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.
Transit agencies are repeatedly lured by hydrogen buses despite their significant drawbacks compared to battery-electric buses. Hydrogen buses are far more expensive to operate, requiring costly hydrogen production and fueling infrastructure, while battery-electric buses leverage existing electrical grids. Hydrogen technology also suffers from lower efficiency, meaning more energy is wasted in producing and delivering hydrogen compared to simply charging batteries. While proponents tout hydrogen's faster refueling time, battery technology advancements are closing that gap, and improved route planning can minimize the impact of charging times. Ultimately, the article argues that the continued investment in hydrogen buses is driven by lobbying and a misguided belief in hydrogen's potential, rather than a sound economic or environmental assessment.
Hacker News commenters largely agree with the article's premise that hydrogen buses are an inefficient and costly alternative to battery-electric buses. Several commenters point out the significantly lower lifecycle costs and superior efficiency of battery-electric technology, citing real-world examples and studies. Some discuss the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry as a driving force behind hydrogen adoption, framing it as a way to preserve existing gas infrastructure. A few offer counterpoints, suggesting niche applications where hydrogen might be viable, like very long routes or extreme climates, but these are generally met with skepticism, with other users arguing that even in these scenarios, battery-electric solutions are superior. The overall sentiment leans heavily towards battery-electric as the more practical and environmentally sound option for public transit.
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.