Electric Suburban / Electric Tahoe / Yukon / Escalade EV

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Quark

Full Access Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Posts
553
Reaction score
413
Location
Atomic Nuclei
I don’t “watch” news and I’m not ignoring anything other than the fallacies. The article I linked to talks about the regulatory environment and the environmental hurdles.

And again with an emotional appeal vs an actual response. Why?

So....Do you believe that the “big picture” and best long term plan is to focus only on petroleum?

I am very sorry you feel this way I was attempting to raise the level of our discussion beyond hyperbole by providing credible reasons for why I don't believe the technology is ready for huge government outlays. Not to say that it won't ever be capable of a sustainable transition. But... when it is private venture will be more than up to the task by using market forces to do it efficiently.
 

cardude2000

Full Access Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
2,931
Reaction score
1,037
I am very sorry you feel this way I was attempting to raise the level of our discussion beyond hyperbole by providing credible reasons for why I don't believe the technology is ready for huge government outlays. Not to say that it won't ever be capable of a sustainable transition. But... when it is private venture will be more than up to the task by using market forces to do it efficiently.
Chicken or the egg but we can agree to disagree. Taking about the top 20%, NIMBY-ISM and “current state” fallacies are all hyperbolic. Furthermore the OMG industry is heavily incentivized so it isn’t free of govt intervention.

That said, what is your view? Drill baby drill until somehow an unfunded technology becomes profitable?
 

Quark

Full Access Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Posts
553
Reaction score
413
Location
Atomic Nuclei
Chicken or the egg but we can agree to disagree. Taking about the top 20%, NIMBY-ISM and “current state” fallacies are all hyperbolic. Furthermore the OMG industry is heavily incentivized so it isn’t free of govt intervention.

That said, what is your view? Drill baby drill until somehow an unfunded technology becomes profitable?

By most estimates we have 50 years of usable oil reserves but that keeps increasing not decreasing. Our current administration is reducing that by restricting oil leases on government land and nixing projects such as the Keystone XL thereby reducing the amount of oil transferable from our trading partner, Canada. I'd like to reiterate that mining is much more destructive than oil extraction.

I did read the link you provided. At first I was hesitant in doing so after your proclamation that providing links isn't discussion so I'm not sure where you stand now. It mostly supported my views on the difficulty of regaining our production of rare earth metals industry. If I am remiss feel free to enlighten me. Oh, I find it odd that you profess not to watch the news then link to an CNBC article which mostly relies on government statements in lieu of investigation as usual. This I refer to as media.

With our increasing usable oil reserves I feel we have at least 20 years to improve our EV technology and increase our materials development and supply. Keep in mind as we refine our refining technology the costs of safely providing these elements will increase substantially. This will be a major headwind to weening ourselves from foreign sources who will undoubtedly manipulate prices to retain their lead. These goals will be paramount to our national autonomy and security in the long run. Our resources should be directed to this developing technology and not by forcing something to market that is clearly not ready, IMO. It will take all that we have plus some of what our grandchildren should have.
 

cardude2000

Full Access Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
2,931
Reaction score
1,037
By most estimates we have 50 years of usable oil reserves but that keeps increasing not decreasing. Our current administration is reducing that by restricting oil leases on government land and nixing projects such as the Keystone XL thereby reducing the amount of oil transferable from our trading partner, Canada. I'd like to reiterate that mining is much more destructive than oil extraction.

I did read the link you provided. At first I was hesitant in doing so after your proclamation that providing links isn't discussion so I'm not sure where you stand now. It mostly supported my views on the difficulty of regaining our production of rare earth metals industry. If I am remiss feel free to enlighten me. Oh, I find it odd that you profess not to watch the news then link to an CNBC article which mostly relies on government statements in lieu of investigation as usual. This I refer to as media.

With our increasing usable oil reserves I feel we have at least 20 years to improve our EV technology and increase our materials development and supply. Keep in mind as we refine our refining technology the costs of safely providing these elements will increase substantially. This will be a major headwind to weening ourselves from foreign sources who will undoubtedly manipulate prices to retain their lead. These goals will be paramount to our national autonomy and security in the long run. Our resources should be directed to this developing technology and not by forcing something to market that is clearly not ready, IMO. It will take all that we have plus some of what our grandchildren should have.

The petroleum cornucopia position. Interesting.

I’m not totally following your position but it sounds like drill baby drill and invest in renewables for the next 20 years but don’t “force” EV’s? Is that essentially it? If that’s the case then this is a fantastic waste of time since that’s where I sit on the issue lol.

