Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Update: EnerDel’s Chairman on the Cost of the Th!nk Lithium-ion Battery Pack

July 5th, 2008 | Posted in: Battery, Financial

One of the unknowns in determining how much the Volt or any electric car should cost, is determining the automaker’s cost for the lithium-ion battery.

A number that has been put forth by experts in the field is $1000 per kWh installed in liquid-cooled pack. If this were true, the Volts’ pack would cost $16,000. Bob Lutz and others are bullish on the idea that prices will drop over time as these batteries are brought to scale.

As a follow-up to some of the comments from my interview with EnerDel’s Chairman Charles Gassenheimer, I asked him how much the Th!nk pack would cost. He was actually quite open:

Do you have any follow up statement on costs of your 28 kWh Th!nk pack?
Think plans to sell the vehicle for $30 to $35 k. Approximately half that cost is the battery. If they were to lease the battery then the car could cost $15 – $17k and the leasing company would purchase the battery from EnerDel and lease it to the customer.

Thus if we do the math, it looks like EnerDel is willing to sell packs at scale for from $535 to $600 per kWh. If Compact Power/LG and Conti/A123 are willing to give GM the same deal, then the Volt’s packs should cost from $8500 to $9600. Of course we dont know these numbers, and EnderDel contends that they offer low prices amongst their competitors.

Posted by: Lyle

122 Responses to “Update: EnerDel’s Chairman on the Cost of the Th!nk Lithium-ion Battery Pack”

MarkFLL Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 8:39 am

Seems rather expensive for an econo-box.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 8:42 am

Indeed. I’d pay the extra $5000+ for the Volt’s roomier interior and more substantial cargo space (though in a perfect world I would get a Volt-like sport wagon instead).

(Quote)
jeff Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 8:56 am

Holman, from WSJ, well reading this just got the idea for his next editorial. LOL $35,000 Th!nk, hmmmmm……

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:05 am

wow, that is pricey. The Volt will still be a winner at this stage and there is no reason to think Enerdel is any different in pricing from any of the other major suppliers. Add in the Series factor of the Volt and the “oh crap” factor of the ICE backup…

I am still bothered by the fact that despite the huge promise there isn’t venture capital flooding into battery start ups and production scaling.

(Quote)
jeff Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:12 am

#4
I think the VC crowd went towards ethanol, big time. It is puzzling though, as you say.
PS they are in A123

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:27 am

Venture capital, and capital in general is flooding towards installing wind turbines. You get ROI faster, with less money put at risk, than any other green tech out there. I imagine that after a few years of printing money with wind turbines, money might then flow into batteries and other green tech, but at the moment, too many institutions are cash starved, and need the infusion of liquidity that wind turbines create.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:31 am

From the article: “it looks like EnerDel is willing to sell packs at scale for from $535 to $600 per kWh. If Compact Power/LG and Conti/A123 are willing to give GM the same deal, then the Volt’s packs should cost from $8500 to $9600.”

Lyle,
Thanks for going after this. It’s an important issue for the cost of the Volt.

As another data point, Tesla leaked that they pay $22,000 for their Roadster battery pack. This pack stores 53KWh of energy. So Tesla is paying $415 per KWh. If GM got the same deal as Tesla, they would pay only $6640 for the Volt’s battery pack. Why does Tesla seem to get such a better deal than GM?

(Quote)
Firefly Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:31 am

#2 Jake

…in that perfect world, you’d have the Flextreme (that’d be sport wagon enough for me)

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:49 am

#8 Firefly,

Count me in for a Saturn Flextreme also! I’m guessing a production version of the Flextreme in the U.S. would have:
1) a gas engine
2) a single rear door hatch
3) additional cargo space instead of Segway compartments.
4) 35-40 miles all electric range

This would be the perfect car for me.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:54 am

#7, Dave G,

Tesla uses commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) batteries that are made in quantities of billions for laptops and other devices, so the cost of the cells are already commoditized. The price for their pack is still high, because they have to wire them together and provide cooling to prevent thermal runaway.

(Quote)
Biodieseljeep Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am

Haiku for Volt Price

Often the smoke blows
I feel it here like a test
Way up my backside

Volt will be priced as far up as they can get and counting on a gov subsidy. We are just all playing a very old game with GM…

(Quote)
JEC Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:06 am

Amazing how history repeats….

Back in the 70’s the Fed’s decide to change the national speed limit to 55mph. Now, here we go again, and they are pushing to lower the national speed limit.

We are so reactive to problems, when with just a little foresight, we would have realized that this day was coming. I really thought this day would come in the 90’s, but it has arrived.

Oil is a non-rewable resource, we (USA) have only a small percent of this resource, it will run out. We are consuming this resource at a break neck speed. We are just now entering the curve of supply = demand. The next part of the curve is going to be ugly! When demand exceeds supply, we start talking about war and all it’s ugly ramifications. The old 1990’s model predicted entering the curve in about 2030-2040, but the increased demand from China and Asia are pushing this date up. If demand increases be 7% a year, then within 10 years we will would need to DOUBLE our supply. This cannot happed, so you see the problem.

If you think gas is expensive now, just wait a year or two (maybe sooner), and it will not only be expensive but you will be sitting in lines to get it. Government rationing will become reality, and we will be going to war with more countries as we struggle to feed our oil machines. But of course war is a HUGE consumer of energy, which will push the rationing of fuel even harder, as we need to feed our military machines. This will be the time when we start to really feel the pain that our ancestors felt during WWI, when they actually felt the impact of war. Today, we support our troops (some do), and the war (again, some do, others don’t), but we really sacrifice little in the ways of inconvience.

So, here we are, 2008, and we are just now developing alternative methods, to reduce our dependencies on oil. In my opinion this is MUCH to late, and unfortunately this will result in more than just high gas and inconvenience’s….

You can say “better late, than never”, but that’s the easy out. We continued building bigger and less efficient vehicles though the 80’s and 90’s, and 2000’s. We knew this was coming, but we stuck our heads in the sand and just grinned as we drove down the road (alone of course) in our gas guzzling SUV’s. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

The world is going to change dramatically in the next decade. I hope for the best, but I prepare for the worst (don’t ask what I am doing, you will just laugh…at least today you would)

Happy day after the 4th of July! I hope we can say the same in the coming years.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:15 am

Leasing the battery SUCKS!

So, now I get to pay for my car forever. I pay $16,000 for the car, and then “lease” the battery for $150/month. So, If I keep this car for 12 years I pay 150*12*12 = $21,600, plus original $16,000 for a TOTAL of $37,600!

Nope. Won’t do it. Also, now the battery leaser has the power (no pun intended) to increase lease rates or even recall my battery!

Not a good idea. At least the Volt lets me just buy the damn thing and be done with it.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:19 am

#10 Jason M. Hendler,

Yes – all true.

But GM also has some volume to work with. GM is planning 10,000 Volts in the first year. The Volt’s battery pack delivers around 300 volts, so there must be at least 100 individual Li/Ion cells per pack. This means GM is already over a million cells in the first year alone, and 5 times that in the next year. I would think that’s enough to get some kind of quantity discount.

I suspect that #11 Biodieseljeep is correct, and that GM is playing games with the price and hoping for government rebates.

(Quote)
NorthernPiker Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:26 am

#7 Dave G

Tesla’s battery pack uses 6831 off-the-shelf li-ion cylindrical cells;the same type of cells that are used in laptops and cellphones. The battery pack is designed prevent thermal events that has occurred with this type of cell. This approach requires complexity in mechanical design but it provides early market entry, a competitive price and also solves any availability issues, e.g., no need to to have a secondary supplier.

However, these off-the-shelf cells can provide only a 500 cycles of charge/discharge, with limitations on depth of discharge. At a range of 220 mile, 500 cycles is equivalent to just over 100,000 miles of battery life, provided not all cycles are deep discharge. These cells may also have issues with calendar life, After all, they were designed for laptops and cellphones, which are obsolete after a couple of years.

Now, consider the stringent requirements of a PHEV battery:
o Inherent thermal stability
o Prismatic cells for ease of cooling and packaging
o Several thousand discharge cycles; a laptop battery would only last 2 business years (500 days) in a PHEV
o 15 years of calendar life
o High power capability, which laptop cells do not have unless you have a lot of them, e.g., the 6831 cells in a Tesla.

Barring the unlikely event that the Volt’s battery supplier initially price the battery packs down the learning curve, the Volt’s battery pack will be more expensive on a per kWh basis than that of the Tesla. However, the Volts’ high volume production, simple battery packaging and inexpensive battery chemistry should quickly drive its battery costs well under that of Tesla.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:37 am

#12 JEC,

Unfortunately, I believe you are correct.

We won’t have a choice between offshore drilling and alternative fuels. We will end up doing both, and it will still be too little too late. Things are going to get ugly for a while.

Here’s what I believe the U.S. should do now:
1) a federal mandate that all new cars be flex-fuel capable within a short time.
2) federal rebates for plug-in hybrids based on battery KWh.
3) lifting the federal ban on offshore drilling.
4) a temporary lowering of federal emissions standards for high mileage European cars, particularly those made by GM and Ford.

The longer we wait to do these things, the worse things will get.

(Quote)
Len Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:41 am

I did a little reading on the Smart Car and it was stated that A123 is their battey supplier and GE is investing in A123. A123 does not have thermal runaway problems because of the patented nano technology used in their manufacture. They also far outlast lithium polymere cells, but it is too early to tell just by how much.

GE manufactures BIG locomotives that use engines driving generators and electric motors driving each wheel. I bet they know a little something about writing software for such applications.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:51 am

#15 NorthernPiker,

Yes – all true.

But GM will buy at least 1 million Li/Ion cells for the Volt’s first year alone, and 5 times that in the next year, which should be enough for quantitly discounts. See post #14 for details.

I suspect that #11 Biodieseljeep is correct, and that GM is playing games with the price and hoping for government rebates.

(Quote)
Len Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:51 am

I disagree about lifting the ban on offshore drilling. It will take six years to make a difference and then it would only be a tempory fix. We need to stop using oil for transportation. We will need it for other things. Also with the oil companies record it is far too risky allowing them to drill offshore. Eventually we will have the technology to do it safely.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:57 am

#17 Len says: “GE manufactures BIG locomotives that use engines driving generators and electric motors driving each wheel. I bet they know a little something about writing software for such applications.”

Series hybrid locomotives have been around for a long time, so I would bet they use old technology.

If you want to know more about the issues that software has to deal with for induction motors in EVs, check this out:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=45

(Quote)
Len Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 11:09 am

The motors they use are big AC motors and they worry about things like traction on each wheel. The want to apply maximum power, but with no wheel slip.

