GM Advises Government not to Include the Volt in New CAFE Standards Rule
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed earlier this year that automakers must achieve a 25% increase in fuel economy from 2011 to 2015 model years.
That goal was set based on carmakers automotive plans at the time and not including any plug-in vehicles.
Now the NHTSA is asking automakers to revise their submitted plans in particular having GM include the Volt, whose fuel economy is obviously not so simple to calculate, but certainly quite high.
GM filed the following statement back to the NHTSA in response to that request:
"for the purposes of the NHTSA rulemaking, GM’s game-changing EREV technology should be treated as a low-volume application during the time period under consideration. We strongly discourage NHTSA from applying either PHEV or EREV technology in any significant volume in its … model during the 2011-2015 timeframe.”
GM is apparently arguing the Volt will remain a low volume application in that timeframe, and as per GM spokesman Greg Martin, “We’ve been very cautious in terms of the volume, just because of the innovation and the technology associated with that vehicle. There’s a note of caution that, yes the technology is breakthrough, it is a game-changer, but as with any new game-changing technology, there needs to be a reasonable expectation set in terms of volume."
GM sources supposedly told the Detroit News that only 200,000 Volts would be produced in the first five years of production any many of those may be exported.
GM of course wasn’t alone in this request, Chrysler, Toyota, Ford and five other automakers argued against the potential of raised mpg expectations.
Source (Detroit Free Press ) and (Detroit News )
Popularity: 6%
Related posts:
- What Does GM Think About the New CAFE Standards?
- What’s All this Tom Friedman, Automakers, and CAFE Fuss?
- Paulson Says Auto Industry Aid Should Not Come From Wall Street Bailout, Congressional Democrats Disagree
- Japanese Government Pledges $215 Million USD to Develop Lithium-ion Batteries for PHEVs
- Lutz: GM Deserving of Government Loans
(3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5) 
Loading ...
July 10th, 2008 at 6:08 am
I think the carmakers will argue against anything they have or should do. What they done beside collect money. The domestic producers certainly didn’t produce anything worthwhile.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:33 am
“GM sources supposedly told the Detroit News that only 200,000 Volts would be produced in the first five years”
That’s gonna be more fuel for the nay-sayers who insist that the Volt is essentially a PR stunt.
Given the amount of resources GM has poured into the Volt at a time when they can ill-afford expensive PR stunts, I disagree with this premise.
Taken at face value, it’s a dismaying to think they could only move 200,000 in five years. I hope it’s just a case of GM being conservative in their pronouncements.
The alternative — which is even worse — is that they realize it will be too expensive to move more than this number. Ugh.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Lyle, great job last time. I stayed up way past by bedtime just to listen to you. It was very cool listening to Tagamet and Nasaman.
Getting back to this thread.
I do believe the GM needs to be cautious with the Volt.
The government should keep their hands off for now.
If GM were to include the Volt, it could very well skew the rules.
It is too early for that, I think
July 10th, 2008 at 6:51 am
200,000 in 5 years and all of you believe that Toyota is worried. 200,000 in 5 years wills do nothing to dent our dependencies on oil. The Prius is not the perfect car but will have more of an impact on oil dependencies. Who knows if GM will be around in 5 years. As I stated previously, NICHE market.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Rashiid #3: I agree that the Volt would change the rules, and until they come up with a universal way to calculate mileage for EREV type vehicles, it would be a mistake to put them in the CAFE standards.
It is the 200,000 volume in the first five years comment that is most worrisome.
If they make 10K in 2010-2011, and 60K in 2011-12 as we have been told by Mr. Lutz just recently, you would expect that they can make at least 60K per year for the next three years. That is a minimum total volume of 250K. And that does not count the Saturn VUE PHEV that is also supposed to be introduced at around the same time. So the numbers seem really low……….
We all have expected to see 10K, 60K, 100K, 100K, 100K as realistic production numbers for the Volt, or 370K units total for the first five years, which is almost double what GM has now estimated. And again, the Saturn Vue numbers would added to that. If they did a Caddy version and/or a small truck unit by 2014 & 2015, I would have expected to see almost a million EREV units total by the end of the first five years!
Now I am confused……….. But that happens a lot!!!
So what is wrong with the math here?
July 10th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Lyle — Outstanding job on the radio,heard here over the internet.
Regarding 200K total Volts until 2015, that is indeed a disappointing total number, as I had been thinking maybe 1M.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:18 am
At the same time, it seems to me that GM would be foolish to commit to some high number, when there is no battery contract for the Volt. That means that numbers of available batteries and their prices are unknown, or at least still unofficial. There also are no firm prices and no sales to customers of Volts, so this car has zero track record in the marketplace. It is one thing to be hopeful but quite another to be committed, because the latter really puts you in a box. That is, I agree with GM’s position. It is premature to be including Volt-like cars in CAFE-type rules.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Personally I believe that they are playing conservative here. As Jim I mentioned, Lutz told us 10K and 60K. This is probably assuming 1 shift on the line. If the car does well which most of us expect it will, they can easily add more shifts to the production line to increase the volume. If however they are expecting 60K units with 3 shifts then they’ll need to create another line to increase production which could take a while to do.
They need to play it somewhat conservative at this point and push the fed for tax breaks for buyers in order to knock the price down. With a 40K$ car, A 5K$ rebate would go a long way.
Personally I think they are right to push the fed to not include the volt on the new CAFE standards. This car isn’t even in production yet. I’m 100% for the volt technology and think that every GM product should go this way but they need to at least get the first years production cars to market and see the response before you can change the rules for the industry. Would the new CAFE standards include the EEStor technology? It’s hard to write laws for things that don’t exist yet.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Maybe I’m missing something–it wouldn’t be the first time, but why wouldn’t GM want to have the Volt factored into their CAFE score? Under any method of calculating MPG and even if only one Volt were sold, it would increase GM’s avergage MPG. Is GM worried that the NHTSA will increase the CAFE goal if they think that automakers can and will beat it? If so, that seems rather unfair to me. The point of a goal or standard is that it gets published and organizations fail or suceed to meet it. Then you move the goal. You don’t constantly move the goal based on current conditions and assumptions about the ability of any one organization to meet or exceed the goal.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:25 am
increased fuel economy doesn’t come for free, I hope these legislators realize that before they walk to the dealer to purchase their more expensive 2015 MY cars. I do agree with increased fuel economy across the board, but I am hoping it can be done in the most efficient manner possible.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Good Morning,
I’m all fresh from my new late night with Dan Rea experience. You just knew I’d show up early to this thread!
To be fair, if anything GM is un-’PRing’ the Volt here. They want the government to ease up on standards, (only had a couple decades to build it efficiencies), so they are going to discount the Volt as much as they can. After all, the public is paying zero….nada…attention to articles like this. They could say you could not count the Volt as a conventional car because it was made of cheese, no one would notice.
Although the 200,000 number could be right. I have always said that GM will get zero Volts to ‘actual customers’ (not talking about the ‘one-zies’ in 2010. I figure we are fortunate if a couple thousand trickle out to the real people in late 2011, and maybe 15K in 2012. Then 50-80K a year (2013,2014,2015) until it either moves to Europe for ‘gen 2′ or it is phased out. So I’d put the range at 170K-250K.
This part —”… such vehicles would be built in low numbers through 2015,” has really got to sting the people wouldn’t didn’t agree the ‘Volt is a niche product’ however, tough to see that in words.
GM basically admitted it has no plans to build this car for a profit, as basic math would suggest to recoup a billion+ in R&D, one would need to sell alot more cars. And if they aren’t building it for a profit, and they only have enough cash for maybe another year…well, draw your own conclusions.
(I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, I personally think it’s a genius move, if your being paid to think of ways to keep GM alive. That billion dollars is getting alot more mileage than the other 20 billion they have left)
July 10th, 2008 at 7:41 am
#9 MDDave
“Maybe I’m missing something–it wouldn’t be the first time, but why wouldn’t GM want to have the Volt factored into their CAFE score?”
You would think it would help them right? Make life a little easier? Unfortunately, GM has learned from the past…which usually means captitulation on the part of ’standards.’