[Re: Sources. You’ll notice that the sources I provide backup or give context to a specific point or position I’ve taken. I’m not linking to a lobbyist or opinion piece and saying “read that”]
 

Quark

Full Access Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Posts
553
Reaction score
413
Location
Atomic Nuclei
The petroleum cornucopia position. Interesting.

I’m not totally following your position but it sounds like drill baby drill and invest in renewables for the next 20 years but don’t “force” EV’s? Is that essentially it? If that’s the case then this is a fantastic waste of time since that’s where I sit on the issue lol.

[Re: Sources. You’ll notice that the sources I provide backup or give context to a specific point or position I’ve taken. I’m not linking to a lobbyist or opinion piece and saying “read that”]

If you say we agree, well alright but we diverge when it comes to pushing technology to market in lieu of further developing that technology and waiting till it is feasible. It's a bit difficult to ascertain your stance when it wavers considerably.

As far as that last link it mostly affirms what I said in the previous post but then you pretended that it somehow countered it. I assume you will agree until you decide not to agree.
 

cardude2000

Full Access Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
2,931
Reaction score
1,037
If you say we agree, well alright but we diverge when it comes to pushing technology to market in lieu of further developing that technology and waiting till it is feasible. It's a bit difficult to ascertain your stance when it wavers considerably.

As far as that last link it mostly affirms what I said in the previous post but then you pretended that it somehow countered it. I assume you will agree until you decide not to agree.
Right. You think that the govt and industry should invest in EV but not mandate it for another 2 decades. I concur. Always have. Saying I’m wavering won’t make it true. If you look back on my posts I think you’ll see that your knee jerk perception about what I believe doesn’t map to the reality of what I said.

The last link confirms that the US once was and could be again a leader in mineral supply and production. It also confirms that there will be considerable effort to get there and it’s not without issue. As I’ve also said all along, this change to renewables will cause short term discomfort, cost and much gnashing of the teeth. Change always does. The second to last link backed up my point that the US sits on massive REE deposits.

So we’re back to where we began...EV’s are coming. Enjoy the ride!
 
Last edited:

Quark

Full Access Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Posts
553
Reaction score
413
Location
Atomic Nuclei
Right. You think that the govt and industry should invest in EV but not mandate it for another 2 decades. I concur. Always have. Saying I’m wavering won’t make it true.

The last link confirms that the US once was and could be again a leader in mineral supply and production. It also confirms that there will be considerable effort to get there and it’s not without issue. As I’ve also said all along, this change to renewables will cause short term discomfort, cost and much gnashing of the teeth. Change always does. The second to last link backed up my point that the US sits on massive REE deposits.

So we’re back to where we began...EV’s are coming. Enjoy the ride!

And as I've said all along... EVs might be coming but they're not ready. Meanwhile we subsidize Tesla to give us poor quality automobiles costing more than our comparable but better quality gas powered cars. And we should enjoy this?
 

cardude2000

Full Access Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
2,931
Reaction score
1,037
And as I've said all along... EVs might be coming but they're not ready. Meanwhile we subsidize Tesla to give us poor quality automobiles costing more than our comparable but better quality gas powered cars. And we should enjoy this?

95% of daily drivers would be within range of CURRENT EV technology. Are we ready for 100% EV’s TODAY? Nah. Nobody is suggesting that.

I love technology and and if we’re going to throw money at a mature finite resource/industry to ensure we have <$5 gallon gas I’m good with us also putting some money into emerging technology....especially if the money is being pumped into American technology companies.

You don’t have to enjoy the ride it if you don’t want to. I will.
 
Last edited:

Quark

Full Access Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Posts
553
Reaction score
413
Location
Atomic Nuclei
95% of daily drivers would be within range of CURRENT EV technology. Are we ready for 100% EV’s TODAY? Nah. Nobody is suggesting that.

I love technology and and if we’re going to throw money at a mature finite resource/industry to ensure we have >$5 gallon gas I’m good with us also putting some money into emerging technology....especially if the money is being pumped into American technology companies.

You don’t have to enjoy the ride it if you don’t want to. I will.

Well there's the problem. We have a choice when it comes to throwing money at a mature practical ICE based automobile that will serve 100% of the people 100% of the time but we have no choice in subsidizing an EV that serves the top 20% of earners 80% of the time.

Speaking of Tesla I just read that they're having trouble meeting sales forecasts in China. Seems the Chinese expect higher quality than Americans when it comes to EVs. Who would have thunk it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
132,327
Posts
1,866,075
Members
96,933
Latest member
Hugh Wilde
Top