You can also buy water cooled induction motors and controllers from Siemans, complete with regenerative braking. Here is a link to a car conversion done quite some time ago using everything talked about here including super caps.

http://www.metricmind.com/ac_honda/motor.htm

(Quote)
ElecRich Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 11:11 am

In a recent investor meeting. Altair commented to an investor that with large scale production they could easily reach $300-$400/KWH battery packs. Making a 28k pack between $8400 and $11200. Though they were referring to a 35kwh which would be $10500 at $300/KWH. The Volt 16KWH battery would then cost between $4800 and $6400. If this were the case GM could sell the volt at a profit.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 11:26 am

Still way to much ‘what ifs’ to get a solid price here:

Lyles quote: Car $15-17K, selling price $30-35 (inluding battery, no lease).

Scenario A: Selling price $30,000, car $17,000 pack=$13,000
Scenario B: Selling price $35,000, car $15,000 pack=$20,000

Cost per pack/Volt extrapolation
Scenario A: 28kWh/13K=$464/kW, Volt pack = $7,400
Scenario B: 28kWh/20K=$714/kW, Volt pack = $11,400

I think we can be assured GM is getting a better price than ‘Joe no-name’ automaker, but better price of what cost is still a mistery.

I really don’t see how a “30-35K” Th!nk City can compete against a $25K i-Miev (100mile range 20kWh pack). Forgot the price advantage…just think about the difference in getting it fixed between the two.

Also I think getting to approximate cost of the Volt back, it is easy to work the numbers off of Mitsu, as they are a major auto, with mass production in mind.

The i-Miev car portion is $15-17K (if we assume the same standard as the Th!nk), then their 20kWh pack is costing between 10K and 8K or $400/kWh to $500/kwH. Extrapolated Volt price on the i-Miev model would be $6,400 to $8,000.

Thoughts?

(Quote)
JB Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 11:29 am

We could make a stand to GM right here, right now that this is unacceptable and boycott the Volt? But then again we don’t really know the price of the Volt do we.

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 11:45 am

23 Statik:

can you buy an i-Miev yet?

just applying your own logic against you sorry. You can’t use the i-Miev pricing as gospel to dissect the Volt and Th!nk pricing.

(Quote)
Rockyroad Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 11:48 am

Prediction —The Japanese will come up with a way to make the lithium-ion battery for 1/2 or 14/ the cost and produce an EV that will sell for $22,000 -$24,000 and run 40 miles on a charge and GM will be still trying to sell the VOLT for $45,000.

(Quote)
Bryce Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 11:55 am

35k, lol. With no range extender, just wait another year for the Volt for the same price and u will get a safer, roomier, and more entertaining vehicle. : )

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am

#11 Biodieseljeep:

Well I have to agree, but it’s not only GM who plays this game. Every car maker with a hot new model does it. Early plasma TVs? Early I-phones? The list goes on forever. It is a basic precept of marketing, taught in every business school in the world. You set a high price for “early adopters” who just have to have the latest and the greatest, and then taper the price down to balance with the demand. We are just going to have to deal with it. We can pay the early high price, wait until it goes down to something we can stand, or buy something else. The Beat?

#13 JEC:

Well how much a year are we paying for gas? It’s sort of the same thing as leasing a battery, when you think about it. The question is, what is the life cycle cost of the car? If we are paying $500/month for gas, a $150/month battery lease starts to look pretty good. Everybody just has to figure out their financial and psychic (oil independence, environmental, etc.) bottom line.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

#26 Rockyroad says: “Prediction —The Japanese will come up with a way to make the lithium-ion battery for 1/2 or 1/4 the cost and produce an EV that will sell for $22,000 -$24,000 and run 40 miles on a charge”

Let’s hope so. The more competition the better.

But to date no Japanese car company has announced plans for a plug-in hybrid with all electric range. There are a few BEV concept cars. Toyota will also have a plug-in Prius, but that will always require gasoline for accelerating and highway driving.

I suspect that Japanese car makers will trail GM in this area for 5 years or more. The Japanese mindset seems to be more tuned to evolutionary innovation. Toyota has even stated this publicly.

The Volt is a revolutionary design, which is something the Japanese seem less inclined to do right now. The Japanese are still talking about miles per gallon (MPG), while GM is talking about all electric range (AER).

Again, I hope I’m wrong, and the Volt gets some serious competition.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

#23 Statik,

$6,400 to $8,000 sounds about right for the Volt’s battery pack.

It could even be less. Remember that selling 10 thousand Volts in the first year equates to at least 1 million Li/Ion cells, so there is some initial volume for GM to bargain with.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Think! is going to have an uphill battle selling what is essentially a very small commuter car w/ no range extender for that price. What’s more the vehicle is going to have to meet us safety standards and by that time it’s possible that the price could be higher. I pulled the quote below from their website and in Europe it will sell for $31K with a battery/insurance lease of another $300+ per month.

“The MSRP has not been finalized in the US however it is estimated the TH!NK city will go on sale in Europe at around $31,388 USD. In addition, TH!NK will offer a “mobility pack” to consumers for about $314 USD per month that will cover leasing the battery pack, car insurance and electricity. ”

http://www.think.no/think/content/view/full/616

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

#19 Len “I disagree about lifting the ban on offshore drilling. It will take six years to make a difference and then it would only be a tempory fix. We need to stop using oil for transportation. We will need it for other things. Also with the oil companies record it is far too risky allowing them to drill offshore. Eventually we will have the technology to do it safely.”

I TOTALLY disagree. I have lived in Louisiana all my life and there are freaking oilrigs and well heads (thousands) all across our coastal waters here. I don’t recall there ever being any oil spills from these rigs.

Let me explain something about offshore oilrigs that some of you may not know. PLEASE READ!!! After an oilrig no longer is producing oil it is required by law to be removed within a certain time frame. To remove the oilrig the oil companies have to spend millions of dollars. The rigs legs are severed well below the mudline.

All of the oil rig structure has to be barged into the ports to be cut up and disposed of. Well this is a horrible horrible thing. So much so that the State of Louisiana enacted a law that allows the oil companies to reduce their cost by leaving much of the oilrig in designated artificial reef areas.

It is a win win situation. The oil companies cut their cost and artificial reefs are established. The only reason that this law was passed is because the OUTDOORSMAN OF OUR STATE WHERE MAD THAT THE STATE WAS MAKEING THE OIL COMPANIES REMOVER THESE RIGS!!!!

Point is IFoffshore oilrigs were bad for the enviroment then the fisherman wouldn’t have been so pissed off that they actually got a law passed to allow the oilrigs to not be totally removed. Liabilty reasons prevent the state from taking over the rigs as is being that they are above water. Which is what the fisherman would truely want.

An oilrig is a hard structure in an otherwise desolate area which produces on a per acre basis very little life. Throw up and oil rig and immediately barnacles and corals and other things start growing on the steel. Soon you have an artifical as well as natural reef that extends from the sea floor all the way to the surface. The makes the rigs even more productive in many ways than naturally occuring reefs and almost always in places that a natural reef can’t exist because of the depth of the water.

Louisiana with most of the offshore oilplatforms is the second biggest producer of seafood of all the states despite all the oilrigs, and Alaska is #1 only because of its size.

I have pictures of offshore oilrigs taken at sunset that make great desktop backgrounds. To use an offshore oilrig is not an ugly sight but instead something beautiful. I look at the desktop oilrig and can think of nothing but fishing. A lot of good memories come from those rigs and I hope to add another good memory in about a week when I go and catch a limit of speckled trout (25 per person) at the Mardi Gras rigs out of Theriot. Yes we even name the most popular oilrigs. Cognac, Lena, green monstor are a couple of other offshore oilrigs that have been given their own names.

I will post a picture of the Mardi Gras rig with me and some speckled trout after I go fishing there next time I am off with some good weather.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Omegaman,
Well put. How much oil was spilled during Katrina? Zip.
Len,
Listen to Omegaman.
We need to be doing EVERYTHING, including nuclear, solar, coal, wind and offshore drilling, but the “we” I’m referring to does not include our govt. They just need to get out of the way.
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
JEC Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

28 noel park

I agree that paying for either a battery lease or for gas is equivalent.

Sometimes when I look at a cube, I only see a surface. Thanks for turning the cube. : )

(Quote)
Joe Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Rockyroad

“Prediction —The Japanese will come up with a way to make the lithium-ion battery for 1/2 or 14/ the cost and produce an EV that will sell for $22,000 -$24,000 and run 40 miles on a charge and GM will be still trying to sell the VOLT for $45,000.”

******************************************************

Oh! Those Japanese are so smart! It looks to me you don’t really know how Japan does business. I’m old enough to have lived through some of their unfair trade practices. It’s not that they are so smart, it’s that we are so lenient. Read a little history of how they do business.

http://www.uwsa.com/issues/trade/japanyes.html

*****************************************************************

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 1:11 pm

I believe we are still grossly underestimating the looming energy crisis.

World oil has peaked. World population is increasing. Technology has increased worldwide wealth to the point where most people on the planet can afford a car, particularly within the last 10 years. World demand for oil will continue to rise, and world oil output will stay about the same. Gasoline prices continue to rise.

The ban on offshore drilling will be lifted. It’s not a question of if, but rather a question of when. Given that it will take at least 6 years to get oil from these sites, we might as well start now.

But unfortunately, this will not be enough. The U.S. holds only 5% of worldwide oil reserves. All of the cheap oil – the oil that’s easy to get out of the ground – is in other places, mostly in the Persian Gulf.

In my mind, the only viable solution is cars like the Volt. Cars that run on electricity, E85, or gasoline. A combination of bio-fuels and all electric range would drastically reduce world demand.

So I believe the best thing we can do is urge our politicians to tie alternative fuel legislation to offshore drilling. In other words, you tell the oil companies that if they want offshore drilling, they have to give something in return. Something like a mandate that all new cars are flex-fuel capable, and federal rebates for plug-ins. Maybe then the oil companies will realize they are in an end-game situation, and start diversifying their assets into alternative fuels.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

The end of oil for gasoline doesn’t mean an end to oil companies or oil.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

#32 omegaman66

Right on, Bro! Since our fishermen depleted fisheries to sate our demands, we can replace the ocean plains with artificial fish farms. Nature doesn’t need ocean plains anyway.

Along those lines, let’s go with more billboards along open stretches of highway. Billboards will provide animal habitats. Who needs open spaces? We can engineer more and more sustainability as demands require.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

#25 Morgan

“23 Statik: Can you buy an i-Miev yet? Just applying your own logic against you sorry. You can’t use the i-Miev pricing as gospel to dissect the Volt and Th!nk pricing.”

Actually, yes. If you happen to be at the Tokyo Electric Power Co. in Japan (part of the fleet testing program). Cost 2,550,000 yen, in todays US dollars (Yen @ 106.84) thats $23,867. Thats still not exactly retail to the consumer…but I think gives a pretty good ‘max ceiling’ on the battery pack cost. (That is however for the 16kWh pack…not the 20)

(Quote)
pauln Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

HEADS UP! Toyota is accelerating development of battery technology to leap-frog Li-ion chemistry. Here’s a complete write-up of Toyota’s alt. energy technology plans:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/07/toyota-outlines.html

“Electricity. Despite the attraction of electricity as a power source for transportation, a number of issues remain, Takimoto said, including the energy density of the batteries; infrastructure issues (such as recharging facilities); and the greenhouse gas output from thermal power generation.