The past of least resistance for GM (and it’s peers) is to simply have the CAFE standard repealed, dumbed down, extended out…whatever. They are all lobbying hardcore against this.
The best driver of efficiencies is actually the market now. It’s ironic, that even though these companies are still fighting, the market is demanding what they are fighting against.
(It would be kind of nice if the focus was more on emissions that the the MPG at this point anywhoo)
July 10th, 2008 at 7:48 am
From the article: “GM sources supposedly told the Detroit News that only 200,000 Volts would be produced in the first five years of production …”
————————————————————————————–
Toyota started selling the Prius worldwide in 2001. By 2007, Toyota had sold 757,600 Prius cars worldwide. Now remember that most of those years had low oil prices, and most people are only now beginning to realize that world oil output has peaked.
So I’m really surprised and concerned that GM predicts such a low volume ramp for the Volt.
Other announcements from GM have inferred a much higher volume ramp. In particular, we’ve heard target numbers from GM of 10K for the 2011 model year, and 50K for the 2012 model year. At that rate of increase, we should see 200,000 Volts in model year 2015 alone - probably over 500,000 Volts for the whole 5-year period. And this assumes a linear volume ramp. With the rising cost of gasoline, and the issues of terrorism, global warming, peak oil, and the shrinking dollar, I would think the Volt would have a more exponential volume ramp.
The Volt was advertised as a car for the masses. With a $40K price tag and only 200K volume in the first 5 years, GM is breaking that promise.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Hate to admit with you there Statik #11…but reality bites…
1) seeing the words (stings a little, but doesnt shock me)
2) knowing how “middle-class/actual customer” I am (guess I’ve got more time to save up though)
3) knowing where I live (PA = not exactly a target market)
4) knowing that I’m one of the ‘above avg’ commuters (100+mi/day)
5) knowing that my current car wont make it to 2015 (mainly due to number 4)
6) knowing GM makes cars and how the current economical conditions will strain that industry as a whole (so they’ve got to make the most $$ they can ASAP)
7) knowing that exports will continue to rise within all industries as the dollar continues to sag
I guess I just hope to SEE one sometime in 2011 — that’ll at least give me hope for the future.
Someday……..someday
July 10th, 2008 at 7:57 am
#13 Dave G says, “With a $40K price tag and only 200K volume in the first 5 years, GM is breaking that promise.”
n i c h e. Niche, niche, niche.
In truth, I don’t believe the 200K number is true.
Either GM fabricated it for some reason, or the press got it wrong.
Must be the former, because the press never gets anything wrong.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:03 am
E-REV should be offered in all of GM’s compact vehicles…and 40 mile electric range should not be a requirement except for the Volt. It would give significantly more people direct exposure to the tech.
I would guess most folks would be more likely to pay $5K more for a 10 mile E-REV Cobalt than a $40K+ Volt. The Volt would be the equivalent of the Corvette for ICE vehicles. However, I know some folks here want to feel “special” about the only mass produced serial hybrid and it would seem like a failure to offer vehicles with a more limited range.
More vehicles with E-REV would show more of a commitment to the tech by GM. Also, dealers would not be limited to supporting E-REV for one vehicle.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:10 am
If GM is right and they only sell 200,000 Volts in the first 5 years, then all we can do is hope that Toyota or Honda comes out with a plug-in hybrid that has a decent amount of all-electric range. It looks like we need some real competition here…
July 10th, 2008 at 8:10 am
OFF TOPIC
Here’s Pickens Plan
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1641244028/bclid1641831933/bctid1653634930
Order your next car with CNG… Get a home CNG compressor and still fill up in your garage…
I’m thinking of CNG or buying all cars diesel and making my own biodiesel because I can’t wait 10 years for a Volt.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:18 am
It’s somewhat understandable…
If you demand a 25% increase on fuel efficiency over present models. But then include a revolutionary super-efficient vehicle in that equation, it can throw everything off.
If the avg is 25mpg, and I need to increase that by 25% that equates to 31mpg goal (6mpg increase). But if I have a 50mpg vehicle, that requires increasing to 63mpg (13mpg increase), and a 100mpg vehicle would need to increase to 125mpg (a 25mpg increase. Those are much much more difficult.
There is a REALLY simple way to resolve this, alas, government is usually not smart enough to think of such. All they have to do is declare a demand for a 25% increase of all vehicles getting under 50mpg.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:21 am
5. Jim I,
Jim, I believe you are suffering from a common ailment known as Lutzitis. The major symptoms is believing the off-the-cuff comments of Lutz. Minor symptoms include an failure to properly account for GM’s situation and history.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:21 am
#16 Jeff
It would be nice to think of ‘E-REV’ as a option, rather than a brand.
This would mean GM should be working on making E-REV more modular and a ‘easy swap’ system for multiple vehicles. I had thought it about it from time to time…but look at the customized ‘T-Battery’ and the hoops they are going thru to integrate it into the design of the Volt…I just don’t see it in the near future (especially since the Volt is still at least 3 years off).
Honestly, the displacement of that battery is not that large, why not just make the car 6 inches longer and slab the battery behind the rear seats? I don’t know…I don’t design cars for a living.
As for people paying 5K more for a 10 mile E-Rev Cobalt. Would be tough math to swallow, especially seeing how it would actually be a E-Rev Cruze, which gets 40 MPG.
The cost savings at that MPG is in the ratio of 4 to 1, electric over gas. So, $5,000 means you’d have to travel 62,500 miles (1,250 gallons ($4/gallon) x 40 MPG x 1.25 (cost of electric)) to get your money back in ‘EV mode’ (assuming $4 gas)…at 10 miles max a day…thats 6,250 days….17 years. Ouchie.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Why would any of the volts be exported?
July 10th, 2008 at 8:25 am
This is a ‘plan’ submitted to a specific govt. agency.
When 2012 comes around & ‘plans’ change due to massive demand, GM can say “oh well, who knew?”. BTW, thanks for the CAFE reduction.
/Feeling a little suspicious today.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:25 am
#15 Rashiid
GM is playing it safe. They do not know how long that battery is going to last. If they get 4 years out and find out that it does not last they could be dead in the water. GM can tell you how long each and every part in a car should last. With the Volt there is so much NEW technology that they have no history on. They are going to play it safe. They have been burned on new technology before. JMHO
Take Care
Arch
July 10th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Yesterday I was at the Chevrolet/Buick dealer in Hillsborough, NC, getting some routine service. Beside the casher’s window there was a huge poster newly arrived from GM touting the wonders of EREV and the steps of its development. In the middle steps electricity was mentioned, and as the final step there was hydrogen, as in Equinox. Nary a mention of plug-in, and I didn’t see any mention of the Volt. It made me uneasy to read this poster, as I was wondering if EREV = Hydrogen at GM, for it certainly did on this GM poster. If you see one of these, look it over — I’d like to think that I missed something good.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:26 am
#18 Brad G
I like Boone Pickens alot. He makes alot of sense…and always shoots unbelievably straight, which is odd for a ‘billionaire oilman’ He just co-hosted a couple hours on CNBC a couple days ago…and he did a press mixer the day before last there too on his “new wind turbine energy initiative”
July 10th, 2008 at 8:27 am
It’s very hard to be optimistic after hearing this news.
What we are told is one thing. What regulatory agencies are told is quite another.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:28 am
#16 Jeff says: “I would guess most folks would be more likely to pay $5K more for a 10 mile E-REV Cobalt than a $40K+ Volt. ”
————————————————————————————-
10 miles of all-electric range is not much to get excited about. In fact, this is one of the reasons Toyota is not moving faster with plug-ins. They did a marketing survey for a 10-mile plug-in Prius, and most people they surveyed weren’t that interested.
I probably wouldn’t be that interested either. With a 40-mile E-REV, you don’t have to go to the gas station very often - maybe every 2 months. So plugging in at night and unplugging in the morning becomes an acceptable trade-off, since you no longer have to go to the gas station every week. But with a 10-mile plug-in, you have the hassle of both daily plugging/unplugging and frequent trips to the gas station.
