GM Cornered Into Defending the Volt 769
Al notes a story in Technology Review reporting on a CMU study (now over a month old) claiming that the Volt doesn't make economic sense, and GM's response. The study suggests that hybrids with large batteries offering up to 40 miles of range before an on-board generator kicks in simply cost too much for the gas savings to work out (PDF). Al writes: "Unsurprisingly, GM disputes the claims, saying 'Our battery team is already starting work on new concepts that will further decrease the cost of the Volt battery pack quite substantially in a second-generation Volt pack.' Interestingly, however, GM admits that the tax credits for plug-in hybrids will be crucial to making the volt successful. Without those credits, would an electric vehicle like the Volt be viable?"
Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:5, Funny)
"...claiming that the Volt doesn't make economic sense, and GM's response."
The GM response is that they understand that whole "make economic sense" statement. Like some foreign gibbersh to them.
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure the companies that ultimately buys GM's R&D department from the liquidators will be interested in this.
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:5, Funny)
I'm waiting until GM's stock price hits $0.00 -- then I'm buying the whole thing for the $9.99 etrade commission.
Then I'll fix this for you guys :-)
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
How can it make economic sense? I'd much rather have a VW Sharan that gets 7 and still gets 40+ to the gallon. Why on earth are we trying to build electric cars that make no sense instead of using cheap, proven turbo-diesel technologies? Why can't I buy a car that will ride 7 and get 40+ to the gallon in the US? I'm baffled...
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd much rather have a VW Sharan that gets 7 and still gets 40+ to the gallon
I honestly can't figure out what 'gets 7' or 'will ride 7' is in reference too...
After googling the Sharan the only thing that makes sense is that you mean 7 passengers?
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:5, Funny)
A Sharan I know could ride 7...
GIGO (Score:5, Informative)
And it's people like you that PHEVs are designed for.
Once again, Slashdot does its best to continue ignorance by leaving out the core criticism of the study: that the study's authors assume a battery pack price of $1000 per kilowatt hour, and that's not even close to they cost today, let alone 5-10 years from now. And that's hardly their only mistake. I'll list their assumptions [cmu.edu], and make a few quick comments on them:
* A 2004 Prius with varying size packs
* They upgrade the size of the motor to be sufficient to operate as series, but still keep the parallel configuration (why...?)
* 52 kW motor (70hp), yet weighs 40kg (huh...? The Tesla Roadster does 185kW with a 31kg motor)
* The main assumption that 1kg of batteries requires an additional 1kg of structure (Um.. really?). They also test 0kg and 2kg per 1kg of battery mass.
* Li-ion (unspecified chemistry). 100Wh/mi -- similar to LiP and some spinels -- and a 25% packaging weight penalty (on top of the 1kg weight for every 1kg of batteries)
* Only 50% depth of discharge (i.e., they're only using half of their pack)
* Charging at $0.11/kWh (US residential average)
* Gasoline at $3.00/gal (probably a reasonable long-term value)
* Assumption of $1,000/kWh battery cost (Um, no. I can get Thunderskys at non-bulk rates for a fraction of that. I can almost get A123s at non-bulk rates for that. The Th!nk's pack is $500/kWh, and they think they can cut that in half with production rates of several hundred thousand per year. Conventional li-ion, like Tesla uses, is ~$300/kWh currently. In short... no.). They justify their number by pointing out that it's cheaper than the original price of the Prius's battery pack (ignoring that small HEV battery pack prices don't scale linearly to BEV or PHEV packs or linear with capacity in general)
* GHG emissions of the grid are assumed to be fixed over time (Um, no)
* Vehicle lifespan of 12 years (the average vehicle *on the road* today is nearly 10 years old, and that number is increasing, so... no)
* 12,500 miles/year (reasonable)
* Vehicle base purchase cost, excluding the battery pack, of $17,600
* Assuming by default no carbon tax, both on electricity and gasoline, but considering it under alternative scenarios
* No tax credits assumed
* No battery replacement (in the base case; an alternative scenario includes replacement)
* A 5% "consumer discount rate", No clue what that is, but they state that the higher it is, the less competitive PHEVs are. So it's some sort of penalty. (Perhaps purchase interest rate on the auto loan? If so, too expensive.)
