Chevy will begin selling electric vehicle conversion kits in the second half of 2021

mbrowne5061

Posts: 2,058   +1,278
Environmentally friendly? How? A 1,000# battery takes 500,000# of raw material to manufacture. Then all the machinery and energy to transform that raw material into a finished product. Keep dreaming.
Still less than building a completely new car.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,838   +1,909
Still less than building a completely new car.
You're setting up a false premise, aren't you? The car is already built, and those resources have already been expended. Placing a battery in it is new consumption ... and consumption that will have to be recur every 10 years or so, based on the lifespan of the battery.
 

mbrowne5061

Posts: 2,058   +1,278
You're setting up a false premise, aren't you? The car is already built, and those resources have already been expended. Placing a battery in it is new consumption ... and consumption that will have to be recur every 10 years or so, based on the lifespan of the battery.
And buying a new car is more resources than upgrading and existing one.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,838   +1,909
And buying a new car is more resources than upgrading and existing one.
Again, the same false premise. If the vehicle already exists, stripping out an already-functioning engine in favor of a battery pack equates to a major consumption of new resources. And if the engine isn't functioning, it's still less resources to replace just that alone...especially when the lifetime of a new IC engine is longer than that of a Li-ion battery pack.
 

mbrowne5061

Posts: 2,058   +1,278
Again, the same false premise. If the vehicle already exists, stripping out an already-functioning engine in favor of a battery pack equates to a major consumption of new resources. And if the engine isn't functioning, it's still less resources to replace just that alone...especially when the lifetime of a new IC engine is longer than that of a Li-ion battery pack.
No one but you (via strawman) is saying it doesn't use a lot of resources; EV conversion uses less resources than buying a new EV. And literally no one throws out a functioning engine and transmission, they sell them. Those get used in repairs and restorations all the time.
 

mbrowne5061

Posts: 2,058   +1,278
You ever see what a vehicle over 10 years old looks like from the northern states? Completely rusted out. Not worth upgrading. https://www.toyota-4runner.org/atta..._large-jpg?s=0813d8c4d9727d7a9a6f7e3f2752b102
Using the 4runner in a northern state as an example of rust problems is kind of choosing the worst case example, no? The model has pretty much always had rust problems in the north, unless you are very aggressive and regular with anti-corrosion applications (water-displacing oils, shielding clays & polymers).

Until just last month, I was driving a 20yo 4runner - when the frame did fail from rust. The rest of the truck was in perfect condition though (even the upholstery on the driver's seat was intact and original - seams on the 3rd gens usually failed in the first few years), and I did consider dropping the ~10k for a frame swap and mechanical overhaul. At least for a hot second.

If someone is doing an EV conversion on a car twice that age, safe bet they have not only taken steps to take good care of the car, and that they are an enthusiast to some degree.

EV conversions aren't for you mom's daily-driver econ-o-box. They're for someone who wants an EV without buying a new car, or for someone who wants to do it for fun.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,838   +1,909
No one but you (via strawman) is saying it doesn't use a lot of resources; EV conversion uses less resources than buying a new EV.
The claim was made that converting a vehicle to EV was environmentally friendly. Thus the proper comparison is "unconverted vehicle vs. converted vehicle", not "converted vehicle versus new EV purchase."

Converting a functioning automobile to EV is not environmentally friendly; it may be enjoyable as a project, and it may give the owner a certain sense of smugness, but it doesn't help "save the planet".
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,837   +3,096
TechSpot Elite
Everyone wants to talk about how friendly the conversion itself is to the environment and nobody has mentioned the many years of emission-free driving after it's done. Not to mention a vastly reduced maintenance schedule.

What I mean is that maybe 10 years ago the argument could be made (though barely) that a large enough demand on the fossil-fueled power grid itself will increase pollution nearly proportionally. But here we are now where coal power is down to only 22%.


And natural gas is up to 38%.


A snip from the article above:

" Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) when combusted in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant. Considering only tailpipe emissions, natural gas also emits 15 to 20 percent less heat-trapping gases than gasoline when burned in today’s typical vehicle".
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 1,838   +1,909
nobody has mentioned the many years of emission-free driving after it's done.
Because it's not emissions-free. From your own link, 63% of that electricity is generated from fossil fuels. And that doesn't count the emissions generated from the creation of the battery, nor its replacement every ten years.