In addition, I’m pretty sure a 10 mile E-REV is not feasible. An E-REV (a.k.a. serial hybrid or REEV) uses only electrical power to move the car. The gas engine is not connected to the wheels. In order to accelerate the car with only electrical power, you need fairly large batteries. Remember that the size of the battery relates to 2 things:
1) KWh - which relates to all electric range (AER)
2) KW - which relates to power for acceleration and driving uphill
So a smaller battery with only 10-mile AER would probably not have enough power for acceleration and driving uphill. This is why all of the 10-mile plug-ins will use the more conventional parallel hybrid design where the gas engine is connected to the wheels. This includes the plug-in Saturn Vue and the plug-in Toyota Prius.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:31 am
The Volt is not a game changer if they only produce 200,000 E-REV cars by 2015. However if they only produce 200,000 Volts and they produce lots of other E-REVs then the Volt was a game changer.
If I were GM I wouldn’t even care what NHTSA is going to mandate. They can spend tons of money and energy on lobbying against it but it really won’t matter. Due to the current conditions the consumer will mandate much higher standards than what NHTSA does. If a few years ago NHTSA was mandating this technology then we might not be in such a rut. Its too late now.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:33 am
After thinking about this a bit it makes total sense:
NHTSA is asking for MPG and fuel efficiency standards and to include the Volt in GM’s fleet NOW. So the Volt would be included in the baseline CAFE Score upon which 25% improvement must be added to.
If GM doesn’t include the Volt in the baseline, they can tell the government in 2011 or 2012 “hey, we are actually going to be producing a huge amount of these, we would like this included in our CAFE score” and bang, they get a nice % increase to the 25% target.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:33 am
OFF TOPIC:
Statik,
I am not that savy on the stock market but I see a developing trend and want your opinion…
1) Is LG Chem stock high or low because they have their fingers in all the car batteries coming out. Would LG be a good stock for short or long term? The only thing I know about them is LG is the GE of Asia, like Electrolux is the GE of Europe.
2) Has GM stock bottomed out to buy for short term? The announcement of the Volt should be good for what… a short term $10 spike in price after the Volt debut and then sell?
Advise us Obi-Wan… Your our investing hope…
July 10th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Well Lyle, making a lot of friends at GM today I see.
Gas prices are 4 bucks a gallon, VW is coming out with a Golf E-REV in two years, and GM is spending millions to lobby against CAFE standards.
If GM is only going to market 200K of these, they don’t deserve the government subsidies that are already on the books for the R and D used in producing these vehicles.
IS GM posturing for fatter and direct subsidies, NOW? The German government is pouring money into the VW project…so it’s possible that GM is using this as leverage to get direct R and D subsidies to balance their books from here to 2011. We don’t stand a prayer of meeting the GHG goals agreed to yesterday without massive mobile source reductions.
Why would you dedicate a production line to something that you could make by hand, at that low level of volume?
Nope, I smell just simple posturing–fight CAFE just because it’s CAFE. Better to have a cushion than have to work at complying.
GM has small cars they sell in other markets that they could bring here before the Volt even hits the road. They could sell them for for a lot less than Smartcar is selling for, and make a small profit. But if they sold you one of those, you won’t have to buy a more expensive Cobalt for 5 years or more. On the other hand, if CAFE puts the screws to them, they might have to relent.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:44 am
#10 Jeff, you are correct increased fuel economy doesn’t come free at first. However look at it this way. If you are buying a new car every 3 years then you probably have enough money to spend the extra upfront cost. If you are keeping your car much longer than 3 years or buying a used one then you will get the fuel savings much quicker. Take a look at the 5 year cost of ownership of most cars and trucks and you will be surprised. The cheaper models of cars and trucks aren’t really much cheaper when looking at a 5 year cost of ownership. Here is a quick simple example:
2008 Toyota Prius: MSRP $21,500 5-Year Cost: $36,140
2008 Chevy Aveo: MSRP $12,170 5-Year Cost: $34,697
Its pretty amazing when you actually run the numbers.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Toyota has announced their intention to build the Prius in a new plant in Blue Springs, Mississippi, beginning in - you guessed it - 2010.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Only predicting 200k Volts in 5 years is a convenient reason to be excluded from the CAFE standards to save extra cost during the first few years of production (minimal changes). They are just trying to delay compliance with CAFE standards to the point where the Volt takes off a few years later (assuming it works…) Now, I don’t understand the comment about that most of them will be exported. I haven’t heard what Europeans think of this car. Any ideas?
July 10th, 2008 at 9:02 am
In the end, CAFE standards won’t matter.
With oil at $140/barrel & rising, and the U.S. dollar at half the value it was 6 years ago, we simply can’t afford gas guzzlers any more.
SUV sales are plummiting. The value of most SUVs are now below what people owe on them, so current SUV owners are forced to keep them, but it’s a safe bet their next car will be more fuel efficient.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Why is our government trying to “out” GM’s and other automaker’s production plans? The 2007 CAFE standards are in place, and the government can measure GM against that plan when the time comes.
GM and other automakers fully intend to meet the current standards, but this just a ploy for Congress to further raise the bar on businesses, so that they look like they are doing something.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:04 am
#31 Brad G
Ok…I’ll stab at this. (You asked for this remember)
1.) Is LG Chem stock high or low because they have their fingers in all the car batteries coming out. Would LG be a good stock for short or long term? The only thing I know about them is LG is the GE of Asia, like Electrolux is the GE of Europe
Okie dokie. LG Chem has a couple issues with investing in. First the good. It is a large sized, established, secure company with a market cap around 7 billion-ish. It also has a nice dividend, around 2%.
The snafu is that the battery business is very linear. LG and Microsoft are not dis-similar in the fact they are both monsters in their respective fields….and we pretty much can peg future revenue/profits down to decimal points. Which in turn is reflected in the stock. A bet on LG Chem or Microsoft is more of a bet on the market in general.
LG Chem had it’s bounce in mid 2007 on the back of ‘news’ about the ‘automobile application’ of battery technology, I would wager it’s next bump would be on the actual application and results of this news.
Lastly, any investment in LG Chem is a investment in Korea and the KRZ (stock exchange), and in so doing a investment in the Korean Won. The KRW is ‘pegged against the dollar,’ however it has been brought down of late because it is being exchanged at a far lower rate on the black market. American dollar doesn’t gain against many currencies…this is one of them. Currently it is at a 30 month low.
Handy chart:
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=KRW&amt=1&t=2y
You could find that you are battling multiple forces with a investment in LG Chem. I think Korea would encourage this trend as it gives their export business a HUGE advantage…especially against the Japanese, whose Yen is out of control. Have you seen what you can get a Accent for lately?
July 10th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Mitsubishi Motors intends to set the price for the i MiEV at around 4 million yen. But government subsidies for low-emission vehicles are likely to reduce the actual retail price to an estimated 3 million yen [US$28,000].
Based on this report it would cost $37,000 for the 16KWh version.
Source:http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/07/report-mitsubis.html#more
July 10th, 2008 at 9:19 am
#31 Brad G
“2) Has GM stock bottomed out to buy for short term? The announcement of the Volt should be good for what… a short term $10 spike in price after the Volt debut and then sell?”
I don’t think I need to post my opinion on this. I’ll just quote a couple market axioms for you.
A) Don’t invest in something you care about
B) Don’t try to catch a falling knife
There is alot of good companies out there cheap…and they are getting cheaper. There is no reason to invest in GM. The risk is monsterous, and the trend is irrefutable.
If I’m giving investment advice, I really can only say what I am doing…any other advice would be hypocritical.
Liquify!
I’m 95% cash (well money markets/gov’t back securities, etc), with 5% in some decent yielding corporate bonds. My ‘cash equivalents’ are zero percent US dollars…I pick 3 currencies for even more stability (mostly Canadian, because that’s where I live…and that just makes sense). I’m making about 6% at the moment, sad I know…but great when you consider what inflation is and how fast GDP/GNP is not growing.