In short: stupid assumptions in, stupid results out. Note this paragraph that they just skim over:
Cheap battery costs of $250 per kWh would significantly increase competitiveness of PHEVs, making them similar to or less expensive than HEVs and CVs across all distances driven between charges. A battery technology with an increased SOC swing, which would allow more of the battery's physical capacity to be used in operation, would also improve PHEV competitiveness, making moderate ranged PHEV20s cost competitive with the HEV and CV.
In short: "If we pick more reasonable numbers, PHEVs are great. But with the bad numbers we picked, they're not."
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Before you get all proud about the 40MPG rating, please note that a US Gallon differs from an Imperial Gallon.
A US Gallon is smaller, which makes British mileage ratings appear inflated compared to US ratings.
Also, US residents can buy a Diesel VW Jetta, which seats 5 comfortably, and (legitimately) gets 40+MPG. They sell like hotcakes, although the total number imported is still somewhat small. I've driven one -- it's quite nice. Almost impossible to distinguish from its petrol-powered cousin.
Of course, your main point still applies: By global standards, cars sold in the US are hideously inefficient, and we have an inherent fear of diesel, thanks to the loud, smoky GM diesels of the 1980s.
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:5, Informative)
You mean kilometers per joule (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You mean kilometers per joule (Score:5, Insightful)
However, as pricing currently is distance per volume of fuel, I have no interest in how much energy a certain fuel packs. If gas stations start charging me by the joule, we'll talk.
Re:You mean kilometers per joule (Score:5, Funny)
No, it's really distance traveled per unit of money that matters.
Or, per unit of CO2, if you're one of those people.
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:5, Informative)
I have a 2006 TDI Jetta, and (in practice) it gets 40 city/46 highway. The 2009 models are supposed to be even better.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How many options for maintenance/repair places do you have though?
I almost bought a used Passat once but settled for an Altima because I know of more places locally that won't cost me an arm and a leg if something goes wrong.
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the dual-clutch transmission in the Jetta TDI should result in the automatic model actually being *more* efficient than its manual counterpart.
The dual-clutch gearbox is essentially a computer-controlled manual transmission (although it's a bit more complicated than that). There's no torque-converter to kill the efficiency.
The system also allows you to switch gears in the semi-manual mode faster than you could ever possibly do with a "real" manual transmission (around 8ms).
They're also available on a number of petrol-powered vehicles from a variety of manufacturers.
(Re: -40F: I know of quite a few gas powered cars that won't start at those temperatures! Electrics/hybrids also won't hold a charge without heating the batteries.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
and we have an inherent fear of diesel, thanks to the loud, smoky GM diesels of the 1980s.
Hey, don't blame just GM.
My sister had a diesel Volkswagen Rabbit, and that thing was frightening far beyond what it's tiny size would imply. Also it took like 2-3 minutes to warm up before you could drive the damned thing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just last week TopGear had the endurance race, Richard was driving a little VW compact and the trip computer was was showing 74.9mpg! WhereTF is that car in the USA?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's most offending is that GM *knows* how to make good turbodiesel cars, we Americans have just been brainwashed into thinking that diesel==bad. When I lived in the UK I had a Vauxhall Zafira 1.9CDTi. I loved that silly box, and it got the same mileage as the VW Sharan.
More interestingly, GM has brought the Astra over from Opel/Vauxhall and called it the Saturn Astra. Even doing the US/Imperial mileage conversions, the most efficient Astra sold in the US gets worse mileage than the least efficient die
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Comes mainly from getting stuck behind diesel cars in traffic. Not just GM or trucks; the Mercedes 300D was just as offensive, as are the few US diesel Volkswagens.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, no. Other than possibly a badge you would never know you are behind a modern VW diesel. Since the US switched to ultra low sulphur diesel in the fall of 2006 you have been able to get the modern diesels that actually have LESS tailpipe emissions then the typical gasoline car. Personally I like the idea of turbodiesels but what I'm personally waiting for is the Ford Eccoboost 2L I4, produces 250HP and 275lb/ft of torque on 87 octane and it should get phenomenal fuel
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
we Americans have just been brainwashed into thinking that diesel==bad
The interesting thing is that America's dislike of diesel passenger cars is in some part due to none other than GM, due to GM's horrible Oldsmobile diesels of the 1980s. Instead of just giving GM cars a bad reputation, it gave diesel engines a bad reputation in the mind of American buyers, and American manufacturers didn't offer another diesel car after that.