Toyota is targeting “revolutionary” energy storage systems. Click to enlarge.
Although Toyota plans to accelerate its development of small electric commuting vehicles, it is focusing on the development of next-generation batteries with greater energy densities than offered by current lithium-ion systems before ordinary vehicles can become EVs. The company is establishing a battery research department “to accelerate R&D on these new revolutionary batteries”. Examples of such batteries adduced in the presentation include solid-state lithium, and metal-air batteries, with the potential for a “Sakichi” battery.”

Essentially, what Toyota is saying is that they will go with Li-ion for the plug-in Prius and some small city EV’s, but they consider Li-ion to lack the energy density for mass-scale cost-effective EV’s.

(Quote)
Brine Pool McFly Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

It’s my belief that if/when Li battery costs decline to $100/Kwh, it will be the end of the ICE age.

Where’s EEstor ?

(Quote)
Joe Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

The only innovative thing Toyota has ever produce is the Prius. Now they think Toyota will dominate the world. Lets get real!

(Quote)
Toyoda Spy Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 3:15 pm

I am pretty sure Toyota has spies (aka informants) on the payroll that work in key position throughout GM and Ford organization. You must assume they know every move GM will make BEFORE it becomes public knowledge. You can bet your bottom dollar they have plans to smack the General upside the head within the next few months. I suspect it will be covert ops that disrupt supply lines. Yes, this is corporate warfare !

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

omegaman66@32

He was wrong …. but only by grossly underestimating the time it would take for lifting the offshore drilling ban to matter.

Assume we lift the ban today (not true but let’s go with it).

First it takes a while to put a lease together. You have to do Environmental Assessments as well as Environmental Impact Statements. They take studies which don’t show up overnight. And the government has to put together the parcels that will be sold. Then the industry has to have time to do their preliminary work to decide what parcels to bid on.

Give that at least five and more likely ten years.

Then you have to explore. Right now the ships needed for exploration are booked for the next seven years. In ten years they’ll probably be booked for at least another ten.

So ten years until you can explore.

Now you have to actually drill and start production. That doesn’t happen overnight either.

Basically “Drill Here Drill Now” is a mindless slogan. “Drill Here Drill 2040″ would be more accurate.

Rather than continuing to fund our terrorist enemies by swilling their gas while we wait for for a few meaningless drops of oil from offshore rigs, we’re better off rediscovering the American spirit, buying VOLTs, and kicking the oil habit.

Go GM. Go USA. Screw Saudi Arabia and its friend Newt Gingrich.

(Quote)
Len Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

That was a pretty nasty spill off Santa Barbara, which is why the off shore drilling ban was enacted. Florida has a huge tourist industry that could be ruined with a spill like that.

There are four companies that have leases off the Florida Panhandle, one Australian, one Italian, Shell Offshore and Anadarko E&P Co. I wonder how much of that oil will actually show up as gas here in the US.

The advocates of off shore drilling sound more like addicts. Next they will be advocating going to war over oil. I wonder how much oil we are consuming in Iraq and Afganistan? That and pumping oil into the ground as the Stratigic Naval Oil Reserve can’t be helping the price of gas.

I could support some of the new technology breeder reactors that produce a fraction of the waste the old reactors did. I think we are about to see a lot of alternate energy production take off with the prices of energy where they are. I think you can forget seeing gas under $4 a gallon again. Get used to it.

I want a Volt, but am resigned to getting a second generation one. No way I can afford the first ones. If something else comes along while I’m waiting that catches my eye and is a plug in …

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

#41 Brine Pool McFly,

ICE age! LOL. I like it.

Seriously though, I believe the ICE age will continue for some time, and plug-in hybrids with increasing amounts of all electric range will be the norm.

There’s one issue with with pure BEVs that people seem to miss: What happens when I space out and forget to plug it in at night? With an E-REV, I just pay and pollute a little more, but I still get to where I’m going.

Given my typical state of mind when I pull in the driveway, I’m far more likely to forget to plug in every night than forget to go to the gas station once a week.

(Quote)
Red Sun Rising Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

#42 Joe:

I agree, Toyota is mainly a copycat innovator, very similar to Microsoft. They take other people’s ideas and after about three tries they finally get it right. But they also have had a lot of help from American sheep. Remember this is the same company that took a pimped-out Toyota, put a gold nameplate on it, doubled the price, and sold it to gullible americans and made a bundle. Only in America. So they are also a very good marketing company, just like Micro$oft.

(Quote)
brad Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 3:44 pm

You know from what I hear it is hard to quit cold turkey, but I think it is in our best interests. We need to be off of oil now!

Go GM! Go Volt! Goodbye Gas.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

#40 pauln,

Thanks for the info on Toyota’s battery plans. Unfortunately, I think they have missed the target. They seem to be focusing on pure BEVs and electrical recharging stations.

Remember – with flex-fuel serial hybrids, we will have the capability to completely eliminate oil use for cars, with very little change to our current power grid and filling station infrastructure.

(Quote)
Go Juice Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Dave #46

They make robotic battery-powered vacuum cleaners that can automatically seek the nearest plug to re-charge themselves when their go-juice is running out.
There is no reason why they can’t make a fully electric car search out the nearest outlet on its own. I believe once EVs reach critical mass (say 20% marketshare) then you will see charging stations popup on highways all across this country, just wait and see.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

#45 Len:

Addicts? Not me. I can quit any time I want to!

#46 Dave G:

Space out and forget to plug in? Don’t look now, but i think that you and I must be related.

Not to worry, I have a high tech solution. My wife drives 95 Impala SS which fits in the garage with about 3″ to spare. We have a tennis ball hanging on a string from the rafters which hits the windshield at just the right spot so that you 1) don’t bash a hole in the drywall at the front of the car, and 2) don’t roll the roll up door down onto the trunk. And yes, there is a bit of tape on the WS which hits the tennis ball when you are positioned side to side so that you can open the door.

I am just going to replace the tennis ball with the volt plug. When that whacks the WS, I trust that it will jolt me awake enough to remind me to plug in. If that doesn’t work, maybe we can make some money with our aftermarket warning system with a big idiot light on the dash and some sort of electronic trigger box hooked to the garage door opener, or some such.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Dave G #46

Plugging in your vehicle in the winter is the way of life in the northern climates. In extremely cold climates around the Great Lakes, you either plug in or have hard starting in the morning and wait for the coolant to warm up for fifteen minutes so your defrost works. But I agree somewhat, we’ll often see plug in extensions flapping in the breeze by drivers who forget to unplug in the morning. That’s happened to me more than once.
Brad #48
A gradual withdrawal is best for the ecoonmy. Why suffer unnecessarily ? Besides it’ll be quite a while before there’s enough EVs to service America.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Dave G. #46

“There’s one issue with with pure BEVs that people seem to miss: What happens when I space out and forget to plug it in at night? With an E-REV, I just pay and pollute a little more, but I still get to where I’m going.”

*** *** ***

I believe you’re right that RE ICEs will be around for quite some time, not just because of range anxiety, but for fail safe operation. Eventually though we’ll have rapid recharge in as little at 15 minutes which just about anyone should be able to live with.

(Quote)
Marcus Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

re #31 Grizzly, after doing the calculations I too am a little surprised. Mainly by the “mobility pack” price. If you average 11K miles a year in Europe and your average gas mileage is 40 mpg (for an equivalent small car) then you need gas to cost $13 a gal to equate to Th!nk’s $300 a month for the battery with electricity included. At the moment gas prices are going up between $2-3 dollars a year. In Europe starting at $9 a gal right now we’ll get there in around 18 months. In the US though it will take around 3.5 years – assuming gas prices don’t increase even faster.

You can see why most companies are selling their EVs in Europe before the US. Its still going to be early adopters even in Europe that go for this right now. But it won’t be long until its a better economic choice than gas for everyone.

(Quote)
Luke Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Dave G # 9,

I’ll take the Flextreme you propose! If I could add a trailer hitch that can tow 1000lbs so that I can make a trip to the hardware store with my 350lb 4×8 utility trailer to pick up a couple of sheets of drywall and some potting soil… Well, with that vehicle, I’d be mystified as to why any normal person would ever drive anything else! And I could use the hitch to hold a bike rack the rest of the time — a bike would be much more practical and cost effective than a Segway.

(The AER with the trailer doesn’t matter — the store is close by, and it’s not something that I do every day. I’d just rather not void my warranty or alter the structure of the vehicle in order to to attach the hitch.)

But asking for a a Flextreme with trailer hitch may be too much. I’d be happy with a sedan, just so long as the purchase-price is reasonable.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

#48 brad,

Cold turkey is hell. Forget about recession, we would have another DEPRESSION!

Besides, people wouldn’t accept it. Once something works well, as ICEs have until now, it’s nearly impossible to get people to just switch to something else overnight.

Here’s the fastest way to get the masses to accept a new paradigm:

1) Offer a new product that works the same way the old product did, plus has a new way of doing things.

2) If the new way is better, most people will rapidly convert to using the new way, but many people will resist change and stay with the old way for a long time.

3) After around 10 years, manufacturers will start to phase out the old way of doing things.

Here’s an example. Computer CD burners have been mainstream for the last 10 years, but Floppy Disk drives were included in most new computers until very recently.

So I think cars like the Volt are the perfect way to quickly transition the masses from gasoline to electricity.

The only problem is that, unlike computers, the infrastructure of liquid fuel filling stations has taken 80 years to build, so this isn’t going to change any time soon. But the Volt already has the solution for this. Converting a filling station pump from gasoline to E85 is relatively easy. So just like the transition model above, drivers and filling station owners will transition from gasoline to E85.

(Quote)
Tipping Point Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Another possible event looming on the horizon:

Let’s say the EV catches on, and maybe 10 percent of vehicles on the road are Electric. They are seen everywhere and mass EV envy is sweeping the nation…

Here come the Environmental Wackos: All Gas Stations will instantly become open season, it will soon become unsafe to go near a gas station. Your only salvation will be to ditch that gas guzzling monster and get a nice shiny new electric for your families’ safety.

Yes, something like this can happen. It already happens to affluent people who buy energy wasting homes in ski resorts, they are being burned out of their homes.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

” while we wait for for a few meaningless drops of oil from offshore rigs, we’re better off rediscovering the American spirit, buying VOLTs, and kicking the oil habit. ”

Just because I think we should have already been drilling offshore and in Alaska where nobody ever goes doesn’t mean I (or we) don’t think that we should move forward with alternate energy.