I am actually fielding a offer on my house right now…I am going to take that cash off the table too and downsize to a cute little 1,800 square foot house my wife likes, until this ‘recession’ is over. I can’t stand losing money…even if I can afford to.
If the economy continues the way it is going, my money will not only appreciate in guaranteed securities, it will appreciate in how far it will go re-entering the stock market and the real estate market.
If the market/economy rebounds unexpectedly quickly, I will still make more than double the inflation rate in returns…and the bonus of a all liquid portfolio is that I can adjust my total position in about 30 seconds with a phone call if I choose to…not something you can do if your stuck in the real estate market.
I see it as win-win, but I have a personal bias…because thats my plan, lol.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:22 am
As everyone knows (or has heard stories) All the major car manufacturers can and SHOULD deliver cars that get 60 + MPG US.
There is so much technology that has been bought up by Big Oil and the car makers over the years and parked in warehouses accross the country. I personally know of one (in the early 70’s) of a 64 Ford Mercury (4000 lb car) that was modified and was averaging 45 MPG (Canadian). The owner was a bit of an inventer and when I looked at the 289 V8 engine and saw a lot of copper tubing and hoses….I did not know how the car got such super milage… but it did… and he (the owner) was offered and took $45K for his car from “an undisclosed sourse”.
If an old 2 ton V8 car can get 45 MPG in the 70’s without a lot of electronic hardware… we should be seeing cars that get at least 60 + MPG right now…
Let’s start with the Volt ASAP and dust off the shelves for the rest of the inovations the get the milage up on all cars..
Ray
July 10th, 2008 at 9:24 am
#18 Brad G,
#26 Statik,
I like that T. Boone Pickens is putting his money on wind.
But compressed natural gas (CNG) cars horribly inefficient - even worse than fool sells. Using the Tesla white paper here:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf
on page 3 we see that the Honda CNG is the worst on the chart - around 1/2 the efficiency of a Toyota Prius, and only about 1/4 of the efficiency of the Tesla Roadster. Note that the Tesla Roadster is also using natural gas as the fuel source for it’s electricity in this chart.
So it’s actually much more efficient to use the natural gas to make electricity that powers an electric car or E-REV. This is because huge electrical power plants use natural gas vastly more efficiently than small CNG car engines, and electrical transmission, storage, and conversion to motion is all fairly efficient.
If T. Boone Pickens modified his plan to use E-REV cars that run on electricity made from natural gas or wind, then I’m sure he would get more than a 38% reduction in oil imports.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Okay, I’ll play the guy who makes comments that many will not want to hear (well, except maybe Statik).
Let’s say the Volt, Prius, Zeo and every other hybrid or EREV is included into their CAFE score. Hypothetically, by 2013 they’d be averaging 48 MPG overall. Now, Congress will see this and pat themselves on the back saying “We’ve done a great job!” Yeah, right. Remember. This is the same government that voted to give $30 Million to battery research. Someone here earlier said that it is all about GM wanting to make money. I guess you think politicians are after your best interests, hmmm? Looking out for you? If NHTSA sees a large margin improvement, what’s stopping them from requesting another in 2 years? And if they did, do you think a domestic company can meet that goal in so short a timeframe? Nope. GM will need time to cope as the SUV is no longer it’s bread and butter. I’m not saying you have to agree with it, I’m just stating hypothetically, GM’s position.
And as far as the 200,000 units goes, I wouldn’t be so stressed about it. It’s not like no one saw it coming. And before you think I’m berating GM, it’s not because of GM. They and Toyota have been having issues with the NiMH batteries as of late. Now, if you want GM to rush out the Volt without having the battery to do what it says it will, imagine the PR backlash. Then everyone will say “I told you so” and Lyle willl have invested all this time for nothing. You want to end our dependence on foreign oil? I promise you guys-one car is not going to do it.
1) Alter our driving patterns until the Volt arrives. Be more responsible with the oil you DO have at the moment.
2) Show GM your full support. Let them know that the “Average guy” wants this car badly, not just niche money trying to make a PR statement. This should not just be Brad and Angelina’s 5th car, I don’t give a crap who they are.
3) Write and hound the hell out of the politicians. They’ve failed us, but we’ve partially failed ourselves as we put these morons in office. I remember when the United States ran on a principle called democracy. Funny thing that was…of the people, by the people, for the people?
4) Encourage the growth of green technology and battery development. When enough people gripe about something, people listen. Action is taken whether to please the people or to shut them up.
Revitalizing CAFE standards is the government’s way of putting a band-aid over a bullet would. It is their abysmal response to keep big oil in power. Rather than tell corporations to invest in alternative fuel and battery technology, they’re telling the car companies to make smaller, more efficient cars. I’m all for efficiency, but it still seems to me that the burden is placed on the automaker. Shun the thought of someone investing in Lithium technology to make EREV’s.
My $.02
nah, maybe $.63
July 10th, 2008 at 9:27 am
#22 Don D asks “Why would any of the volts be exported?” My guess is that the Volt is seen as a flagship vehicle that can be used to advantage in all GM markets. It may be that Asia, SA and Europe are or will soon be more important to GM than NA. There are many high-income people in those countries, so it will be natural for many Volts to go outside NA. Put differently, to the degree that the Volt is an image car, that image is one of value in all markets.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Statik #40, A related old saying is
“Never stand under a falling Grand Piano.”
July 10th, 2008 at 9:40 am
#39 NZDavid
If they set it at 4 million yen, (3 million after subsidy) that would be a real blow to the marketability of the car.
I’ve real ALOT of i-Miev press releases and news. I’ve never seen numbers like that and there is no source for these numbers given.
The words ‘intends’ and ‘around’ in the quote give me some reason for skepticism…but it makes me nervous. It would be a real blow to the industry as a whole if this were true. People would go back to the ‘EVs are only for the rich’ thinking and the, ‘the whole industry is a total joke’ mindset.
/I hope it’s not true. Although Toyota probably doesn’t. It makes them the only player in this new segment…again.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I think GM will quickly change their minds about 200,000 in the first 5 years when they see none of their non-e-flex vehicles selling.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Brad G@#18
Americans need to give T Boone Pickens credit — a lot of credit. He’s the only guy who is putting up some dollars to make the obvious argument about the issues we face. He is also absolutely right about leadership in Washington. The technology is there, so this is not that hard a problem to solve once we decide to solve it. At the moment there isn’t a coherent voice on the issue, and I sit here amazed that all Washington can do is waste valuable time, time which should be spent on actual solutions, revisiting the offshore drilling battles of the 80s’ and 90s’. Time to move on.
On the natural gas car, I know some people who have them (actually both have the Civic CNG, not sure there are any others). The primary motivator for them was the ability to get an HOV sticker. At the moment finding a “natural gas” station is an issue so they’ve tapped into their natural gas line at home. It takes several hours but it’s convenient. It’s also expensive — around $3000 — but I think they got a federal credit or something that at least offset some or all of the cost. They’re very happy with the cars though as commuters they’d like a larger car for safety reasons.
Personally I think the Volt with a flex engine is a better idea than natural gas vehicles, though both could certainly co-exist. The Volt wiht flex just gives you so many more options both as to the source of the electricity — wind, solar, natural gas, coal — and the source of the fuel — gas, biofuel, ethanol, natural gas. Natural gas may also pose price issues. It’s gone up much more than oil in the last year.
But you’ve got to love the fact there are so many solutions!
July 10th, 2008 at 9:46 am
#47 Nelson
Regarding a total of 200,000, I don’t think anyone at GM was using this number as a ceiling. It was used more as a floor value, in the sense of taking enough time to work out new technology may result in only 200,000 …. It is logical for GM (or any company) to keep committed production levels low with an unproven product. If all goes well, as we Volt fans expect, the total still may be much higher.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I like T Boone Pickens but take his comments with a grain of salt. What he is talking up is government support for electric power transmission lines that will directly benefit his wind-farm company. He may be right on, but he is speaking in line with his direct financial interests, not as some kind of a neutral observer.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:50 am
unrelated to this thread, here is an interesting scientific article supporting electrification of personal transport.