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:5, Informative)
2. GM, Ford, Honda, Toyota and Hyundai ALL sell diesel cars outside the US. Right now only Volkswagen and Mercedes offer diesel engine cars in the US because our diesel emission standards for non-commercial vehicles are very difficult to satisfy. If you're going to find the situation "offending", be offended by the automakers like Honda and Toyota who had plenty of resources to offer diesels in the US (unlike the domestic automakers) and still failed to do it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right now only Volkswagen and Mercedes offer diesel engine cars in the US
... and BMW with the 335d [bmwusa.com] and the X5 xDrive35D [bmwusa.com]
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:4, Informative)
I wish people would stop spreading the misconception that US gasoline is lower octane then European.
Octane is simply measured differently in the US vs Europe. 87 octane in the US is equivalent of I believe 92 in Europe..
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:5, Informative)
US gasoline is lower octane than European gasoline.
I don't understand why people keep saying this.. No they don't. They rate Octane differently than we do. They use Unloaded Octane reference engine values. The US uses (Loaded + Unloaded) / 2. Says so on every freaking gas pump in the US. There is typically a swing of 2 to 10 Octaine points between loaded and unloaded - thus the averaging allows for greater variability in synthetic blend possibilities while simultaneously giving a more accurate performance characteristic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's most offending is that GM *knows* how to make good turbodiesel cars
Just because GM bought Vauxhall/Opel et. al. doesn't mean that GM has the slightest clue on how to make a "good turbo-diesel car".
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
we Americans have just been brainwashed into thinking that diesel==bad.
Almost all of the refineries in the US produce a fixed ratio of gasoline:diesel. If consumption doesn't match that ratio, the price of one will skyrocket compared to the other.
It's not a matter of one being "bad", and the other "good".
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:4, Informative)
Currently, in the US state in which I reside, diesel is $2.089/US gallon, gas (petrol for all you people who spell it "colour") is roughly $1.889/US gallon. Both prices include all applicable local, state, and federal taxes.
My 2002 VW Beetle TDI w/ 150,000 miles on it gets an average of 45 miles on a US gallon of diesel. My wife's 2006 Beetle uses petrol and gets roughly 26 MPG.
Doin' the math that's more than 70% better mileage for only 10% more money, or, to put it in a different light, I get around 630 miles per tank while she gets about 360, or, to put it another another way, diesel would have to cost almost twice as much as petrol before I started to lose money on the proposition.
Oh, and since I run diesel my car is exempt from state emissions inspections where I live, thus saving another $30-40/year.
So, how exactly does this *not* make economic sense?
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Cheap, proven technologies are still steps down a dead end road. We need to take a step back in order to start moving forward again. Electric vehicles are that path forward. An economically viable method for providing electric vehicles has not revealed itself yet, however the potential has been seen. The problem is that there is no reason to produce the new technology to make them viable unless electric cars are present to create the demand, and electric cars won't be viable until the new technology is present. So, what we have is a deadlock.
The question becomes "How do we break the deadlock?". This is a situation where the market as it exists today will not provide a solution in an acceptable timeframe, so we must consider external forces. Providing incentives to "early adopters" will be necessary to pull enough electric vehicles into the public to create a demand for the infrastructure. The problem of imperfect power storage is being mitigated by allowing for flexible power sources (i.e. onboard generators).
The Volt is a transitional technology, not the end result. GM can't say that though - after all, who wants to be the guinea pig with something as expensive and important as a car?
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure if you are trolling, daft, or just asking a legitimate serious question...
> How can it make economic sense?
You mean like how can the government afford to "bail out" a failing business model of the very same businesses that were against electric vehicles??
>Why on earth are we trying to build electric cars that make no sense
Right, we don't need sense like far less pollution, safer, stilumate R&D, etc.
> I'm baffled...
Here's a clue. Short-term last-millennium greed and thinking needs to be replaced with long term sustainability.
Who Killed The Electric Car [google.com]
and
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's what friends with trucks/suv's are for.
I wish I still had my old bumper sticker: "Yes, this is my truck. No, I will not help you move." :-)
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Ha! Love that. Basically he is saying that yes, he does see a need for a larger car. But he'll let other people take care of that for him. I'm sure they are all just totally happy to provide practicality for him while he buys fun cars. Wish he were my friend. Guess they like the role of driving miss daisey.
His point is that he needs a truck so rarely that on the few occasions he needs one, he can borrow or rent. There's no reason to use a van-size vehicle so one person can commute.
I do quite well with an S2000, and the U-Haul literally up the street will rent a van for four hours for $20 plus mileage. So once or twice a year I rent the U-Haul and the rest of the time I don't worry about driving a large vehicle.