I know that it is going to be many years before new offshore drilling lease start producing us some oil. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. I know even if we could start producing all that oil today that the price of oil wouldn’t be significantly reduced. World demand will eat up any future oil WE can produce domestically.

I do know that right now the price of oil is shooting through the roof and that it is not reversable. Yet we still should drill.

I am an enviromentalist… I am a conservationist… I also know that the liberal far left are the ones that have prevented the opening of these areas to exploration. If these areas had been opened years ago it wouldn’t be 10 years down the road before we would see the oil. 10 years from now when people are discussing this same issue the libs will be saying no reason to drill it will be another 10 years before we see any of that oil. Ummm… note to anyone that will listen. 10 years from now, WILL eventually get here.

Oh and are you talking about an oil spill that accured in 1969!!! Or the one a couple of months ago that was estimated at about 4 barrels???

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Marcus #54

I agree that this vehicle is more viable in Europe than in the US. The interesting part is that the $31K price tag is not lock stock and barrel, you’ve then got to lease the battery. I don’t think that will work in the US.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

As far as trying to convince people to go electric… forget that, it is not an issue. Currently there a more people wanting to be early adoptors than there are cars to adopt. The price of gas has and will continue to FORCE people off of gas.

So don’t sweat the electric resistance it is a non-issue. Actually you will be praying for more people to be scared of electric cars just so your wait on the waiting list isn’t 18 months.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

#57 Tipping Point,

Yes, a few environmental wackos will get nasty, but I think a far more common and effective method for E-REV enthusiasts is simple peer pressure. Once gas guzzling SUV owners realize that many people view their vehicle unfavorably, the status symbol will be lost, so they will buy something more fuel efficient.

An analogy to this is fur coats. Back in the 80s, there were animal rights activists that would spray red paint on people’s fur coats. Then women who owned, or desired to own, a fur coat started asking people what they thought of this, and to their shock, many found that their peers viewed fur coats as somewhat offensive, but hadn’t said anything about it.

So now, most women don’t use fur coats as their status symbol. Some women still wear furs, but far less than 25 years ago. Instead, today we have high priced purses with letters written all over them as the preferred status symbol.

Mark my words: there will be some new status symbol green car. And by the way, the Prius isn’t it. The Tesla Roadster works as a status symbol, but it’s too expensive for the average status seeker. There will be something in the $45K to $60K range.

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

If the Think retails for $35K then it’s DOA, desperate consumer or no desperate consumer. The idea that I could get a Volt, a car that can satisfy all my transporation needs and pay almost the same as this “I-don’t want-to-be-seen-in-this-thing-Think” leads me to proclaim the Volt as the bargain of the auto world. Leasing batteries is for those who shouldn’t be trying to buy these cars in the first place – the EV version of no-interest mortgages.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

#58 omegaman66 says: “Just because I think we should have already been drilling offshore and in Alaska … doesn’t mean I (or we) don’t think that we should move forward with alternate energy.”

I feel the same way. It’s not an either-or situation. We will need both offshore drilling and alternative fuels.

In fact, I believe we should tie the two together. For example, let’s say there was a bill in Congress that provided for all of the following:
1) a federal mandate that all new cars be flex-fuel capable within a short time.
2) federal rebates for plug-in hybrids based on battery KWh.
3) lifting the federal ban on offshore drilling.
4) a temporary lowering of federal emissions standards for high mileage European cars, particularly those made by GM and Ford.

This would be an all-or-nothing compromise package deal. With current oil prices, I think a lot of people could get behind this type of legislation.

(Quote)
#DA Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

I CALLED IT!!! To quote myself from post #61 of the wsj hit piece article:

“The tests i read about the new Large Format LiFe cells has the retail costs down to $0.80/Wh……i wouldn’t be surpised if by 2010, they’ll build a Volt stack + controller for under $10K which meets the criterian and then some.”

I went on to say: “I am a seller of A123 winning the volt contract by the way. ”

Why? Their costs are too high, (priced closer to $2/kwh from what i can gather.) And their chemistry is too new to be reliably tested by 2010. Lets see if my second prediction bears out.

Since I’m on a roll, hows about more predictions:

1) If an ICE passenger car along the lines of a malibu can be priced in the low $20s, and then we add 10K for the battery pack, an 5k for the E-drive, then we get to the high $30s for volume volt pricing. Now the first year won’t be volume. So year one will likely be $40k. With year 2 and beyond $35k, and falling.

2) GM will file for bankruptcy protection some time in 2009… (i think i’m joining the Statik camp here…)

–
# DA

(Quote)
Nelson Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

What will happen when oil cost go to $500 a barrel, caused by severe shortage.

1. Will the Airline industry be able to continue business as we know it today? Could jet fuel be made synthetically?
2. Would the Cruise Ship industry need to upgrade to nuclear powered propulsion?
3. Do Jet Engine manufactures like GE lose business?
4. Airplane manufactures like (Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed…) lose business?
5. Can Gasoline production and transportation (Exxon Mobil, Hess, Shell) be cost efficient?
6. Do ICE manufacturers like (Honda) lose a big chunk of business?
7. Can farmers produce the same amount of output with limited supply of fuel?
8. Will people pay outrageous amounts of money for fuel reformulated from Coal by refineries?

We face enormous amounts of disruption, if we can’t reduce our current rate of oil consumption. IMO the industries who stand to hurt the most from oil shortages should financially support changes that promise the largest drop in oil consumption. It is in their best interest that these companies help fund automotive EV battery manufacturing infrastructure growth.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

#64 #DA says: “1) If an ICE passenger car along the lines of a malibu can be priced in the low $20s, … then we get to the high $30s for volume volt pricing.”

The Volt is actually based on the newer version of the Chevy Cobalt platform. Base sticker for the Cobalt is $15,070. See here for details:
http://www.chevrolet.com/cobalt/

(Quote)
Joe Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 6:43 pm

How can a company file bankruptcy with an asset of over 500 billion? All GM has to do is sell some of it surplus plants.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

#65 Nelson,

Yes, things will get increasingly ugly. The ban on offshore drilling will be lifted. It’s just a question of when.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:04 pm

omegaman66@58

When you’re in a war you need to stay focused. You do not want to allow yourself to be distracted by projects that, while perhaps worthwhile, are basically irrelevant.

Offshore drilling is completely irrerlevant to the price of oil. The amounts there are so inconsequential that, at best, they might drop the price of gas one or two cents thirty or forty years from now. (This is official DOE conclusion). IOW worrying about or wasting time on offshore drilling is a good way to avoid doing something that will actually make a difference.

The Volt (and its progeny) are something that can make a difference. Here’s why:

Oil prices are set by supply and demand. (Forget the “it’s all the speculators” BS, it’s a left wing/Steve Forbes fantasy). Right now demand has slightly outstripped supply. Since demand is in the short run inelastic, price has to rise a great deal in order to effect a relatively small decrease in demand. (Econ 101)

In addition, oil producers believe that prices will be higher in the near future. Since oil reserves are not infinite, oil producers have an incentive to hold back production now in order to sell their reserves in the future. In this regard note that experts have observed that oil production has been flat. Now some enviro types suggest that this is because we’re running out of oil, but in fact the flattening supply curve is most likely due to producers deciding to keep supply in the ground for higher prices in the future. (Econ 101)

If we start using the Volt for purposes of demand destruction the equation changes remarkably. All the factors working against us now start working in our favor. First is that if we significantly cut our demand for oil the price will have to drop by a great deal in order to make up for any (even relatively small) loss of demand (for the same reasons price has to rise by a great deal in order to accomodate a small increase in demand). Second is that, the day the Saudis and Iranians beleive we are going to end our addiction to their oil, more supply will be forthcoming since it will be more profitable for them to sell it earlier than later. And of course with more supply the price will drop further.

The facts are obvious. The tiny amounts of oil we can get from offshore drilling in thirty years (not ten as you keep saying) won’t matter one whit to price and won’t do anything whatsoever to stop our insane practice of funding radical Islamic terrorism by sending monstous amounts of our cash to Saudi Arabia and Iran. Since I don’t think we have thirty years to waste I’m in favor of doing something about it NOW.

One choice would be to get distracted by shills for the oil companies who are willing to sell out their country for personal profit and spend time advocating for offshore oil drilling. That is in the oil companies interests, since they greatly benefit from higher prices, and it’s in the interests of politicians who are getting paid by the oil companies, since they get very fat campaign contributions. But it’s not a very good choice if you want to put your country first. If you want to put your country first then the obvious choice is to advocate for policies — tax credits, rebates, whatever — that will make the Volt and its progeny hugely successful. In the end the choice is yours to make and I hope you will stand up and be counted.

Go GM. Go Volt. Go USA.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:40 pm

# 57 Tipping Point

One person’s “wacko” could be another person’s hero. In his day, George Washigton was considered a wacko by some. To me, it is crazy to pursue a petroleum-based solution to our current environmental/economic/social situation. I think the Earth has finite capacity to sustain us….not that I participate in illegal activities. But, I understand the motivation. Having lived in a ski resort, I know there are many people that prefer nature’s sublime beauty to some rich a$$hole’s mountain castle. It really isn’t the mountain way to grandly destroy the mountain so that you can, on a whim, go to one of your many homes. The rich shouldn’t flaunt their wealth – it makes them a target.

It seems “wacko” to point fingers without understanding both sides of the argument. There are wackos on both ends of the spectrum. Ther is reason and sense in the middle.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:52 pm

#69 DonC,

Let’s say you’re right, and offshore drilling wouldn’t provide enough additional oil supply lower prices. If this is true, then it’s a big bluff, and the oil companies probably wouldn’t set up that many new offshore rigs (if any).

In this case, why not call their bluff? In fact, why not up the ante before we call. Specifically, if we had a bill in Congress tied all of the following together:
1) a federal mandate that all new cars be flex-fuel capable within a short time.
2) federal rebates for plug-in hybrids based on battery KWh.
3) lifting the federal ban on offshore drilling.
4) a temporary lowering of federal emissions standards for high mileage European cars, particularly those made by GM and Ford.

then it would be pretty tough for oil companies to shoot this down, since it gives them what they have been asking for.

(Quote)
Arch Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

I think there is another glitch in what is going on. Back in the 70s oil companies came through our area offering big money for oil leases on our farms. Most of us signed up. There was big oil discovered just 50 miles north of us in the 30s. Five years later they came through and canceled the leases because they said that new government regulations made it impossible to drill in our area. I have no idea what happened but something sure did. Heck I live in rural IL not CA. Who cares what happens to us. LOL

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Dave G@71

That’s a reasonable point. And if the supply of political capital was infinite your suggestion would be a good one. I’m not opposed to offhore drilling. I’m opposed to diverting political capital from things that matter to things that don’t. (BTW I am right on the impact of offshore drilling. I’m just repeating the official estimates).