The larger problem, though, is that there isn't nearly enough spare electric generation or distribution capacity to power a national fleet of EVs, or even ten percent of that figure.

here we are now where coal power is down to only 22%...And natural gas is up to 38%.
A conversion which has occurred because natural gas plants are so much cheaper to build and maintain, and because natural gas prices have dropped like a stone due to fracking. In other words, this conversion has been driven solely by economic considerations, and not by illusory beliefs in environmental benefits.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,837   +3,096
TechSpot Elite
Because it's not emissions-free. From your own link, 63% of that electricity is generated from fossil fuels. And that doesn't count the emissions generated from the creation of the battery, nor its replacement every ten years.

The larger problem, though, is that there isn't nearly enough spare electric generation or distribution capacity to power a national fleet of EVs, or even ten percent of that figure.

A conversion which has occurred because natural gas plants are so much cheaper to build and maintain, and because natural gas prices have dropped like a stone due to fracking. In other words, this conversion has been driven solely by economic considerations, and not by illusory beliefs in environmental benefits.
My stalker is back. And he brought his toy Strawman!

Anyway, it's important that everyone remembers, there are people like you who whine that things aren't good enough.

And people like me who say we can make things better.

Because it's not emissions-free. From your own link, 63% of that electricity is generated from fossil fuels. And that doesn't count the emissions generated from the creation of the battery, nor its replacement every ten years.
And the whole point of the timeline is that fossil fuels are dying fast and will contiune to do so. Hours of charging will NEVER cause pollution on the level of driving a gasoline car the same distance. And that's why I always post the links I do. I want a broad view of the facts and evidence available.

Plus I said EMISSION FREE DRIVING. Read or leave.

The larger problem, though, is that there isn't nearly enough spare electric generation or distribution capacity to power a national fleet of EVs
This is absolutely wrong on a massive level. And it will grow as needed.

In other words, this conversion has been driven solely by economic considerations, and not by illusory beliefs in environmental benefits.
NG has been cheap in the past. Only now it is financially feasible for power production. Cheap NG was great for heat but couldn't change the fact that for decades the power plants for it were very expensive to build and maintain.

Point taken overall though. 50%-60% less CO2? How could anyone see a benefit in that?
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 1,838   +1,909
My stalker is back. And he brought his toy Strawman!
The first post in this thread was mine. Try to back off the personal attacks, especially ones based on falsehoods.

fossil fuels are dying fast
Fossil fuel consumption worldwide is increasing. Oil consumption has risen some 25% in the last 20 years, and natural gas has nearly doubled in the same period. Only coal is down, and only slightly.

The larger problem, though, is that there isn't nearly enough spare electric generation or distribution capacity to power a national fleet of EVs
This is absolutely wrong on a massive level.
It's not only not wrong, it's not even close. Would you like to see the figures?

And it will grow as needed.
How? Environmentalists regularly and succesfully block the construction of any new power plants or distribution lines, especially in areas that need it most for EVs, such as NY and CA.

Plus I said EMISSION FREE DRIVING. Read or leave.
Shouting doesn't make it true. Driving an EV generates emissions. Those emissions come out of the power plant smokestack rather than the tailpipe of the car, but they still exist.
 

HofyPC

Posts: 115   +107
Using the 4runner in a northern state as an example of rust problems is kind of choosing the worst case example, no? The model has pretty much always had rust problems in the north, unless you are very aggressive and regular with anti-corrosion applications (water-displacing oils, shielding clays & polymers).

Until just last month, I was driving a 20yo 4runner - when the frame did fail from rust. The rest of the truck was in perfect condition though (even the upholstery on the driver's seat was intact and original - seams on the 3rd gens usually failed in the first few years), and I did consider dropping the ~10k for a frame swap and mechanical overhaul. At least for a hot second.

If someone is doing an EV conversion on a car twice that age, safe bet they have not only taken steps to take good care of the car, and that they are an enthusiast to some degree.

EV conversions aren't for you mom's daily-driver econ-o-box. They're for someone who wants an EV without buying a new car, or for someone who wants to do it for fun.

It doesnt matter what car or truck it is. In the rust belt everything starts rotting out at 10 years.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,837   +3,096
TechSpot Elite
The first post in this thread was mine.
I made a post and didn't quote you. You did quote me, just minutes after my post.
Fossil fuel consumption worldwide is increasing
Worldwide yes. You should move to one of those places to see what its like. In the US it's dropping fast.
How? Environmentalists regularly and succesfully block the construction of any new power plants or distribution lines
For Nukes and coal. I'm in favor of dumping coal but Nuke plants need to go forward. And much much cleaner natural gas plants are moving forward.
Shouting doesn't make it true
Of course not but it may help you understand the parts you seem to miss.
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 13,141   +6,439
At this point there is only one thing I would be interested in. I wouldn't be interested in a 100% conversion. I would be interested in modding a two wheel drive. By adding two electric for an all wheel drive. Then have some sort of torque sensing, to balance load pulling percentages of all four wheels.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,838   +1,909
Worldwide yes. You should move to one of those places to see what its like. In the US it's dropping fast.
Not even in the US. Total US fossil fuel consumption is up over the last 5 years, and even over the last 10, it's essentially flat (80.1 quadrillion BTUs vs. 80.7).