Re:Doesn't Make Economic Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Mr. Cochran would like to add a few comments... (Score:5, Funny)
The GM response is that they understand that whole "make economic sense" statement. Like some foreign gibbersh to them.
Ladies and gentlemen of Slashdot, GM would certainly want you to believe that the Volt makes sense. And they make a good case. But I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca drives a Toyota Prius. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to drive a hybrid, carpooling with a bunch of environmentalists? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this post? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this post! It does not make sense! If the battery pack does not fit, you must acquit!
The defense rests.
The Volt is the least of GM's problems (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently there are quite a few of GM's product lines that don't make any sense.
Re:The Volt is the least of GM's problems (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently there are quite a few of GM's product lines that don't make any sense.
That's because you aren't 70 years old with blue hair, a hip-hop artist, a professional athlete, or a trophy wife. Otherwise their products make perfect sense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As in NOT releasing a diesel engine here. They're ALL over Europe. Every company that sells vehicles in Europe sells a Manual Transmission Diesel vehicle.
VW has a Polo that puts the the "economy" vehicles they advertise in the US to shame. I get a chuckle when ever they come on the TV with "Up to an awesome 35 MPG". I can't get less than 40MPG unless I'm towing a trailer. And I've done 60 MPG when trying.
Gen II BioDiesel is GTL [wikipedia.org]. Meaning you can make it from ANYTHING. It's what Germans used to survive WW II.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As someone else mentioned, an imperial gallon is greater than a US gallon.
40MP(imperial)G * .8327(US)G/(imperial)G = ~33.3 MP(US)G.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I live in the USA. I'm fairly certain all the stations in Illinois use Imperial Gallons.
That's in a car that was built in '98. My '86 (which was quite a bit lighter) could easily get 48-50 much more easily.
The VW Polo I mentioned gets:
73.94 MP USG Highway
47.96 MP USG City
61.87 MP USG Combined.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And I've done 60 MPG when trying.
So did I back in 1992 with my gas-powered Honda Civic VX. Sure it was a tin-can, but if fuel efficiency were in higher demand, the auto makers would make more fuel efficient cars. However, most drivers would rather get 20-30mpg and have in excess of 150hp as opposed to the 60mpg and 90hp of my Honda Civic. People seem to neglect the fact that horsepower and mpg are generally inversely related.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Never heard of a Bentley or Ferrari diesel.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
2007 Saturn Aura midsize sedan. 2008 Chevy Malibu sedan. 2008 Cadillac CTS luxury sport sedan. 2007 Saturn Outlook 8 passenger crossover SUV and its corporate cousins the 2007 GMC Acadia, 2008 Buick Enclave, and 2009 Chevy Traverse. 2008 Saturn Vue small SUV. 2007 Chevy Avalanche pickup. 2007 Chevy Silverado pickup (and GMC Sierra). 2007 Chevy Tahoe and Suburban fullsize SUV (and GMC Yukon and Ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Volt is the least of GM's problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well if it's a sports car then it's not a "gas sipper," now is it? The fact that you don't care about it -- which is perfectly fine -- doesn't change the definition of the term!
Your sports car, even if it gets relatively good mileage, is still not a fuel-sipper in exactly the same way that my TDI, even if it gets relatively good performance, is not a sports car!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. I see ads on TV for cars that say '31mpg' and are advertising it like it's amazing. My 1997 Cavalier gets that. Actually gets it, not just advertises it!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you view one you get links to lots more.
Enjoy! I bet this bring back lots of good memories for the GM execs...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aasSEl-Cr9Y [youtube.com]
rich buyers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:rich buyers (Score:5, Insightful)
CD players were $1000 when they first came out. Only the rich had them. The price went down and down until today you can pick one up for $5.
DVD players -- exact same deal. Blue rays were $1200, now you can get one for $180. As more people buy them, they will eventually come down to the ~$50 price point a decent DVD player is at now.
Electric cars have been lingering at the high point because no significant car has been rough to market. The Tesla and the Volt appear to be the firsts going there. We need to take the first steps if we are ever to migrate from oil to electric.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:rich buyers (Score:5, Insightful)
And I bet the study was don't by a bunch of economists that place zero value on having clean air to breath and clean water to drink.