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/OECDSept102007TWPatzek.pdf
here is where I found it:
http://push.pickensplan.com/
you guys should be able to go over there to the chat area and just have a feeding frenzy!
:/
July 10th, 2008 at 9:55 am
I think we at this board have always done the math on this Volt’s production as being totally US contained.
If the quote is right and GM exports this thing all over the place, it would have a twofold implication.
A) On a personal level: Your probably not getting a Volt, no matter how bad you want one, before 2016.
B) On a global/fiscal level: It is getting worldwide exposure if it goes out to dozens of countries, with no infrastructure to support the demand that would come with that…which backs up the Volt is for PR thinking.
I’m still bummed about #39 NZDavid’s comments if true as well. ($37K i-Miev).
Right now it makes me feel my intital excitement and trust in these two automakers to bring EV to the masses was unfounded. I feel like a EV-1 supporter in the 90s at the moment…you think the revolution is coming, but slowly and surely you realize it is still another decade away.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I would not put in stock in the 200,000 number, it is a low ball calculated to minimize the government’s mandate for improved fuel economy.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:28 am
#52 Statik — The Volt has always been for PR thinking, so that’s not new. The question is, can it be more than PR?
Looking out over the world, as we of this blog are privileged to do, we can see that the critical element is not car companies but the price and availability (and perhaps performance and endurance) of automotive-size Li-ion batteries.
We can guess that so far battery suppliers have quoted prices that are higher and volumes that are lower than we and automakers initially had hoped would be the case. That situation corresponds to low volume and high priced cars. As soon as there are more and cheaper batteries, there will be more and cheaper cars. We just do not know how long that will be, and probably neither does anyone else.
The frustrating thing about the future is that it is only in the future that we’ll know what it is
July 10th, 2008 at 10:31 am
#52 Statik:
Oh it’s coming. Maybe GM and Mitsu just won’t participate.
To all of you who said that CAFE is, as my dad used to say,”self-regulating”, I wholeheartedly agree. Any manufacturer who fails to meet and exceed CAFE as it now stands will cease to exist. Statik is quite right at #12 in saying that the market will drive this.
Any millions that GM, et al, are spending to lobby against CAFE are totally wasted. They might as well pile the cash up in the parking lot and light it on fire.
How about spending it to develop more fuel efficient cars instead, thus responding to the reality of the market? Naaaahhh.
#26 Statik:
Just so you don’t get nervous that I am agreeing with you too much, I have little use for T. Boone Pickens.
He was a major financial supporter of the “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth”, or whatever they called themselves, in the 2004 election. He is a self-serving businessman, and I would not trust him any farther than I could throw him.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:52 am
55 Noel Park:
You vastly overestimate how much it takes to buy off our congresspersons.
For instance: the Countrywide bailout made it out of committee for less than $70,000.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:53 am
…..He is a self-serving businessman, and I would not trust him any farther than I could throw him…..
He looks pretty skinny.
He can be as self-serving as he may be as long as he builds wind farms to charge our volts…..
I wonder if the natural gas could power our [larger] cargo trucks instead of diesel…..?
July 10th, 2008 at 10:58 am
When I was a kid, reading my granddad’s Popular Mechanics magazines, I read that, according to ‘experts,’ the electric car was just 10 years away. I wondered if one might be out by the time I got my license.
I got my license, I subscribed to magazines myself; in which ‘experts’ occasionally declared that the electric car was just 10 years away.
10 years later, they said it again.
10 years later, same.
…etc…
…you know, those ‘experts’ must really be on to something: they’ve been right for over half a century!
OK, that’s the pessimist in me. I also have to say that over that same period of time, the ‘experts’ were also predicting “hang on the wall” television “in just 10 years.”
We did, eventually, get flat screen TV; so perhaps there is, still, a grain of hope.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I know random stock updates are kind of a ‘no-no’
But GM is getting ahmmered… off 8 percent, 83 cents at $9.50.
What is strange is that there is absolutely no news out right now and the market is up slightly. Either someone is selling off a big position or something is happening behind the scenes we don’t know about.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:08 am
#57 Jim D:
Well believe it or not, I agree with you. I’m just saying watch your back, and your wallet.
As to the large trucks, there is a massive effort at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to replace diesel trucks with ones powered by Liquified Natural Gas. Guess who is in the forefront of that? As the late, great, Jim Healy used to say, “My lips are sealed, but his initials are T.B.P.” The name of the company is “Clean Energy Systems”, if memory serves.
#56 Morgan:
It is a wonder, isn’t it?
July 10th, 2008 at 11:10 am
#59 Statik:
“Something happening behind the scenes we don’t know about?”
Gee, you think?
July 10th, 2008 at 11:11 am
RB@#50; Jim D@#57
I hear you about the self interest. But just because someone is advocating a plan based on self interest doesn’t make it wrong. In this case he’s the guy making the right argument. Even if you don’t like his politics that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t get behind him. Hey, he can get on Fox New whereas I doubt a someone with a liberal record could.
National security should not be a partisan issue, and we don’t need someone to do the right thing for the right reasons. We just need him to do the right thing.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Why would the Volt be exported? Perhaps because gas is twice as expensive in Europe and the US dollar is so weak. Seems obvious to me.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:36 am
#63 Marcus
“Why would the Volt be exported? Perhaps because gas is twice as expensive in Europe and the US dollar is so weak. Seems obvious to me.”
Indeed.
Euros/pounds > US dollars
An Aveo 5 starts at 8,250 pounds in the UK…thats $16,500USD
Sells for $10,850 here…before the rebate train leaves the station.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Statik@#52
One of the problems with the EVs is that the costs are front loaded. They cost less to run per mile and their maintenance costs are lower (OK not if you have to have the dealer flush the gas tank every three months ….). Yet people just choke on the higher up front costs. I’d be interested in seeing what the operating costs would be over the life of the vehicle. Have you seen this anywhere?
The interesting bit is that you have the same issues with digital cameras. When you buy one you get a camera that costs far more than an equivalent film camera … but you also get a lifetime supply of film. IOW the upfront costs are higher and the backend costs lower, just like the EVs. This was something of a barrier initially but somehow it just went away.
So my question is: Is there an argument or financing or something that can help people get over the initial sticker shock?
Th!nk seems to be thinking that one way is to separate out the car from the battery pack. But it doesn’t seem to be working. The comments I’ve seen all seem to say that no one would pay $100-$200 a month for a lease covering the Th!nk City battery and insurance. I’m thinking that’s a deal (the lease not the car), which suggests that separating the costs of the battery pack from the car, which allows you to dramatically cut the price of the vehicle, doesn’t work.
The inkjet printer companies have adapted to the aversion of US customers to high upfront costs by slashing the price of the printers to almost nothing and then charging extremely high prices for the ink. I can’t see how that would work for the EVs. Maybe a comprehensive service plan or something?
July 10th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Don’t forget to pick up your new iPhone 3G tomorrow morning starting at 8:00 am. I am looking forward to my new Volt. Hopefully it will have an interface for the iPhone 4G by the time it hits the road.
Already looked at the new Apple App Store, so many wonderful new applications available. I hope I get this excited when the Volt comes out.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:57 am
#65 DonC
I certainly agree the cost is front load. Looks like (if the i-Miev quote turns out to be true…and the Volt north of 40K) that the cost is still too high to be viable for the masses.
I dont think you reall can do ‘lifetime cost’ of ownership and then look at the results realistically, because only about 5 percent of the population keep a car 10 years+ It might be different with a Volt/i-Miev, but historically speaking people who plunk down 40K+ probably don’t want the same whip for more than a decade to ‘drive the value out of it’
There is also higher residuals to consider on resale/upgrade to next gen EV…but it is all pretty convoluted I think at 40K.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Ray #41 - Ahhh the conspiracies abound even today in this age of enlightenment. A 289 that got 45 mpg Canadian??? Indeed. I heard of an early 60’s Thunder Bird (BIG BLOCK) that had a special carburetor somewhere in New Mexico that got………….. 80 mpg!!! The story goes an owner was filling up his tank and a sedan pulls up along side him, two gentlemen in black step out and his car is whisked away. I assume they gave him is money back, prorated for the mileage he put on the car of course.