My concern is that we waste time on offhsore drilling and then don’t do anything, or very little, about the Volt. It’s like immigration where the idea is that border security and amnesty can be done together, but somehow the amnesty is given and nothing happens with border security. Why? Because there is a powerful special interest group on one side and only the public intetrest on the other. And guess what politicians respond to?

The oil companies are an extremely powerful special interest. Once they get what they want the country’s interests won’t be addressed. In assessing the good of the country, keep in mind that the interests of the oil companies’ directly conflict with that of the country’s. The oil companies want the price of oil to stay high because they make a percentage of every barrel. Higher prices mean higher profits and bigger bonuses. For the country higher prices mean a slower growing economy and more funding for terrorists who want to attack us. There is no common interest here.

But the bottom line is that even if offshore drilling would only give the oil companies more profit, I’d be more than happy to support it if (and only if) the politicians move on the oil demand destruction front. Not before.

(Quote)
George K Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 8:41 pm

#58 Omegaman66
“Just because I think we should have already been drilling offshore and in Alaska where nobody ever goes doesn’t mean I (or we) don’t think that we should move forward with alternate energy.”

There are 2 sides to this argument. One side wants to develop alternative forms of energy, and promote conservation, but don’t do anything that would add to our domestic oil production. The other side wants to “Drill Here Drill Now” (thank you #44 DocC) and also develop alternative forms of energy and promote conservation.

You can’t negotiate in good faith, when one side wants it all their way or nothing.

A common argument against drilling is, its results are too far out. Yet, I’ve heard a number of Oil industry people say that much of the pre work has been done in many areas, and they are just waiting for congress to let them start the actual drilling. Thus they could expect oil in as little as 1 1/2 years.

I’ll remind you that republicans tried to get drilling started at ANWR in 2001 (that’s 7 years ago!), But the idea was villified by the “don’t drill domestically” side. The “Drill Here Drill Now” side kept bringing it up year after year. But it was made very unpopular, even though most people didn’t know about the area. That was the same crowd who were against the Alaskan pipeline many years ago. Thankfully they lost that time.

I might ask, if drilling in ANWR is so bad, why is the same crowd allowing drilling at Prudhoe Bay , which feeds the Alaskan pipeline. If you look at a map, the 2 are next door, both on the northern slope of Alaska. (Drilling at ANWR would take about 3 sq. miles of a vast area, less than 1 tenth of 1 percent). By the way, Alaskans want to drill there as well. That’s another reason not to allow a State to decide their own drilling rights. Cause if the Government did allow States rights, we would have oil out of ANWR already.

Meanwhile, we send over $1 1/2 billion EACH DAY to foriegn countries to ship us oil, most of whom don’t like us. Much of that money goes to terrorists, who want to kill us.

The U.S. is the only developed nation in the world to restrict access to its own energy resources in such a fashion.

Go figure.

(Quote)
Volt Size Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 8:47 pm

The Think City is a very SMALL car. I bet the Volt’s T-shaped 375 lb battery is longer (6′) than that entire car bumper-to-bumper. I like the Think Ox better, but the City will probably be the biggest selling EV in the World. They claim to sell around 4000 this year alone and full production starting next year. At least they have an actual “real” production plant that is making them today. Hopefully, GM can show those guys what volume production is all about. I hope the Volt is a fully robotic build with supercomputers at the controls and maybe one human just to turn the machines on/off, now that’s AUTOMATION TO THE MAX. GM’s maximum leader (Bob) would luv this plant, it would make those cars just like he made those batteries while at Exide.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

I’m wondering what the various governments will do for taxes once the EV takes over from the gas guzzler and the cash cow (gas tax revenues) dries up. Presently a lot of gas tax dollars are wasted…err spent on getting Congressman, etc. elected. Once the gas tax is gone will Congress raise income tax rates to make up the shortfall ? The Dems say they will.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Arch #72

That wouldn’t have been right around ‘73 would it?

Ed M #76

I think that’s why there are plans to over control the grid charging process with software. It’s been talked about as a way of “load balancing” but I suspect they’ll find a way to meter it and collect. This is why I’ve always thought that the early adopters of plug in technology will get a free ride and I hope to be one of them.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:20 pm

Grizzly #77

Me too (early adopter) ! Its going to be a little tough to swallow, if drivers are forced to cover gas tax shortfalls after biting the bullet for an EV.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Ed M re forgetting to unplug – I don’t think that the Volt will start if still pluged in.
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
EV Perks Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:51 pm

If the feds won’t give a generous yearly tax rebate for owning a Volt, then they could at least pass an EV PERK LAW, that gives all Volts the following nationwide federal benefits that cannot be challenged by any local rules:

- Free Parking (in all parking lots nationwide)
- Free Tolls (no toll fee allowed on any EV on any road nationwide)
- Front Parking Space (like those handicap places, instead of blue these would be green)
- Reduced Residential Electric Rates (mandatory at all utility companies nationwide)
- Free Al Gore T-shirt (save the planet green logo shirt)

This would cost the Federal Government almost nothing and would surely ignite more EV sales. Put down that mouse and write your congressman today.

EV PERK ACT OF 2010

(Quote)
Go Volt Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

GO VOLT

(Quote)
Go Volt Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Go Volt

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:30 pm

George K@#74

I’m not sure how many people know this, but the oil from Alaska doesn’t even end up in the USA. It goes to Japan. How did that happen? Well when the pipeline was built the oil companies promised that all the oil would go to the USA since “energy independence” was what they needed to say in order to sell the public on the deal. (You’d think they’d at least change the tune a bit more this time around). Afterwards their lobbyists when back and won approval to ship all the oil to Japan.

Same thing will happen with ANWAR. Our resources will end up in some foreign country, not in the USA. Neither the oil companies nor their political shills can be trusted.

As for your oil company friends and their year and a half scenario, they need to put the bongs down. Here is the official MMS report. It assumes that leasing will be authorized in 2007, has a crazy timeline for how fast things can be done, and completely misses the point about exploration ships being booked up for the next seven years. It still says nothing happens for twenty years, and when something does happen, price and availability of oil will not be impacted.

“The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.”

If you like oil drilling then fine. But offshore drilling isn’t going to make one whit of difference at the pump. The Volt can.

Go GM. Go Volt.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Ed M #78

On the plus side, it’ll be a while before there are enough plug-ins on the road for anyone to notice the revenue shortage, and longer yet before they decide and implement a plan to do something about it.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:54 pm

#83 DonC,

I don’t think it really matters where the oil goes. There is a global market for oil.

If we didn’t sell our Alaskan oil to Japan, then Japan would import more oil from Saudi Arabia, which would decrease Saudi Arabia’s oil supply to the U.S..

So the world is all connected in a global supply and demand market. This is why Hugo Chavez always threatens, but never actually refuses to sell oil to the U.S.. If he sells Venezuelan oil to China, then China will buy less from Russia, which means Russia will have more to sell to the U.S..

Remember before 2003, when Iraq had a supposed oil embargo? That never worked either. As long as one country was willing to buy Iraq’s oil, it didn’t matter.

So think of world oil supply as one big tank. Oil producing countries all put oil into the same worldwide supply tank. Every country has a straw sucking oil out of this this tank. When the tank gets low, prices go up…

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 11:25 pm

Dave G@#83

To begin with, I was wrong about the Japan exports. The prohibition was dropped in 1995 but it was reintroduced in 2001 after the oil companies were suspected of jacking up prices on the West Coast by withholding supplies from West Coast refineries by redirecting oil to Asian refineries.

The destination of the oil would matter for some people because they’d wonder why they were screwing up their natural resources so someone in some other country could enjoy “their” oil. My guess is that this “some” people would be most people.

If we assume the oil tank and straw analogy works, the question which remains is this: if offshore drilling isn’t going to deliver any appreciable oil to the tank –which is what the DOE says is in fact what will happen — why waste time on it?

But the bigger problem is that the entire tank and straw thing doesn’t work very well. What really happens is this: the oil producing exporting countries — our friends Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and the like — put the oil into an export tank. The importing countries like the USA put their straws into the tank and suck out the oil. In return for the chance to suck, they send boatloads of money to the exporting countries. The exporting countries then use the money to fund terrorist attacks against the importing countries.

This is madness. Stop the madness. Go GM. Go Volt. Go USA.

(Quote)
Marcus Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 11:37 pm

The only reason why ANWR etc is even a topic brought up by politicians and the media is because of the potential oil company profits. Its simply not going to make any difference to you or I. I don’t know why people even bother talking about it.

(Quote)
Vector256 Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 12:02 am

#85 Dave G – “So think of world oil supply as one big tank. Oil producing countries all put oil into the same worldwide supply tank. Every country has a straw sucking oil out of this this tank. When the tank gets low, prices go up…”

You make a very logical point. As the world’s largest user of oil, it is not only our responsibility, but a moral imperative, to drill for oil everywhere – today – to help replenish the global tank we have been so wantonly draining all there years, and lower prices for everyone worldwide, not just us.

You opened my eyes. The people who are so opposed to drilling in the US are either 1) self absorbed, not caring about the rest of the world, or 2) NIMBY’s opposed to drilling anywhere in the US, despite the effect that low oil supplies have on people’s standards of living everywhere. Everyone in the world hurts when energy costs go up, but people opposed to drilling just don’t care.

There are people out there choosing between food for the baby, or medicine for a loved one, and buying enough gas to keep their job(s). Yet anti-drilling people just don’t care. I cannot imagine what it is like to hate other people that much, so they can justify clinging pathetically to their world view about “no drilling for oil”.

More oil CAN help. The Volt can help. Anything that can decrease the cost of energy can help. The low income people have cut back as far as they can. It is immoral to ask them to cut back any more. Help America. Help the world. Begin drilling today to bring costs down tomorrow. Make energy affordable again. It’s our duty to the poorest among us, and to the world.

(Quote)
57silver Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 2:02 am

#83, DonC,
“I’m not sure how many people know this, but the oil from Alaska doesn’t even end up in the USA. It goes to Japan. How did that happen? Well when the pipeline was built the oil companies promised that all the oil would go to the USA since “energy independence” was what they needed to say in order to sell the public on the deal. (You’d think they’d at least change the tune a bit more this time around). Afterwards their lobbyists when back and won approval to ship all the oil to Japan.