Sending transportation dollars to wind farms in Iowa instead of the Middle East, South America and Canadian tar sands also has no economic value.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:rich buyers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My point was mainly, TODAY using a plug in hybrid adds to air pollution by using mainly unoptimized coal produced electricity, compared to a very clean diesel, which is the alternative discussed.
They missed the Technology Review link (Score:5, Informative)
They forgot the actual link [technologyreview.com].
Re:They missed the Technology Review link (Score:5, Informative)
Economic sense for tomorrow ? (Score:5, Insightful)
GM != Economic Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
depends on price of gas? (Score:5, Insightful)
"...cost(s) too much for the gas savings"
Depends on the price of gas? Here in the UK we pay approx 0.90 GBP for a litre, = 0.90 x 1.42 (Pounds to Dollars) x 3.785 (Litres to US gallons) = 4.84 US dollars a gallon.
This is much less than a few months ago when gas here reached close to 1.20 GBP a litre and with the pound being stronger at that time it was over 8 dollars a US gallon.
Would you consider a gas/electric hybrid if gas was 8 dollars a gallon in the USA?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
that also depends on why gas is $4.84 a gallon. If it is taxed to that amount, then that tax will need replaced, assuming the battery car is just as damaging to infrastructure funded by those taxes (possibly more, if they are heavier, require bigger electric grid, and more power generation.)
If it is price gouging, and you can keep that gouging out of electric, then sure.
Re:depends on price of gas? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and I bought one (a Toyota Prius). Of course I did that in Fall 2007 before the summer spike, because I value efficiency over origin.
The problem is that today in PA, the price of gas (this afternoon) is $1.83/gal x (1.4086 pound / $) x (gal / 3.7854 L) = 0.68 GPB / L (you have a 33% markup in taxes over our taxes!) Dealers today have more Priuses on the lots than they know what to do with, because people won't pay the $28,000 price tag for a 40% increase in mpg. At current prices, it's cheaper to pay $12-15,000 for a compact car at 30 mpg and eat the difference in fuel.
And that's what I see GM is up against. They are going to pop out a car that I'm sure will start at $30,000 for a compact car and go up to $40,000 with options (the gas/hybrid Prius MSRP is about $25,000 base). You won't have liquid fuel costs, since the fuel shows up on your electric bill, but it's still $0.0729/kW (that's from Exelon/PECO's web site for Residential rates). Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org] that the Volt's battery capacity is 16 kWh, (wow, Wiki's cost estimates go from $35-40,000, only 30 with tax subsidies), with an effective use of 8.8 kWh. So, assuming you drive a full battery 6 days a week, 4 weeks a month, that's 6 x 4 x 8.8 x 0.0729 = $15.39/month to fuel a car, not bad! But what's harder to estimate is that your monthly loan payments are probably $300 higher... so that's where your gas savings go.
It does matter.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Union is *currently* unwilling to cut back wages or benefits which is a requirement for GM to even get access to ANY of the "stimulus" money.
Only when GM goes into bankruptcy protection (chapter 11) will GM have more of a free hand to cut what needs to be cut.
Until one of the 2 happen, the Volt won't see light of day at a dealership.
What's so annoying about this stupid situation... (Score:4, Informative)
Damn CARB for crumbling and allowing any car with a slightly larger battery that can crank itself along with its starter motor to count as a "low emissions vehicle".
Re: (Score:3)
GM didn't renew any leases on EV1s.
The primary reason GM decided not to go into even limited production came from the dealers who serviced EV1s. They didn't break down. No service revenue during the lease, of course, but the writing was on the wall. EV1s would starve the service department.
Wait until true elecrtics start to gain market share. The service needs will be much lower, and the dealer network will find their service revenue dropping. Unless, of course, the makers install some planned maintena
Economic Sense vs. Business Sense (Score:3, Interesting)
GM is working on it? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are tons of people working on better electric storage system technology. This makes it sound like they are doing the engineering on their own.
Look here [google.com] and this one [stanford.edu] is really interesting IMO.
When they get a breakthrough on high capacity systems it will make a lot of things possible that currently are not, not just cars. It is the battery technology that really puts the hobbles on generating your own electricity at home. Well, that and solar collector technology as well as HOA restrictions etc.
If I could get tax breaks to install a 95%+ self sufficiency system I'd do it in the blink of an eye. Having an electric car on top of that would be even better. I would like a nice little commuter car or two; 40 mile range is great if it will also support solar trickle charging while parked etc.
With an initial investment, I could become 95% free of the grid ... well, if I could do that, I'm all in... big time.