Yep, BIG OIL is out there buying up all of these inventions and technologies; putting them on shelves somewhere in Roswell, NM or is it Dayton, Oh and just letting them collect dust. Funny thing though, they seemed to have missed a big fish……Tesla? Oh I bet some heads rolled for missing that one, eh?
You know ……. I once saw…………
July 10th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
The Volt could achieve a 25% increase in fuel economy from 2011 to 2015 model years by putting a larger battery in it for the 2015 MY.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Let’s see how my monkey math works:
365 days a year times 10 years is 3650 days.
At $40,000 for your basic Volt sedan, that would be…
$11 dollars per day to own a Volt for 10 years (not including wear/tear + fuel/electricity + insurance costs)
I doubt I would keep it 10 years, especially if I started seeing flashier shinier newer faster EVs on the road during the original Volt’s lifetime.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Just read a story about Japan government agreeing that the Lead Toyata Engineer for the Hybrid Camry died from overwork by the company at the age of 45. I remember other stories in the past about Toyota Employees that died in their thirties from working conditions (super long hours + high stress) at some of their plants. Wow, I think those UAW folks in the USA have got it pretty good. I have never heard of a UAW employee dying from overwork !
July 10th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Elaborating on my last comment, more AER means less gasoline consumption.
Another way…Maybe Volt 1.0 could use the concept body’s style for its poor wind resistance. Later Volts could become more aero to increase mileage. There are many ways to game the system. Just get me an -E-REV or BEV. My daily commutes aren’t that far. I just need seating capacity, decent acceleration and decent top speed.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Let’s see if I can get all of this pessimism out of my system in one thread.
WHAT IF “battery expert” from a previous thread or two is actually on to something? What if GM knows the initial battery can’t (in all likelihood) make it to 10 years, with a 40-mile range at the end? This might explain, in straight economic terms, why it could pay to keep things on a smaller scale for the first 3 years: they could be anticipating a need for 200,000 mid-life replacements.
They could be gambling on lower costs / better performance for those batteries in 4 - 5 years, after producing 200K+ of them: if it works out, then they go ahead with larger deployment. If not … move over, EV1.
It seems to me that this makes efficiency of the ICE / auxiliary power source research far more relevant, far sooner: For example, up to a third of the energy from burning gasoline goes down the tailpipe as waste heat. What if a (small, solid-state) thermoelectric generator exploited the difference in temperature between the exhaust and cooling system water to provide an additional 1000+ watts? That could turn 50 mpg on ICE to 65+ mpg, depending on the efficiency achieved by the TG:
http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/9997
A plug in (as someone else remarked) which starts out with 40 miles AER, gradualling diminishing to 20 miles AER, but getting 65 mpg would be a much stronger proposition than the same getting 50 mpg.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Despite all the bashing GM got over killing the EV1 they DO have experience in selling (or not selling) a production electric car. For the money they put into it GM got burned, bottom line (and no pun intended!). They had a game changing car BUT THE GAME DID NOT CHANGE. Of course the reason was cheap gas. A car with a two gallon “gas tank” simply will not sell in the U.S. California wanted to mandate zero emission vehicle based on GM’s EV1 selling (or leasing) in some substantial number. Add all the people on the EV1 waiting list and no way would GM have met California’s mandated number.
So GM is right to ask the government, based on GM’s experience with the EV1, to not forecast on what is unknown data. Remember everyone, the oil companies have been scr*wing us and building up a huge WAR CHEST of money. When the Volt and other cars are launched in 2010-2011 who’s to say the oil companies wouldn’t drop the price of gas to $2/gallon and THEY will kill the electric car!!!!!!!!
You heard it here first.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
GM may be low-balling the production numbers so that they don’t get Congress worried about the potential cost of gov’t rebates.
Be well,
Tag
July 10th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Just a little update on that new Toyota plant they announced to build Prius’ near Tupelo, Mississippi. It will be operational in 2010, will pump out 150,000 Prius/year.
Cost: 1.3 billion
Gov’t subsidy from Mississippi: 296 million in incentives
/this is what comittment to a brand means
Toyota will now have 3 (technically 4) seperate plants producing them (2 in Japan) and another of undisclosed potential in China (very small operation..they sell about 3,000/year in China @$35,000, not sure how many they actually make…I know plant capacity was pegged at 10,000 in 2006). Total capacity for all plants in 2009 is 450,000.
Plans were for 600,000 in 2010 before this announcement…so it looks like 750K a year will be the new mark for 2010. (However, I think one of the Japanese plants will be converted for the Lexus cousin of the Prius…might end up being 650-100)
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN1048671120080710?rpc=44
July 10th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Thanks Lyle, for the great radio interview. I really enjoyed thanking you over the phone. Thanks for all you do.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
#73 Jackson noted “This [limited battery lifetime] might explain, in straight economic terms, why it could pay to keep things on a smaller scale for the first 3 years: they could be anticipating a need for 200,000 mid-life replacements.”
It’s a good point. Another possibility is that automakers will push down warranty costs to battery suppliers, who then will charge more for batteries to start with.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Would GM have been bought out already, were it not for their legacy costs?
July 10th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
I didn’t now that Toyota makes all the Prius in Japan. I thought that they had a plant in Calif. Maybe that’s a Camry plant.
Be well,
Tag
July 10th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Good point Tagamet (#75), I hadn’t thought of that. Very plausible.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I think i understand whats going on here, and i wish the GM hater/big oil conspiracy trolls would turn their brains on.
Lets bring up the ghost of the EV1. When california dictated a zero emmission vehicle. GM was forced to bring a product to market more rapidly, and greater cost and risk than otherwise it would have done. Now then, when the brilliant idea to put a small ICE on board to sustain its charge was put forth, it was dismissed out of hand b/c the commissars in California had already dictated what kind of cars they had to build. This black eye, and a billion dollar loss due to the fiasco, meant that instead of engineers, designers and marketers at gm moving the product ahead at the right and proper pace (as all great innovative tech has done), a bunch of lawyers, lobbyist and politicians on both sides were haggling over the product and its destiny. Did government mandates bring about the light buld? The cotton gin? The assembly line? the telephone? the personal computer? cell phones? the internet. no, and any story of the governments roll in these technologies is usually exaggerated. (EG Al Gore ‘inventing’ the internet.) As far as I know, the US government didn’t even invent the A-Bomb. Einstein wrote a letter to FDR explaining how it would work, and University researchers built the first test bomb.
Getting back to the point, the CARB outcome was, a big loss for GM, a blow to the reputation of EVs, as it drew in the oil companies to smear job the project before it was mature, and i believe a huge setback for progress. This is the unintended consequences of violating principal and until the government gets it, we will have EV debacle and Ethanol debacle, and CAFE debacle after another.
I fear that CAFE runs the risk of doing the same thing, and the industry knows it. CAFE mandates continued oil reliance. It doesn’t contemplate using natural gas for ICE operation like T. Boone Pickens proposes, it doesn’t imagine series hybrid operation, compressed air, NEVs, EVs, Rail, Bus, hydrogen, biodiesel, ethanol, horses and buggy’s and ever other kind of transportations. No, the assumption is every one will keep driving a passenger car, run on oil distillates, only it must do it better. No cost benefit analysis of changing behavior, building light rails, electrifying the highway, ending the suburbanization subsidies, fusion generators, zero point energy, or using Star Trek transporter technology.
Look, if the goal is less oil use and fewer emissions, just tax all oil, and all emmissions causing fuels on a sliding scale. Then give the revenues BACK to the public via broad-based tax cuts (lower payroll taxes, sales taxes etc).
Instead the government wants to mandate the future of personal transport, take our tax dollars and spread them around to ethanol and ‘green’ tech companies who donate lots of cash $$ to the campaigns. Its sick.
Repeal CAFE! I applaud GM for understanding how a ‘phev mandate’ could really mess the product up.
–
DA
July 10th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
#80 Tag
“I didn’t now that Toyota makes all the Prius in Japan. I thought that they had a plant in Calif. Maybe that’s a Camry plant.”