Same thing will happen with ANWAR”
——————-

Yes, that was an Urban Legend passed around many enviromentalist sites. No oil from the North Shore is currently exported. When the North Shore was developed, there was a ban on oil exports from the Alaska region. In 1996, president Clinton signed an executive order lifting the export ban on Alaskan oil. In May 2000, the ban was again put back into effect, no exports from the region. In the years between 1996 and 2000, only 7% of production was exported. A link:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/alaskaoil.asp

DonC,
“As for your oil company friends and their year and a half scenario, they need to put the bongs down. Here is the official MMS report. It assumes that leasing will be authorized in 2007, has a crazy timeline for how fast things can be done, and completely misses the point about exploration ships being booked up for the next seven years. It still says nothing happens for twenty years, and when something does happen, price and availability of oil will not be impacted.”
————————–

Well, that is not exactly what the report says. The part you copied and pasted was referring to the PROTECTED areas in the Pacific, Atlantic and EASTERN Gulf. Those areas only contain a small percentage of the offshore oil and their protected status does not expire until 2012. It would take years after 2012 before those protected areas could be leased and developed. All those protected areas combined do not contain but an estimated 18.17 billion barrels of oil. However, the UNPROTECTED offshore reserves are estimated to contain 40.92 billion barrels of oil and 210.37 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas. We also import natural gas. Those unprotected areas could be developed relatively quickly. Again, a link:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

There is a misconception by some that electric cars will soon end our dependence on imported oil. Electric cars will help to decrease the amount needed to be imported, but it will be many, many years before the US could possibly be free of imported oil. When some see the statement that 69% of crude oil is used by transportation, they think only of personal vehicles. Much of that 69% is used by 18-wheelers, airlines, buses, diesel-electric locomotives, etc. We presently import about 65% of our crude. We simply cannot end our NEED for oil anytime in the forseeable future. We cannot power 18-wheelers, locomotives, farm equipment and airplanes with today’s batteries. Hopefully, some day we may be able to produce enough biodiesel to eliminate the imported oil used in the commercial sector, but that day is still many years in the future. Until such a time arrives, we need to develope every energy source we can to meet our needs.

(Quote)
Brad G Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 2:34 am

#19 Len says
“I disagree about lifting the ban on offshore drilling. It will take six years to make a difference and then it would only be a tempory fix. We need to stop using oil for transportation. We will need it for other things. Also with the oil companies record it is far too risky allowing them to drill offshore. Eventually we will have the technology to do it safely.”
===============
If we had started drilling anwar when Clinton was in office then 10 years to get to production would have been 3 years ago.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 2:41 am

88 Vector256

Bad news my friend. Drilling off the USA will do exactly NOTHING for the big barrel of oil with all the straws stuck in it.

The reason is, there is a world wide shortage of rigs. Hence the $600,000 per day to hire them! All you will do is divert a rig from elsewhere. The TOTAL supply of oil will not change. However the US oil supply would go up a little, which would help your balance of payments, but NOT the price at the pump.

BTW: Oil is fungible. It will, nearly always, go to whoever can pay for it.
A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/07/03/2008-07-03T184028Z_01_N02435397_RTRIDST_0_USA-OIL-EXPORTS-ANALYSIS.html
Further, just to confuse things:
The exports were also equal to half the 3.2 million barrels of gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum products the United States imported each day over the 4-month period.

The biggest share of U.S. oil products exported went to Mexico, Canada, Chile, Singapore and Brazil.

The biggest exporter of refined product to the US is the UK. The world oil markets are very interconnected.

I agree with #’s 85 and 87 et el. on this subject

65 Nelson: Good questions.
1. Will the Airline industry be able to continue business as we know it today? Could jet fuel be made synthetically?
No, unessential travel will decline drastically. Yes jet fuel can be made synthetically
2. Would the Cruise Ship industry need to upgrade to nuclear powered propulsion?
I doubt it would be economic to do so. Bunker fuel is fairly heavy and available, albeit not so cheap.
3. Do Jet Engine manufactures like GE lose business?
No, they gain business, it is way cheaper to refit a plane with more efficient engines than get a whole new frame.
4. Airplane manufactures like (Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed…) lose business?
The Airbus A380 is very inefficient on a per seat/mile basis and I expect Airbus will go out of business in the next few years. Boeing, might make it with the 787 Dreamliner, which is 20% more efficient than equivalent aircraft. However, as per point three, for a fraction of the cost you can re-engine a plane for a 10% efficiency gain. Lockheed is not dependent upon civilian contracts, so will be OK.
5. Can Gasoline production and transportation (Exxon Mobil, Hess, Shell) be cost efficient?
Oil transportation is already one of the most efficient business’ about. That’s why the stuff is cheaper than water.
6. Do ICE manufacturers like (Honda) lose a big chunk of business?
Once EV’s become commonplace, how could they not lose business. Also the entire supply chain, valves, fuel injectors etc.
7. Can farmers produce the same amount of output with limited supply of fuel?
Nope. The world population will decrease, one way or another.
8. Will people pay outrageous amounts of money for fuel reformulated from Coal by refineries?
Oil is an addiction, people will pay whatever they have to, to get it. Think about how popular the idea of car pooling is, to you, given the huge price increases in your favorite fuel this year?

To pick up on comments by Dave G (What’s with using my nik anyway?). I think a case could be made for adopting EU safety and emission standards for a 5 year period, until PHEV/EV’s become established in the USA.

And just for Tagamet, the current price of TAPIS hit a new record of over $153/barrel the other day. Sorry, couldn’t stop myself, won’t do it again.

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 2:49 am

Quite a few post saying it wont help to drill so why do it. They are right that it wont help significantly reduce the price of gas but it does provide a whole lot of jobs for people, but I guess that doesn’t matter. All those jobs and money shipped out of the country means less here. That is a lot of money that wont and isn’t being pumped into our economy right now and the in the future.

(Quote)
Brad G Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 2:52 am

Back on topic.

Lower battery cost = great!

Having to lease the battery = bad!
==========
Off topic…

What’s wrong with drilling for oil and exporting something from this country for a change…

#92 omegaman66
All the high paying jobs created from oil production… That’s something completely left out of every discussion… GOOD POINT!

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 3:04 am

omegaman66.
There is a worldwide shortage of rig workers, by convention, they work tax free as well. There would be some onshore work, however, with resupply etc. The main reason to drill would be to lower the USA deficit , which would, IMO be a good thing.

Brad G
If you read my post you would see you are already exporting. lol. You will never be net exporters ever again. Even if you electrify every car, bus, truck & train. If you ground the airline fleet you could, but that won’t happen, for long anyway. Did you know, France has almost completed electrifying their entire railway system. Trust them to listen to Pres. Carter!

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 3:21 am

Off Topic, but interesting. More jobs than oil drilling for sure.

Both houses of the Pennsylvania General Assembly have passed HB 1202, a bill requiring that transportation fuels sold in Pennsylvania include increasing amounts of biodiesel, synthetic diesel or renewable diesel (in diesel fuel); and cellulosic ethanol (in gasoline), based on levels of in-state production.

Coskata, in which, GM has an investment, is building it’s demonstration plant in Madison Pennsylvania.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/07/pennsylvania-le.html#more

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 3:36 am

NZ #94

I don’t think we should waste resources drilling either. Those valuable resources could be employed elsewhere, like in working on alternative energy sources. Easier said than done….I understand…, but quite frankly with the time frame and the spent resources the dent unfortunately would be minuscule. This is where a sound energy plan separates itself from no plan at all. The important thing is to be on the right track.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 6:40 am

#86 DonC says: “In return for the chance to suck (oil from the straw), they send boatloads of money to the exporting countries. The exporting countries then use the money to fund terrorist attacks against the importing countries.”
————————————————————————————
Yes, this makes sense. In other words, even though more drilling in the U.S. may not lower the cost of gasoline, it could help our economy and help stop terrorism.

I think all of here on this site would like to replace oil with electricity as much as possible. The only question is whether allowing more drilling in the U.S. would help or hurt this effort. I think it could actually help, if it’s tied to legislation that promotes E85 and electric car batteries.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 7:06 am

#96 Grizzly says: “I don’t think we should waste resources drilling either. Those valuable resources could be employed elsewhere, like in working on alternative energy sources. … The important thing is to be on the right track.”
————————————————————————————-
I think allowing more drilling could actually help get us on the right track with alternatitive vehicles.

Here’s the situation. You’ve got one large group of people who think alternatitive vehicles won’t pan out anytime soon, so they want to drill. You’ve also got another large group of people that think oil is a dead end, and alternatitive vehicles are already viable.

Given this situation, I believe there are only 2 possible outcomes:
1) We will argue which group is right forever and nothing will get done.
2) We will give both groups what they want by creating legislation that ties offshore drilling to real promotion of alternatitive vehicles.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 8:59 am

From battery cost to oil drilling. Quite a subject change.

The battery cost will be what it will be. We will have to accept it or decide to do something else. We will know sooner or later just what type of offers the auto companies are going to offer potential customers for their “electric” cars. Time will tell. I would rather pay a battery lease than pay more per month to the oil sheiks.

As far as drilling offshore or on shore is concerned, I know we need to do it for the short term. I say get started and get the job done. In 20 years we should have enough “electric” cars on the road that we can greatly reduce our dependence on the “black gold”.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 9:00 am

I say: Go GM and Go, Go, Go Volt.

(Quote)
NorthernPiker Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 10:20 am

#99 N Riley

“The battery cost will be what it will be.” True, but the cost will go down once volume production of large format batteries begins in earnest. The initial volume will certainly be spurred by government subsidies for EVs and GM and other automakers are right to pursue them. However, there are other applications that should also drive the market in the near term (now to 2012), e.g., electric bicycles.

China currently annually manufactures over 20 million electric bicycles, each with about 1/2 kWh of battery storage. Production in 2010 is projected to exceed 30 million bicycles. The current production rate of 20 million per year equates to 10 million kWh of rechargeable batteries. Probably, 15 to 20% (1.5 to 2.0 million kWh), up from 13% in 2006, of these bicycles use Li-ion or NiMH batteries, primarily for export and the percentage of exports is expected to continue to increase. The Li-ion and NiMH figures are not broken out but the advantages of Li-ion – weight, cycle life & power – favor its eventual displacement of NiMH for this application. 1.5 million kWh of batteries would be sufficient for about 100,000 Volts. IF China gets serious about lead pollution, the percentage of will soar.

“Growth forecasts for the E2W industry are optimistic, with projected sales of 18.1, 22.7, and 30.1 million units in 2007, 2008, and 2010, respectively”

Here’s a May 11, 2008 article on electric bicycles in China:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/05/uc-davis-study.html

Here is the related UC-Davis 2008 study that is the basis of the article:
http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/download_pdf.php?id=1168

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 10:58 am

NZDavid,
Thanks for the well-reasoned posts. I’d only read that the Penna. budget was to increase the mandated use of ethanol in PA, but only as it “became available”. I’d thought it was a greenwash job, but I had not heard of the new plant. That’s extremely good news.

And just for Tagamet, the current price of TAPIS hit a new record of over $153/barrel the other day. Sorry, couldn’t stop myself, won’t do it again.
(Tag slowly lowers the gun from his head…)
Be well my friend,
Tag

(Quote)
George K Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

#86 DonC
“I was wrong about the Japan exports. The prohibition was dropped in 1995 but it was reintroduced in 2001 after the oil companies …”
Is that an apology? he he.