I disagree... (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet the same thing could have been said about the Prius during it's development phase. GM could always offer the Volt for lease like the Honda FCX, another car probably even more expensive to be economically feasible at this time, not to mention that hydrogen stations are few and far between.
GM has made tons of stupid mistakes, and frankly they deserve to be in the situation their in for it. On the other hand, the Volt is actually ingenious and I believe a more logical application of a hybrid powertrain than anything else currently on the road. I think it's cool that, like in diesel trains, the gasoline engine generates the electricity which powers the electric motor which in turn motivates the vehicle.
And for a change, I think it looks nicer than either the Prius or the new Insight. Hopefully, GM will be in business long enough for the Volt to see production. I do acknowledge that the risk in this car being too expensive is that enough people won't be able to buy for it to help GM in any meaningful way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The coolest part about the engine design is that if your really just running an engine as a generator, you can do some very, very neat things. Like put in whatever you want as a generator, like Diesel, or Hydrogen, or even a Mr. Fusion. And in the case of traditional engines, you can be just like a train, and optimize the crap out of an engine to be as efficient as possible in a given, limited RPM range.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Some already do. Many(almost all?) diesel trains are really diesel/electric. Trucking companies are getting electric assists motors that are powered by electricity generated when idling at the dock or in slow traffic.
You do need some storage though. That, and how powerful an engine you can fit before displacing the ICE, are the limiting factors.
Rhetoric. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not a huge fan of this technology replacing the existing infraustructure (gas powered vehicles) yet. But only because of energy density in the fuel, not what fuel it is. And these vehicles do have a niche market -- must be about as frightening as Apple is to Microsoft (oh, wait... that's not a fair comparison. Apple might actually be double-digits now). But as the technology develops, and the energy density problem is solved, gas-powered vehicles will go the way of the dinosaur. /tongue in cheek
The economics of it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Recently my car got crushed by stuff falling off the roof of a business. So I've been the market for a new car. I looked at toyota between the Corola and the Prius. Both are similar size, but the Prius gets about 10 miles more to the gallon...for $6000 more.
I did the back of the envelope calculations and there was no way that I'd make up the $6000 price difference in the time that I am likely to own the vehicle. Even if gas goes back to USD 4.00 a gallon.
Re:The economics of it.... (Score:5, Informative)
You obviously don't value that the Prius is larger than a Corolla, more comfortable to ride in, and will probably last longer (based on the historical evidence of Prius so far).
By the time a new 2009 Prius kicks the bucket (15 years at least), we'll see where gas prices are. I'm betting we'll be above $5/gallon before the end of 2010.
Yes. That's true. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't make sense, right now. Right this second. But last time I checked they didn't have it in any showrooms yet, so that point is moot. Just because a global economic meltdown happened that made driving a gas-guzzling GM make sense for approx 6-12 more months, doesn't mean GM should bet the future of its company on gas prices staying low. That's basically what they've been doing. If gas prices stay low it will be because the economy is horrible, and GM will go out of business because no one buys their trucks. If gas prices rise GM will go out of business because they still don't build vehicles that anyone will want to buy at $6/gallon of gas.
The Volt is the ONLY thing GM is doing that makes the tiniest bit of sense. For goodness sakes, they released a passenger car hybrid that costs about the same as a prius, but gets about the same gas mileage as a minivan.
What passes for 'hybrid' is dissapointing. (Score:3, Interesting)
GM sells the Malibu in a 'hybrid' version. A 'mild hybrid'.
The engine has an oversized starter motor and a 36V battery pack in the spare wheel well. At a stop, the motor shuts down and is restarted in 500ms when the driver presses the acclerator pedal. Apparently, the Belt-Alternator-Starter [wikipedia.org] system also can kick in and add a power boost to help with accleration, and in the city can improve MPG by 10-20% Interesting concept, and saves gas, but hybrid? Not by a mile. At least not IMHO.
But GM will claim it, and plenty of people will buy it. It does save gas, this is good. But it is an example of the slow, painful, scratching-and-clawing approach Detroit is taking towards hybrids.
I'm not very hopeful for an alternative fuel either. My personal choice is some form of ultracapacitor [gizmag.com]. A capacitor makes a lot more sense than a battery; quick recharge, fewer chemicals hopefully, lots of available current hopefully. Still got the issue of the catastrophic release of energy if the capacitor got damaged, but batteries blow up too.
I'n not hopeful we are gong to see ultracapacitors within 10 years. A long time to wait.