Yupe, all Japan except for a couple thousand. One of the plants seems snake bitten too, fires, unexpected delays, etc.
I know the hybrid Camry is build in Kentucky…I don’t know if any other models are build elsewhere in the US.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
#82 DA
Interesting post, second half anyway…I’m a little burned on EV-1 chatter, hehe.
Your quote:
“Look, if the goal is less oil use and fewer emissions, just tax all oil, and all emmissions causing fuels on a sliding scale. Then give the revenues BACK to the public via broad-based tax cuts (lower payroll taxes, sales taxes etc)….Repeal CAFE! I applaud GM for understanding how a ‘phev mandate’ could really mess the product up.”
If America was serious about getting off oil…I mean really serious. There doesn’t have to be fancy programs or taxation of oil (that only hurts Joe Public).
All it takes is to make it a law to not drive any vehicle without it getting 30MPG. BOOM, done. You want to drive anything with less fuel economy? Sure, $1,000 ‘enviro-charge’ for every MPG under 30…build wind mills and solar farms with the proceeds.
Statik for President in 2020! (after Arnold changes the law to let foreigners run…and he wents back-to-back elections).
July 10th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
#25 RB
EREV = Hydrogen for GM and the other automakers for two simple reasons (and a third I will also list) I have expressed on other postings.
1) Hydrogen would continue the service station network established for gasoline and diesel. The automakers have a lot of pressure on them by big oil and government not to do too much that would destroy this network.
2) Hydrogen would continue the dealer service departments need for continual service requirements for parts and general maintenance. The dealers and the automakers make a ton of money from parts. So do the states on the sales tax for parts sales.
3) This is new today from me, although I have considered listing it before. Hydrogen would continue the federal and state taxation system because they would tax the “volume” of hydrogen sold when you fill-up. Actually the service station is just collecting taxes already paid either by them or their supplier to the various government agencies. This continues the program of a per gallon federal and state taxes on gasoline and diesel.
These three “reasons” may not be all of the reasons why big oil, the automakers and government keep telling us that we have a hydrogen future. It doesn’t matter that you don’t want a hydrogen future like this, you are going to get it anyway. Some of us will be able to get our hands on an electric vehicle or a non-hydrogen and non-gasoline/diesel vehicle and bypass some of these “reasons”, but the vast majority will have to accept whatever the automakers, big oil and the government allows to be produced.
That is my thinking on our hydrogen future and some of the reasons I am absolutely opposed to it.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
#85 N Riley
Noooooo….hydrogen talk!
A pox on you!
July 10th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
#85 N Riley…….
This really really simple. If I can’t fill up at home with the option of using power generated by me (solar panels, wind) then there is no sale.
My next car will be able to run without having to go to a station period.
I’m been a huge fan of GM cars but not their politics. My next car will not be a GM if I can’t plug it in at home. Its plain and simple as that.
Those who feel the need to go to a service station to fill up, so be it. I want freedom.
The tax on gas is a non-issue. They just switch it to electricity period.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I want to talk a bit about the recent pronouncements by billionaire T. Boone Pickens. Mr. Pickens’ fuel plan seems very straight forward, and many people are applauding it. But it falls apart once you look at the numbers. He proposes replacing gasoline with NG as the fuel of choice in autos. This would likely require pulling some NG out of the electricty generating grid. Here’s the sticky part: IC engines are 25% efficient, whereas NG-fired electrical plants are 60% efficient. Therefore, this switch would create a system with overall less fuel efficiency than we currently have. Of course, this makes much more sense when you remember that it was suggested by a man with large holdings in NG exploration and production. A much more efficient move would be to move autos over to plug-in “Volt” type vehicles, and then replace coal with NG in the electrical grid. Sorry T. Boone… you may be the billionaire, but my idea is better.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Re; comment #74 (Kent T): There is no doubt that once an electric car looms, that the oil companies would temporarily drop prices, even if they have to eat the short-term losses. The solution to this is for the govt to impose a $4.00 floor on gas prices.
And of course another way to reduce demand for oil that is rarely, if ever, discussed at this site is for local governments to modify their zonng to encourage better-thought development, and to have more public investment in good mass transit that people will ride.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Addendum to my #85 posting
For those of you who think CNG is the fuel of the future, you may be correct. But, for the same three reasons listed above it is not my choice. T Boone Pickens is a very wealthy oil man who probably has vast natural gas holdings also. It would be a natural for him to want to use CNG as an automotive fuel. He may have (and probably does have) the good of the environment in mind. I am not opposed to his plan except where it applies to using CNG as an automotive fuel. He did say it was for the short term until we moved to either hydrogen or electric vehicles. That is one point in his favor.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
#86 Statik
Sorry, Statik, old man. It was an urge I could not resist. But what I said is correct and to the point of what is going on with big oil, the automakers and the government. They will not admit it, but I am correct on this.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
#88 Jim in PA
His model also assumes you can move 22% NG off the grid system and plug it into the oil consumption model and get exactly the same 22% of the market.
/I didn’t realize our oil consumption and electrical grid production were in the exact same capacity/utilization size, lol.
(That being said, I would still support his plan that puts 22% of our power from wind generation…seems like a good trade off, renewable, domestic and cheap power generation, and we lose all that coal nastiness. So we end up somewhat dependant on natural gas for a decade or so, (we would still be less dependant on oil) until EV can take hold.
I don’t really care if he has a personal stake in it or not. I have no problems with a guy making a buck (or a billion), if it improves the human condition at the same time.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
This is just GM trying to lobby against CAFE increases. That being said, if they were confident in the Volt and being able to sell the Volt, they should be encouraging the increase of CAFE standards to give them a competitive advantage.
This pretty clearly shows the truth about the Volt and GM’s confidence in it.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
#91 N Riley
“Sorry, Statik, old man”
Hey…who you calling old? I was born in the 70s, lol.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
NG is used for grid generation primarily for load-balancing. The biggest / most expensive / cheapest fuel plants (coal, nuclear) run 24-7 (it’s hard to start and stop them economically, and you want to exploit your best “quantity” deal, first).
Unfortunately, we have a way of using more power during the day and less at night. The power companies have no way (except pumped hydro) to store electricity, so they have to turn on more generators to supply the demand. Enter oil and gas. Relatively cheap turbine-based plants can be started quickly, but need more expensive fuel — so you use them as little as possible.
One of the things the power industry sees in the EV is the potential to store off-peak power for use later in the day (by tapping into the batteries of the cars themselves, or exploiting what could well be a large future traffic in used EV batteries).
Load balancing could, in time, move from expensive fuel / cheap plants to all expensive plants / cheap fuel, using a distributed network of old Volt batteries (or their own tractor-trailer size Sodium Sulfur batteries) to meet peak load. This would release large quantities of Oil and NG for other uses — uh oh. What if you’re heavily invested in NG?
D’oh!!
I wonder how LNG would work as aviation fuel for jetliners?
July 10th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
The only Toyota plant in California that I know of is the NUMMI plant in Fremont. However, this is a joint venture with GM. Toyota puts out the Corolla from this plant and, I think, a small truck. I forgot what GM made here.
I seem to recall a couple of years ago, Gov. Arnold went to Japan to try to convince Toyota to build a Prius plant in CA. Toyota rejected the idea back then.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
250Volt.. Scoff if you will… I can actually say I withnessed the 64 Mercury in action… We filled up… went approximately 150 Miles… then filled it again… and we did it about 6 times over the next month or so with similar results (45 MPG Canadian)..
The technology (at the time … was there)..
I am over 50 years old and have had and seen a lot of cars … .junkers, imports, American/Canadian made…. some better than others… As I said in a previous post and I quote
“My 07 MAXX… with about $ 800 in mods is getting over 30 MPG (Candian — City) and over 40 MPG (Canadian) on the highway right now… it more than pays for the Mods in gas savings alone @ todays gas prices.
Couple that with a 6 speed auto and I could probably get 20 % better milage…”
If I practice “free wheeling”… add another 5% and then what have you got.. at LEAST 35 MPG Canadian (city) and you can guess what the Highway milage would be…..
