renewables will continue speeding up and will easily match increased demand by EVs.
- 3,656
- Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
It seems GM may be working on a Ford Maverick competitor. A prototype model of the baby truck was seen by Autonews at the company’s design studio in Michigan with the publication reporting that it featured two doors as well as a “4- to 4.5-foot-long bed.” The truck that’s described as “futuristic and sporty” was said to have a low roofline as well as smaller dimensions than the Ford Maverick and Hyundai Santa Cruz.
www.carscoops.com
They should call it the LUV.
GM Gauges Interest For Baby Electric Pickup Smaller Than Ford's Maverick | Carscoops
The electric truck that was shown in prototype form at GM's design studio has two doors and a 4- to 4.5-foot bed
www.carscoops.com
They should call it the LUV.
Keef
Premium
- 24,550
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
I think you've missed a step. Pretty sure the ICE Mav competitor, the Montana, has been revealed already...It seems GM may be working on a Ford Maverick competitor. A prototype model of the baby truck was seen by Autonews at the company’s design studio in Michigan with the publication reporting that it featured two doors as well as a “4- to 4.5-foot-long bed.” The truck that’s described as “futuristic and sporty” was said to have a low roofline as well as smaller dimensions than the Ford Maverick and Hyundai Santa Cruz.
GM Gauges Interest For Baby Electric Pickup Smaller Than Ford's Maverick | Carscoops
The electric truck that was shown in prototype form at GM's design studio has two doors and a 4- to 4.5-foot bed
They should call it the LUV.
You're talking about an EV version which I don't doubt. But the two-door renders look kinda rad.
Similar threads