I'm in favor of dumping coal but Nuke plants need to go forward. And much much cleaner natural gas plants are moving forward.
Environmentalist oppose both however, and usually successfully. Here's just one of countless examples:

Sierra Club asks judge to halt construction of $2B natural gas pipeline.

Once again: without an enormous increase in both electric generation and distribution capacity, there is no possible way the US can supply a national EV fleet.

I made a post and didn't quote you. You did quote me.
Next time, post your message privately, and no one will be able to reply. Public forums are public.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,837   +3,096
TechSpot Elite
Not even in the US. Total US fossil fuel consumption is up
Yes, it is. As a general fuel. We are talking power plants, remember? Power generation from them is down. Way down. Except for NG. Which I favor.
Next time, post your message privately, and no one will be able to reply. Public forums are public.
Yes but see I just joined in on the post. You, as usual, quoted me in just a matter of minutes. Again.
Besides then its just a blog. Why would anyone try to post privately in a public thread?
Environmentalist oppose both however, and usually successfully. Here's just one of countless examples:
Sierra Club asks judge to halt construction of $2B natural gas pipeline.
Good for them. And yet NG power plants are flourishing.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,837   +3,096
TechSpot Elite
At this point there is only one thing I would be interested in. I wouldn't be interested in a 100% conversion. I would be interested in modding a two wheel drive. By adding two electric for an all wheel drive. Then have some sort of torque sensing, to balance load pulling percentages of all four wheels.
I read somewhere that Tesla and Ford is also going to sell their power\drive trains for vehicle conversions.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,837   +3,096
TechSpot Elite
I can't help but think this is in wake of laws being passed by various US states and foreign countries requiring all vehicles sold be by 2035 all electric minus a few exceptions California won't even allow the registration past a point unless it is a classic registered vehicle.
If they do want to go for it then they will certainly be able to. Ford alone is planning on having something like 35 EVs in just a few years.

EDIT:
Ford plans 40 EVs and Hybrids by 2022.
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 1,838   +1,909
Yes, it is. As a general fuel. We are talking power plants, remember? Power generation from them is down. Way down. Except for NG. Which I favor.
Actually, the discussion was on EVs versus conventional autos, I.e. those which burn oil. That was when you inaccurately claimed that fossil fuels were dying fast. You then qualified that to mean "in the US only", and when that was debunked, further qualified it to non-natural gas based power generation. That only leaves coal.

So we've gone from "fossils fuels are dying fast" down to "In the US, coal consumption is declining". It took five attempts, but you finally got it right.

Good for the [Sierra Club].
You claim to favor natural gas -- yet you support the Sierra Club's attempt to stymie it? Every time they block a pipeline, it means that gas must be transported in trucks instead, in tiny, one-truck quantities. That's not only much more dangerous, it generates far more emissions as well, emissions you claim to wish to reduce.

But it gets worse-- much worse. The Sierra Club isn't simply against pipelines, they're against all natural gas production as well:

Sierra Club Asks Judge to Halt Construction of $2B Natural Gas Facility

They also oppose natural gas storage facilities as well: essentially every single aspect of NG faces their oppressive, insensate opposition.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,837   +3,096
TechSpot Elite
So we've gone from "fossils fuels are dying fast" down to "In the US, coal consumption is declining". It took five attempts
Actually I meant that from the beginning but if I was worded things badly then my bad. Look back, my first post in this thread I said "But here we are now where coal power is down to only 22%. And natural gas is up to 38%".
That article is three years old. Ford has backed off those plans
Bill Ford was on CNBC early in the week and I was sure he said 35 vehicles by 2022 and it seems to still be true at least as far as investments go.

But yeah I think a wait and see approach is best. Things could do a 180 in months.
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 1,838   +1,909
Bill Ford was on CNBC early in the week and I was sure he said 35 vehicles by 2022 and it seems to still be true at least as far as investments go. (article link)
The only hard information in that article appears to be Ford's (nonbinding) agreement with California to continue working to improve their fleet emission standards.

Bill Ford might have said they plan to announce those models by 2022, but they certainly won't be on sale by then. The announcements precede introduction by 2-3 years (sometimes more), and the only EVs Ford has announced so far are the F-150, the E-Mustang, and a commercial cargo van. (and possibly the Bronco, though that one is slightly more tentative).