GM is lobbying against California's stringent electric vehicle mandate, arguing that the state's aggressive timeline and sales targets are unrealistic given persistent supply chain challenges, charging infrastructure limitations, and affordability concerns. They are pushing for a more moderate approach, requesting the Environmental Protection Agency to weaken the standards and advocating for greater flexibility regarding compliance. GM contends that the current mandate could harm the auto industry and consumers by limiting vehicle availability and raising prices, while hindering the broader adoption of EVs.
Paris's efforts to reduce car traffic have resulted in a significant drop in air pollution. After implementing policies like pedestrianizing streets, expanding bike lanes, and restricting car access, nitrogen dioxide levels have decreased dramatically, particularly in the city center. This improvement in air quality translates to substantial health benefits for residents, with fewer premature deaths and respiratory illnesses anticipated. While some areas still experience elevated pollution levels, the overall trend demonstrates the positive impact of prioritizing pedestrians and cyclists over cars.
HN commenters generally agree with the premise that reducing car traffic improves air pollution, citing Paris as a successful example. Several highlight the importance of prioritizing pedestrians and cyclists, suggesting this benefits both the environment and public health. Some discuss the challenges of such transitions, including political resistance and the need for robust public transport alternatives. A few express skepticism about the study's methodology, questioning whether the measured improvements are solely attributable to reduced car traffic or influenced by other factors like weather patterns. One commenter points to the positive impact of electric vehicles, while another raises concerns about the potential displacement of pollution to surrounding areas.
The first ammonia-powered container ship, built by MAN Energy Solutions, has encountered a delay. Originally slated for a 2024 launch, the ship's delivery has been pushed back due to challenges in securing approval for its novel ammonia-fueled engine. While the engine itself has passed initial tests, it still requires certification from classification societies, a process that is proving more complex and time-consuming than anticipated given the nascent nature of ammonia propulsion technology. This setback underscores the hurdles that remain in bringing ammonia fuel into mainstream maritime operations.
HN commenters discuss the challenges of ammonia fuel, focusing on its lower energy density compared to traditional fuels and the difficulties in handling it safely due to its toxicity. Some highlight the complexity and cost of the required infrastructure, including specialized storage and bunkering facilities. Others express skepticism about ammonia's viability as a green fuel, citing the energy-intensive Haber-Bosch process currently used for its production. One commenter notes the potential for ammonia to play a role in specific niches like long-haul shipping where its energy density disadvantage is less critical. The discussion also touches on alternative fuels like methanol and hydrogen, comparing their respective pros and cons against ammonia. Several commenters mention the importance of lifecycle analysis to accurately assess the environmental impact of different fuel options.
Summary of Comments ( 37 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44018241
HN commenters are skeptical of GM's stated reasoning for opposing California's EV mandate. Several point out GM's prior lobbying against EV adoption, suggesting this latest move isn't about grid stability but rather protecting their existing combustion engine business. Some also criticize the framing of the article, arguing GM is merely asking for a delay and that the headline oversells their opposition. Others express doubt about the practicality of meeting the proposed targets, citing infrastructure limitations and material sourcing issues. A few commenters suggest the real goal is to maintain the status quo and avoid competition from Tesla and other EV makers. Finally, some question the wisdom of California's aggressive approach, suggesting a more gradual transition might be preferable.
The Hacker News post "GM Is Pushing Hard to Tank California's EV Mandate," linking to a Wall Street Journal article, generated a moderate number of comments discussing various aspects of the situation. Several compelling threads of conversation emerged.
A significant number of commenters expressed skepticism about GM's commitment to electric vehicles, pointing to their history of lobbying against environmental regulations and suggesting that their current actions are primarily motivated by a desire to protect their existing internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle business. Some users highlighted GM's past actions, such as their involvement with the killing of the electric car documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?", as evidence of a pattern of behavior. Others argued that GM's lobbying efforts contradict their public statements about embracing an electric future.
Another prevalent theme was the discussion of the challenges and complexities of transitioning to electric vehicles. Some commenters pointed out the limitations of current EV technology, such as range anxiety, charging infrastructure availability, and the environmental impact of battery production. Others discussed the economic implications of the transition, including the potential job losses in the traditional auto industry and the affordability of EVs for consumers. There was also debate about the role of government mandates versus market forces in driving the adoption of EVs.
Several commenters also questioned the Wall Street Journal's framing of the issue, suggesting a potential bias in favor of the auto industry. Some pointed to the language used in the article and questioned the objectivity of the reporting. Others argued that the article failed to adequately address the environmental benefits of transitioning to electric vehicles.
Finally, a few commenters offered alternative perspectives on GM's actions. Some suggested that GM may be genuinely concerned about the feasibility of meeting California's ambitious EV mandates given the current state of technology and infrastructure. Others argued that GM may be trying to influence the specifics of the regulations rather than completely opposing the transition to EVs.
While the comments section didn't offer any groundbreaking revelations, it provided a forum for a nuanced discussion of the complexities surrounding the transition to electric vehicles and the role of government and industry in shaping that transition. The comments highlighted the skepticism towards GM's motives and the challenges involved in implementing ambitious EV mandates.