It can be done… We do not have to rethink “rocket science” everytime a new car comes out.
Ray
July 10th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
#88 and T.Boone et al:
T. Boone is 80 years old. I don’t think its about money for him, he’s worth $3 bil dollars. And when you see him in on TV, its clear he talks as though he doesn’t have much time left. Ya cant take it with you right?
About the 60%/20% concerns of Jim. A few points. I see this according to the economic principle of comparative advantage of trade. Bear with me here. Imagine the automobile as its own nation, and the power grid as a neighboring nation. Right now these nations are separated by a raging river. on one side, marginal power is being generated by natural gas. on teh other marginal transportation comes from oil.
now in the power nation. people look at windmills and say, “windmills are slightly more expensive than nat gas, so they don’t make sense.”
In the oil nation, they see that natural gas is 1/3 the cost of oil, but all of the natural gas is on teh otherside of the river and they can’t trade.
So one day a man like T. Boone comes along and builds a pipeline across the river, to carry the gas from the power nation to the oil/transportation nation. The people in oil world dump oil an buy the gas, this drives the price of gas up in nat gas/power nation. suddenly windmill people realize it now makes sense to build the windmills, so the nat gas can be sold to oil nation for a bigger profit.
Now then, T boone says the windmills will need a 15 bil/year subsidy for a bunch of years. BUT, the oil saved costs $300 bil/year, minus the cost of the gas of 100 bil /year. Now is 200 bil /year bigger than 15 bil /year? you bet! all we need is the leadership to get the business logic unclogged.
Now you correctly point out that gas is higher efficiency i the grid. doesn’t matter. the windmill is displacing oil, the gas is just being re purposed. so one must instead compare the cost of the windmill to oil, not nat gas.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Wagoner was forced out today to ebb the stocks free-fall…defended against the ‘bankruptcy talk’
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080710/general_motors_ceo.html?.v=2
“Comments in the past week about a potential bankruptcy are “not at all constructive or accurate,” Rick Wagoner said Thursday.”
“Under any scenario we can imagine … our cash position will remain robust through this year” and the company has options for raising cash beyond that, Wagoner said at a lunch meeting of Dallas business leaders.”
Dealers are worried that the negative chatter will hurt sales, and Wagoner conceded that consumers wouldn’t want to buy cars from a bankrupt company.
While true they do have big pile of money to see them through the year, and they can use credit for awhile in 2009, I just don’t see how reiterating your going to blow through 24 billion in less than a year, then max out your credit to stay alive is supposed to calm the markets fear about you going bankrupt.
I guess the official message is, “We aren’t going bankrupt today.”
Not very comforting, and doesn’t really make me want to invest.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
97. Ray,
You bought a Malibu in Canada, so your judgement is questionable
Seriously, what mods have you done?
July 10th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Well it sound like these goverment doesn’t like these electric cars and doing every thing it can to stop it . One million plus volts world wide will be out by then.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
hi
thought ud be interested~
sen bob menendez D-new jersy states today on c span
how oil companys have 68 million acres of unused land ..and that they are no plans of useing said land .. only that the oil companys want to drill off shore and how oil companys export most of our oil we dont even get to use the oil we produce mostly .
not exact qoute but pretty darn close especially the 68 mill acres they are squating ..
jim demint r- south carolina is stating that gas prices are indeed wrecking familys and tearing us apart
and acousing congrsss of just fiddling.
…. some actual comments from the floor
July 10th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
#94 Statik
I used “old man” as a generic term. Did not mean to upset you about your age. It must be nice to be ‘young”.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
N. Riley #85 — Regarding Hydrogen, I find your 3 reasons for the H2 bandwagon compelling and, unfortunately, consistent with the otherwise irrational drumbeat that seems to never go away.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
#99 Statik
Thanks for the link. Wagoner’s statement seems reassuring, until one pulls out the GM balance sheet and looks at the numbers, per the link you posted the other day. Do I remember correctly that the “we have no problem” statement by the head of Bear Stearns was on Wednesday of the week when they went under, on Friday?
Interesting that he speaks of getting the correct information out to dealers, implying that the dealers are expressing anxiety to the corporation.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Jim in PA@#88, N Riley@#90
What is great about T Boone’s plan is that is outlines the problem — too much dependency on oil from nations that threaten our security — and dispels the idea that domestic drilling can solve the problem.
His solution is another matter. Now the idea about using wind may strike some as goofy, but it’s sound. Wind power is actually one of the very lowest cost forms of energy available now. It’s competitive with coal, and therefore cheaper than just about anything else. When he talks about subsidies I’m assuming he’s talking about what is needed for transmission. But this is not unique to wind — natural gas pipelines and so forth are usually government backed.
In this regard, subsidies per se aren’t necessarily bad. (Unless you’re some goof who thinks all government is bad, in which case you can drive your gas car without worry since you won’t have a road to drive it on). We’re tossing $12B a month down the rat hole of Iraq, and spending probably the same amount to keep oil shipping lanes open. I don’t see $15B/year for wind to be a big deal. In fact I don’t see any problem in these type incentives because they’re one time investments, which sure beats paying year after year, transfering all of our wealth to Iran and Saudi Arabia.
As far as CNG being the fuel of the future: I don’t think it’s a good idea at all. It, like oil, is a finite non-renewable resource. In the last few year its price has gone up faster than oil’s, and adding to the demand with CNG powered vehicles isn’t going to reverse that trend, only exacerbate it.
But that’s a detail which can be easily changed. PHEVs, BEVs, and Plug-ins can change that in a hurry. Don’t focus on that detail of what cars can replace the gas engines. If you do that you’ll end up declaring an otherwise great start of a plan a bad idea. At this point it represents a huge step forward in thinking.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
#104 RB
Yes, compelling, but also very true.
I am sorry to say that we are being sold a bill of goods as it stands today. That’s not to say that it will turn out that way. If enough automakers produce enough hybrid (Prius and Prius+ types) and electric (Volt and Volt+ types) vehicles the screw could turn in our favor. The hybrid and electric cars are truly “game changers”. What the automakers need to see is a deep commitment from the public in buying them. I think that is certainly going to happen as long as crude stays high.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
#106 DonC
I am pretty much in agreement with what you said. I have no real problem with Pickens’ proposal. I like alternate energy sources. I say do some of everything until we can bring wind and solar up to speed. Plus hydro-electric plants and geo-thermal and other sources of renewable energy. I just want to get away from the internal combustion engine that uses gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, natural gas (and its derivatives) and any other combustible fuel source.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
#100 GTX..
Swtiched the air intake to a K & N Cold Air intake.. Pulled the exhaust from the Cats back and installed a Magna Flo system with a “stubby” resonator the replace the 4 foot one under the dirver’s seat and a HIGH Flo muffler. You need the resonator to stop the car from “back firing” when you slow down quickly. Did some fuel and air flow changes on the programming chip and away you go.. And it sounds really sweet to boot.
not overly difficult to do to any vehicle …. if you want to spend the money…
Better gas mileage and….. you decide to use a heavy foot… about 18 % more power from the 3.5 L 215 HP V6.
Ray
July 10th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
#88 Jim - “IC engines are 25% efficient, whereas NG-fired electrical plants are 60% efficient”
Almost all US NG powerplants are 30-34% efficient single-cycle peakers. Of course if we had a couple hundred million EREVs we could flatten our load profile and use 60% efficient combined-cycle NG powerplants. I once did the math for a typical California summer day. Total electric use that day was 840 GWh. If all of CA’s vehicles were PHEVs electric consumption would have been 1000 GWh but CA would have actually used LESS natural gas to generate that 1000 GWh than they did in reality to generate the 840.
PIckens’ plan doesn’t really work because wind and NG make their electricity at different times. Also from an efficiency point of view it makes much more sense to send wind energy directly into car batteries instead of doing the wind/NG/gasoline shuffle. But his plan has one huge advantage — NG cars are much cheaper than EREVs.
#99 Statik: “Wagoner was forced out today…..”
That’s stock-market talk