Also left out... (Score:3, Interesting)
GM stated the following criticism of the study:
1) The cost/benefit ratio was based on a battery price several hundred dollars more than they're currently paying. And GM claims they are making advancements that will lower the cost in the future.
2) The study compared the 7 mile electric only mode of some proposed plug-in hybrids. However, GM criticized the study for not taking into account the need to recharge every 7 miles.
I know for myself, that 7 miles doesn't do me much good. Even going to the grocery store doesn't would eat up a lot of that range.
More thoughts with better quotes here...
http://gm-volt.com/2009/03/04/gm-vp-jon-lauckner-blasts-carnegie-mellon-phev-study-and-says-volt-cells-several-hundreds-less-than-1000-per-kwh/ [gm-volt.com]
Silly really (Score:3, Insightful)
I liken many of these new technologies to those ripoff infomercials about losing weight.
"If you take this Pill, you will lose all the weight you want!"
Its the same as industry saying, buy this new technology car and be as wasteful as before!
As anybody that has half a brain will tell you the secret to losing weight is simple, it is a lifestyle change. Eat less food, eat better food when you do, and be more active.
Same can be said about our current dilemma. You want to have cleaner air, and help the environment, etc... Well here is how you do it: Its called walking. Alternative crazy machines like "Bikes". Also the concept of "Mass Transportation", etc... This isn't new technology, its called being responsible. Sure new technologies help, and sure they can do great good, but don't believe the BS that the auto companies are trying to "sell" for one second. Because that is exactly right, they all they are interesting is in selling and the status quo. They want eveyone to buy one of their products, or two even. If it wears out, but two more. The fact that the total cost of ownership in terms of pollution etc, is actually higher then proven efficient old technologies doesn't matter. Its about PR, hype, and selling product.
If you are really interested in the environment, clean air, etc... try walking to work, or biking, or taking a bus, or train, etc... Buy a house or rent close to where you work. Try not to be wasteful in anything you do. The simple basic things you do are likely way more effective than anything else.
plug-in prius being released in 2010 (Score:5, Informative)
I'm opting to buy a plug-in prius next year. It will be cheaper than the Volt, and most likely higher in reliability.
At least I am seeing some return on my tax dollars, as the Volt has stimulated Toyota to keep their Lithium-ion plug-in on schedule.
Economic Sense or No Choice? (Score:4, Insightful)
GM has no choice at this point. They have taken so much government cheese that they will build whatever they are told to, no matter the cost.
That said, as much as I liked and wanted a Prius, the numbers did not add up. I could get a Fit that averages 38/41 on my commute for $10,000 less than a Prius that averages 45/47mpg on my commute. The Prius no longer has a tax subsidy and 10 grand is a huge nut. I went for the cash in hand.
My VW Rabbit in high school got 60mpg, and my friends' Civics and CRX's got 40+ in the 1980's....why do even small 4cyl cars get such bad mileage today? Is it just the weight of added safety features?
Break Even Point Analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
At the current gas price at about $2.25 here in the L.A. area, the choice currently is OPEC, not the Energizer. But at the price of fuel going over $5.00 a gallon, those cars with Battery Power will very tempting. Solar is starting to look good also, as Edison says it needs a 100 Million Dollars to give to it higher level staff as bonuses for doing such a wonderful job. Let's see, energy from the Sun and the Wind, that I can plug into at home. It's starting to look like a very straightforward solution.
Diesel myths and reasons for buying hybrids (Score:5, Informative)
There appear to be a few common myths being repeated here.
No, it isn't. Octane rating methodology is different. Read Octane Rating [wikipedia.org]
1. Please make sure your are not quoting UK gallons - they are bigger than US gallons, and therefore get more miles.
2. Please understand that fuel efficiency measurements in Europe are quite different than in the US. The 2008 US EPA measurement methodology is much more conservative [autobloggreen.com].
Diesel in Europe is cheaper than gasoline only because it gets vastly preferential tax treatment.
It may have something to do with poor diesel history in the US, but also with health side effects. Even with ULSD, the nanoparticles are suspected contributors to pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases.
BTW, I love diesels. I love driving them, I love the torque, I love increased fuel efficiency. However, it is important to know the whole story because the other side has very good points as well.
As for hybrids and plug-in hybrids, yes, I will likely buy the new Honda Insight when it becomes available even if it costs more than a regular vehicle of the same kind, and even if I cannot recoup the extra price. I would rather pay more money for R&D into technology than drop coins into Al Qaida's collection box.