From the Alaska State site, 2004:
“However, the international export of Alaska North Slope crude voluntarily ended in 2000. Now these sales go to west coast refineries in the United States”

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/trade/products/energy_export2004.php

#83 DonC
“Here is the official MMS report. It assumes that leasing will be authorized in 2007, has a crazy timeline for how fast things can be done, and completely misses the point about exploration ships being booked up for the next seven years. It still says nothing happens for twenty years”.

Yet,
Here is something else from my “oil company friends”, ( as you called it), re drilling in our Gulf area, you know, like China will soon be doing, but we can’t because Congress is against drilling:
“Ultra-deepwater fields might produce in 3-5 years. For the most remote locations, without any prior infrastructure support, that barrel may require a 4-6 year window.”
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/06/25/10-years-to-drill-for-oil-another-obama-lie/

And don’t forget #89 57silver.

Finally, I remind you that Drilling in ANWR was brought up in Congress prior to 2001, and subsequently! Who ever voted against that is part of today’s gas shortage problem. I encourage you to look it up and vote against them!

(Quote)
DonC Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

G Silver@#89

“Yes, that was an Urban Legend passed around many enviromentalist sites. No oil from the North Shore is currently exported … ”

Urban Legend? Maybe misquoting would be more accurate. You conveniently omitted that I also wrote: “The prohibition was dropped in 1995 but it was reintroduced in 2001 after the oil companies were suspected of jacking up prices on the West Coast by withholding supplies from West Coast refineries by redirecting oil to Asian refineries.”

“Well, that is not exactly what the report says. The part you copied and pasted was referring to the PROTECTED areas in the Pacific, Atlantic and EASTERN Gulf.”

Duh, if you read the posts you’d understand we were only talking about the unprotected ares. So I fail to see what is wrong with quoting the part of the report that relates to the subject of the discussion. Conversely I’m not seeing the point in your quoting a report that deals with production which is not being discussed. Saudi Arabia has a lot of reserves but citing a report about that has no obvious significance when discussing offshore potential in the Gulf.

In this regard, the entire oil company backed “Drill Here Drill Now” campaign is just a canard. The fact is that Exxon has large areas which is has under contract which they’re not developing now. In fact I think something like 3/4 of the public land leased for oil and gas drilling isn’t even being explored. Why not? Because it appears to be more useful to use capital for buying back stock, letting the oil sit for another day. Adding more federal land which will likewise not be explored isn’t going to do a thing.

“When some see the statement that 69% of crude oil is used by transportation, they think only of personal vehicles. Much of that 69% is used by 18-wheelers, airlines, buses, diesel-electric locomotives, etc. We presently import about 65% of our crude. We simply cannot end our NEED for oil anytime in the forseeable future …”

Acutally the 69% figure seems quite low. What I’ve seen are estimates that 75%-80% of our oil use goes to transportation, the vast majority of which is used in (potentially) single family vehicles.

“There is a misconception by some that electric cars will soon end our dependence on imported oil. Electric cars will help to decrease the amount needed to be imported, but it will be many, many years before the US could possibly be free of imported oil.”

If we have a president that displays less than zero leadership skills and a helpless “woe is me, I’m such a victum” attitude like you have expressed here, then yes, you are absolutely right: We are doomed for all eternity to send our dollars to Iran and Saudi Arabia so they can fund terrorists attacks against us.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Oil demand destruction should not be such a hard task for a nation than turned from making cars to making tanks in six months. Ditching the gas guzzler that gets 10 mpg for one that gets “only” 20 mpg gets us 50% of the way to completely eliminating our demand for oil for the overwhelming amount of transportation needs. What’s so hard about that?

The problem is not technology. It’s here. What we need is leaderhship and a sense of purpose. This is an absolutely great country. If you don’t want to stand up and get serious about our national security then that’s your choice. Hopefully there will be patriots who are more willing to sacrifice for their country and to stand and fight rather than a bunch of mamby-pamby defeatists who just want to throw in the towel.

On this 4th of July weekend all I can say is: Go GM. Go Volt. Go USA.

(Quote)
Vector256 Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 2:35 pm

#91 NZDavid – “Bad news my friend. Drilling off the USA will do exactly NOTHING for the big barrel of oil with all the straws stuck in it.

The reason is, there is a world wide shortage of rigs. Hence the $600,000 per day to hire them! All you will do is divert a rig from elsewhere. The TOTAL supply of oil will not change. However the US oil supply would go up a little, which would help your balance of payments, but NOT the price at the pump.”
=====================
Oh, what arguments the “anti-drillers” won’t use to justify their world view! Logical fallicies: 1) The US happens to have the capacity to build more oil rigs, and employ more people. 2) If we produce more oil, the TOTAL oil supply will change, it will increase – there is no logical way it can not. If supply goes up, costs come down.

BTW, you don’t happen to have money in oil futures, do you? More oil supply would scare some of the “fair weather” speculators out of the futures market, which would dramatically lower oil prices. Right now, more and more investor money is chasing after a limited amount of oil future contracts. Like an auction, the contracts are bid up in price by the enormous influx in cash by investors in the oil markets. More oil supply would scare the “fair weather” oil future investors, making them move their money somewhere else. This would absolutely lower gas prices.

But of course if you and “Dubya” are profiting from poor people’s misery by profiting from oil prices, obviously I cannot change your mind. Go listen to Rush, smoke your cigar, and use a hundred dollar bill to light it. After all, poor people are just bums who are too lazy to become wealthy, right?

Maybe my first impression of you is wrong, and you DO care about the poorest among us. But your comment…

“7. Can farmers produce the same amount of output with limited supply of fuel?
Nope. The world population will decrease, one way or another.”

does not inspire much confidence. Two guesses which part of the “world population” NZDavid expects to decrease (translation: starve to death) – if you guessed “the poor”, you win a cookie.

I hope you don’t really hate poor people that much. If you don’t hate them, help them – increase the supply of oil while our best minds figure a way out of the oil-dependancy mess. The poor cannot afford cutting edge-tech. They drive the old gas guzzling cars wealthier people traded in because the poor don’t have much of a choice. And right now, they are in trouble. Your obstructionism is part of the problem. How about being part of the solution?

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Vector256,
You’re way off base with your negative assessment of NZDavid.
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Sorry I’m late to the party, hope folks don’t mind I skip the oil topic for at least now and address Lyle’s base post regarding cost of EnerDel’s and the Volt’s batteries….

Lyle completely misses at least one major point….

… when comparing one companies pack’s against anothers…. one really needs to be comparing actual usable capacity, not raw capacity…..

So actual cost for the EnerDel 28kwh pack is 28kwh * 95% = 26.6kwh. Divide that into $16k and it’s $601/kwh.

The Volt’s battery only has usable capacity of 50% or 8kwh. So the pack for the Volt should cost no more than 8kwh * $601/kwh = $4,808 max that GM should pay for the packs.

No need for a cooling system with the EnerDel chemistry should also keep costs down and one less thing that can fail.

Also reminds me of why any tax credit needs to be based on usable capacity, not raw capactity….

The Volt should not get a bigger tax credit using only 8kwh of a 16kwh pack than let’s say a vehicle with a hyperthetical EnerDel 8.43kwh pack with a usable capacity also of 8kwh.

(Quote)
Vector256 Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

#106 Tagamet – “You’re way off base with your negative assessment of NZDavid.”

Nice of you to stick up for your friend, but you are a little skimpy on the details. I didn’t assess him quite yet – my post shows that I hope I’m wrong about him. I just get tired of those who say “We can’t.”. It’s easy to be negative, much harder to say how we CAN help. His idea: reduce population. That means people die. Probably poor people. Not a very good idea, IMHO. My idea: drill for oil WHILE we continue to look for a way out of this mess. Even a little more oil helps.

Here’s another idea. A one-time $5,000.00 tax incentive to households $30,000.00 and below that can ONLY be used to buy 1) a NEW car that 2) gets 30 mpg or more, and 3) you MUST own a vehicle,10 years old or over, to turn in for the new car. The old vehicle could only be recycled, NOT resold. There are many new models under $10,000 which would qualify for the incentive. The net decrease in oil usage and the increase in are quality would justify the incentive.

At the same time, we override state laws with a federal statute to limit how many years a car may be tagged. All MVA’s in every state nationwide would be forced to comply. For example, a ten year old car would no longer be eligible for tag renewal. An exception, requiring a historical license plate, could be issued for weekend-only driving, and only a limited amount of miles each year. The miles driven would have to be certified before a historic tag renewal could be issued. Of course, a historic car could be transported by trailer, or driven on private property at any time, within the yearly mileage limit.

Any car found with an unrenewed tag registration would be impounded. The owner would have XX days after notification to re-register the car or remove all personal items from the car. If over ten years old, the car would have to be tagged as a historic model to claim it. This would require showing proof of ownership of a newer model car for weekday driving. Any historic tagged car caught driving on a weekday would be impounded, have the tags immediately revoked, and the specific car would never be eligible for tag renewal. It would immediately be recycled, and the owner barred from using historic tags forever.

These ideas would systematically obsolete older, more fuel inefficient cars, without forcing poor people into a corner. The most polluting cars are owned by the poor, who cannot afford a new one. We need to get these barely operational, hyper-polluting pieces of junk off the road and out of our cities. Let’s help the poor help all of us.

Write your congressional representative. We need the government’s help to get this done. We need more oil, more energy storage research (re: the Manhattan Project), and we need older, more inefficient cars off the road. We need this now.

(Quote)
jeff Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

I live in Florida and I don’t want them drilling off the coast for oil for any reason. I guess natural gas would be ok, I’m not sure about NG, of how messy it can get. Florida needs to switch to alternatives, pronto. Go dig another tar sand pit in Canada, nobody will ever see it anyhow. The strip mining of coal in Montana sounds like a good idea too, if they can protect the streams. Really, I think ethanol is the answer and I wish they’d stop stalling. They are going to add a couple of new nuclear reactors to existing plant at the tip of FL. Also piping in CNG from the Bahamas, if I’m not mistaken. Only 2 E-85 stations in the state. It’s crazy FL isn’t a leader in ethanol. Change is coming slow. . . Republican legislature down here that’s a good ‘ol boy network, of sorts. Anyhow that’s my view from FL. Oh, and I can’t wait to buy a Volt!! GO GM !!!

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Vector256, you are the one who seems morbid…. why do you assume reducing population means starving folks…. there is more than one way to reduce population…. look at China’s one child per couple policy. Look at companies that have reduced workforces without ever laying anyone off… through attrition. Of course people die, we all do.

As for out right killing folks… that’s exactly what trying to drill our way out of this is going to do…. unless you really believe re-releasing carbon dioxide over a period of just a couple hundred years that took nature millions of years to capture has no effect on the environment? Just because it’s oderless and colorless does not mean it doesn’t exist.