Re:Ummmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they can't afford to make it commercially viable on their own, they shouldn't look to do it on the taxpayer dime.
Long-term, I agree.
However, this is a great example of a short-term subsidy that can help jump start the process until it _is_ commercially viable on it's own.
As it stands, the cost of the environmental impact is an externality to GM and the car buyer. By making cars (such as the Volt) that can drastically lower this impact, the cost is incorporated into the purchase price. Especially being new technology, this will initially have a much higher price point until efficiencies of scale/better productio
Re:its not commercially viable (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahh yes... Big brother knows best. People don't make good decisions on their own. They need someone else to make decisions for them.
Consumers are complacent about fossil fuels, but they are not complacent about their wallets. Why do we continue to buy fossil fuel cars? Because they are the cheapest technology right now.
Take an economics course. Government mandates HURT ECONOMIES. There is no exception to this rule. The government produces nothing and does not act in the best interest of the people with tax dollars.
As far as your points below:
1) yes, and as it becomes cheaper, electric cars will become viable, but they aren't today
2) once again, fossil fuels getting more expensive will move us towards electric cars, but today oil provides the cheapest energy and that allows us to use the savings to invest in the next energy source
3) Regardless of where the oil comes from, it costs money. Us not buying it from the middle east will not stop terrorism. They will simply sell to China. The problem in the middle east is a lack of education and unfair governments. You are suggesting we bring that here rather than fix the real problem.
4) Yes, CO2 is bad for the environment, we need to mitigate the effects of this. However, the effects are HUGELY blown out of proportion, with Al Gore being a major contributor. I suggest that we focus on switching from coal to nuclear, which is economically viable and will reduce carbon output much more than electric cars.
Oh wait, the government is preventing nuclear power plants from being built an operated efficiently... Maybe your theory is flawed after all.
Re:its not commercially viable (Score:5, Insightful)
The second law of thermodynamics says that pushing the problem down the road is the best we can do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the to government said it was only going to tax gas as much as it took to keep the environment and research alternative fuels I think many people would be okay with that. The problem is we all know that's not how it would work. First, the money would get diverted to all sorts of non-related projects. Second, the federal government would use it as a power play against the states the way it uses the highway funds now.
Look at cap & trade. The government is licking its chops at this huge potential so
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the to government said it was only going to tax gas as much as it took to keep the environment and research alternative fuels I think many people would be okay with that.
No, you're missing the point. The government should tax gas by enough to offset the cost of the environmental damaged caused by digging it out of the ground, refining it, and burning it. Yes, that's hard to quantify, but you could probably get within an order of magnitude. Being able to shift the tax to green initiatives is just gravy
Re:hydrogen cars (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What does that mean?? Expensive electricity for EVERYBODY. Not just the owner of the electric light bulb.
With the raise of demand, the environmental requirements will be dropped to compensate for the need to build new power plants fast. By dropping the requirements, we will get power plants that will generate 3 to 4 times more pollution that gas lamps would have generated.
And lets not talk about all the pollution generate in the p
Re:A simple suggestion for GM (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see that anybody on the GM board has anything to do with an oil company. Perhaps you can tell me more specifically whom you are talking about? (Or is your remark just uninformed rhetoric?)
Re:A simple suggestion for GM (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell does that mean? GM doesn't have oil company representatives on their board. If you'd like to see, I suggest you Google search GM's board and check out the board member bios.
Also, if oil companies are stopping GM from bringing electric cars to market, then how do you explain GM betting the ranch on the Volt? Wouldn't GM have *accepted* this argument that electric cars don't make sense, rather than defend their electric car project?
But hey, didn't stop this post from being modded to 5. I guess any paranoia about oil companies automatically gets modded up...
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:wrong issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen terrorists kill people. So far, I've seen no one die from Global Warming.
Yes, we know people are terrible at risk assessment and balancing immediate risk against long-term risk. You don't have to show it off.
the fallacy of the slippery slope (Score:3, Insightful)
some people believe if we allow gays to marry, we also have to accept pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, polygamy...
no: this is retarded hysteria. but some people actually believe this. because they are letting their irrational fears overpower their logical thought
as you are:
you believe if we accept a little government regulation, we're on an unstoppable slippery slope into a black hole of mind control communism
uh... how about no? how about you are irrational and fear addled?
we need a market that is mostl