Man made global warming is going to kill millions by drought in some areas, and flooding in others, displacing millions from their homes. Increasing fossil fuel production by drilling, oil sands, oil sands, coal, even natural gas, is only accelerating matters even faster and solves nothing other than keeping the world addicted because they can get their fix.

For what it’s worth, an interesting NYT article on our energy policies. Dems can take just as much blame as the Repubs that we don’t have much higher CAFE requirements already. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/business/06oil.html?th&emc=th

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Vector256,
A) That’s not the thrust of NZDavid’s many posts here.
and B) I agree with exactly zero of your “solutions”, but I don’t know, nor would I suggest that you’re evil (as anyone who pushed “people should just die” as a “solution” would be).
Be well (anyway)
Tag
PS End of NZDavid’s defense and, I hope, your personal attacks.

(Quote)
Vector256 Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

#100 Jeff M – Population control is not going to happen here. The NAACP and the ACLU will oppose any effort toward population control. Period. Also, it was an idea from #91 NZDavid’s post, not mine – I copied it in “quotes”.

As for global warming, it’s going to continue. Jets will use fuel, cars will use gas. Trucks, locomotives and heavy machinery will use diesel. Power plants will use coal. To get useable amounts of energy, you have to burn something, or go nuclear. Wind only works when it’s windy, solar doesn’t work at night, and hydroelectric blocks migrating fish populations.

Imagine if all combustion simply stopped. No car, no truck, no train, no ship would function. All transportation would cease. All economies would simply stop. We would live like the American Indians – live off the land, make everything from the land. What you could not make, you do without. No medication. No heat or a/c. No TV, cable – not even a newspaper. And no pizza. Not a very appealing thought, but ultimately, that’s where we would be. Nuclear? Not without diesel equipment to build it, or dig for the reactor fuel, or refine the reactor fuel. We would be alone, in the dark, forever. I want you, Jeff M, to live that way first, before condemming the rest of us to such a fate.

As I said, we can use less oil by developing future energy technology now. In the meantime, people ARE starving, or doing without medication, just to afford to fill their tank with gas. What choice do they have – lose their jobs? Do you even care about the poor, or is all you care about reducing C02 – no matter the cost in human suffering?

I am so sick of anti-drillers saying “we can’t drill our way out of this”. That is only true of the long-term problem – oil is finite. However, you cannot bring short-term relief to the poor by “population controlling” your way out of it, either. But in the short-term, we can help the poorest among us by drilling. Additional supply will help ease oil prices, and ease the burden of the poor. Not right away, but the sooner we start, the sooner relief will come.

Science will conquer energy problems in the long-term. The better hybrid battery race is already underway. The winner will be rich beyond their dreams. Maybe EEStor’s ultracaps will work. The French are working with CERN toward practical fusion today. Now is not the time to panic about drilling. We’re really good at it.

(Quote)
RyanP Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 2:46 am

#62 Kent
“If the Think retails for $35K then it’s DOA…… Leasing batteries is for those who shouldn’t be trying to buy these cars in the first place – the EV version of no-interest mortgages.”

Let me say that the $35K cost is the cost in EUROPE and it’s that way because their taxes are so high there. The US version will be $17K max.

YES there’s a monthly “mobility pack” charge but Jan Willums has thought this out too: if anything should happen to the battery pack, they take the battery back and install a new one. This is true EVEN IF THE BATTERY HAS REACHED THE END OF ITS LIFESPAN. This is exactly the same as buying an EV where the battery lasts forever.

Th!nk also will not be building the cars in Norway and shipping them worldwide forever. Plans are to build assembly plants in the market locations, and ship the parts from where they’re made (motor=France, body panels=Turkey, chassis=Thailand) to the plant, assembling them in the final country of use. Made in the USA with American labor, made in Canada with Canadien labor, made in Brazil with…

Some have called it the IKEA model.

(Quote)
57silver Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 3:06 am

DonC @ #104,
“Urban Legend? Maybe misquoting would be more accurate. You conveniently omitted that I also wrote: “The prohibition was dropped in 1995 but it was reintroduced in 2001 after the oil companies were suspected of jacking up prices on the West Coast by withholding supplies from West Coast refineries by redirecting oil to Asian refineries.”
—————–
I stated Yes, that statement made by you was passed around on many environmental sites. It was a fabrication, not a “misquote”, and thus an Urban Legend that got repeated on several sites. Also, as you yourself stated, oil prices are based on worldwide sales and the 7% temporarily exported to Japan would not affect local West Coast prices. There are many reasons some of the oil and refined products are exported, some economic and some political. One example is when the US has a large trade imbalance with a particular nation. We can send oil to that nation and list it as an ‘export’ to obsifucate the true trade imbalance.

DonC,
“Duh, if you read the posts you’d understand we were only talking about the unprotected ares. So I fail to see what is wrong with quoting the part of the report that relates to the subject of the discussion.”
—————
Read my link again. The part you quoted and claimed it would take 20 years to develope was in reference to PROTECTED areas, not unprotected as per the discussion.
——————–
DonC,
“In this regard, the entire oil company backed “Drill Here Drill Now” campaign is just a canard. The fact is that Exxon has large areas which is has under contract which they’re not developing now. In fact I think something like 3/4 of the public land leased for oil and gas drilling isn’t even being explored. Why not?”
———————-
There are three main reasons. (1) The leased regions contain too little or no oil. (2) Some of the areas, such as many of the offshore sites, would entail a lengthy and expensive legal fight with the environmentalist which the oil companies could lose. Until just recently, all new offshore drilling had banned in all but a few locations. (3) Most of the unprotected areas were far from shorelines in deep waters. Oil in deep waters is expensive to produce, and just in the last few months has become viable because of the surge in crude prices. For example, Brazil estimates they will need to sell oil from their new deep water fields at near $200 a barrel to make a profit. They expect oil to be at that price in about three years when the fields become productive. Future production of oil from the US or elsewhere will not lower today’s prices, but can help keep the future price of oil a little lower in that time frame.

DonC,
“Acutally the 69% figure seems quite low. What I’ve seen are estimates that 75%-80% of our oil use goes to transportation, the vast majority of which is used in (potentially) single family vehicles.”
———————–
I took my figure from the latest and highest estimates I could find from legimitate sources, such as the DOE. A barrel of crude is 42 gallons, about 19.15 gallons of gasoline can be produced per barrel. Less than half of the total crude oil is used as gasoline. That gasoline is used in all gas powered engines, from personal transportation to delivery vans and even lawnmowers. Most gas IS used for personal transport, but we are well under half of the total crude oil consumed.

DonC,
“If we have a president that displays less than zero leadership skills and a helpless “woe is me, I’m such a victum” attitude like you have expressed here…”
—————————
Why the personal attack? You could not be more wrong in your projection of me. I am a very patriotic American and I feel neither helpless nor a victum. I possess enough science knowledge and logic to realize there are no quick fixes to our oil dependence in the near term, meaning less than a minimun of 10-15 years from today. I like the E-Flex platform very much and look forward to its availability to help, but it will take much more than PHEVs to gain independence from crude.

DonC,
“If you don’t want to stand up and get serious about our national security then that’s your choice. Hopefully there will be patriots who are more willing to sacrifice for their country and to stand and fight rather than a bunch of mamby-pamby defeatists who just want to throw in the towel.”
————————————–
Again, you insult me without reason. I am a Purple Heart veteran and I guarantee you would not say that to my face! If I were required to draw my own opinion of you based on your uninformed assertians, I would have to conclude you were a moron. See how personal attacks work?

(Quote)
wwskinn3 Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 11:03 am

This is probably the wrong place to ask this but I don’t know where else to get an answer. Perhaps some of you guys can answer one question for me.

“I understand that VALERO (formerly Shamrock) only uses domestic oil. Since we are not selling domestic oil for $140 a barrel – shouldn’t Valero gas be about 1/2 the price of others?”

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 11:40 am

#91 NZDavid:

My brother and I recently started carpooling, after living about 1 mile apart and working at the same place for over 15 years. So it can happen!

As many have said, $4 gas is not unlike the imminent prospect of hanging (or Chapter 11 in the case of certain friends of ours). It does tend to focus the mind.

(Quote)
jack wesrt Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

great car but way outta line on price…..wayyyy high

(Quote)
jabroni Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 8:50 pm

It’s too bad that we have to pay for 16 kWh’s and only use 8……. bad deal…

(Quote)
Brice Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 10:03 am

Leasing batteries monthly does make sense provided the lease expense is less than your fuel expense. Also, battery prices will only go down and gas prices will only go up.

(Quote)
EV Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

One question for this, that is possibly a mistaken assumption by most people. Will the Volt’s battery pack need to be water cooled? If not, then the number the article gives is like comparing apples and oranges.

(Quote)
Carlos Says:
December 24th, 2008 at 9:47 am

No, I will NEVER pay $30K for a car, unless it is made of solid gold and runs on water. Otherwise, I am willing to pay $20K. Leasing a battery? I don’t like the sound of that either because I buy a car and drive it forever, so the cost of ownership would add up.

It is not looking like the average consumer will be inclined to buy a Volt.

(Quote)
John Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

I can see the ads now. “Get your chevvy Volt at Superior Chevrolet, only $15,000.00* ”

* Batteries not included

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Embrace technology to turn nuclear energy into environmental solution November 6, 2009
From the Seattle Times: "STEWART Brand, author of "The Whole Earth Catalog," visited Seattle last week, promoting his latest environmental manifesto... […]
misslexi
Lutz to Head Opel November 6, 2009
Der Spiegel reports that Lutz is going to head up Opel: Spiegel Online(link)... […]
dagwood55
Do home chargers include meters? November 6, 2009
I conduct a real-world fuel economy survey (http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php), and will want to adapt it for electric and range-extended... […]
mkaresh
HHSE (Hybrid-Hybrid-Serial-Electric) vehicle invented November 5, 2009
A HHSE is a cross between using a lower efficiency but more functional serial hybrid drivetrain for city driving and using a mechanical drivetrain to... […]
Texas
Renault, Nissan to build $892 million battery factory outside Paris November 5, 2009
“This will be the center of our lithium battery production for all of our assembly plants and for other carmakers,” Ghosn said. “It’s a major... […]
Texas
GM to cut 10,000 Jobs Across Europe After Sudden U-Turn on Opel Deal November 5, 2009
Max Keiser on Russia Today. " ... General Motors cut ten thousand jobs across Europe at its Opel unit in favor of Christmas bonuses." -Max... […]
Guy Incognito
Nissan Releases Concept Sketch Of Light Commercial Electric Vehicle November 5, 2009
NISSAN RELEASES CONCEPT SKETCH OF LIGHT COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler

Update: EnerDel’s Chairman on the Cost of the Th!nk Lithium-ion Battery Pack

122 Responses to “Update: EnerDel’s Chairman on the Cost of the Th!nk Lithium-ion Battery Pack”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts