JD Power Survey Says: Yes to Hybrids, No to E85, Maybe to EVs
J.D. Power and Associates 2008 Alternative Powertrain Study was published Tuesday.
In the study of more than 4000 people planning to buy a car in the next 2 years, 62% indicated they were considering buying a hybrid. This number increased from 50% the year before.
A JD Power director indicated that this change represented improved education of and understanding by the public about what this technology is.
On the flip-side, the percentage of consumers interested in an E85-capable vehicle actually dropped from 47% to 43%. The concern there by consumers was an adverse effect on agriculture and prices being caused by ethanol production.
The director indicated that the main issue people considered in buying a hybrid was whether the price premium of the hybrid powertrain would pay for itself, based on the costs of purchase or lease, and the costs of fuel.
The study also showed that only 18% of respondents believed focusing only on building small fuel efficient cars would properly address the energy crisis, and just 39% felt automakers should focus on building cars with new technology powertrains including electrics and fuel cells.
The report also listed the Automotive Environmental Index top 30 vehicles with regards to fuel economy, pollution, greenhouse gases, and consumer input. Toyota was in first place with 6 models, followed by Chevy, Honda, and Nissan, each with 3.
Source (Automotive News, subscription required) and (JD Power)
Popularity: 7%
(3 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
107 Responses to “JD Power Survey Says: Yes to Hybrids, No to E85, Maybe to EVs”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- EPA Closer to Giving the Chevy Volt at Least a 100 mpg Rating
- GM, Natural Gas, and the Volt
- GM and Chrysler in Merger Talks
- More Details About Chrylser’s Electric Car Plans
- As GM Goes So Goes the Nation
- Lutz Provides More Volt Details: Photovoltaic Roof to be Unveiled in January, and Volt Development Ahead of Schedule
- GM’s Electric History
- Project Better Place CEO Calls the Volt a Niche Product
- The Production Chevy Volt Has One Charging Port, and Unnamed Object Identified
- Video: 60 Minutes - Race For the Electric Car
July 17th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Once mass-production of EV begin, that 39% number should go up….
July 17th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Wow, am I first?
On E85: unless there’s some realistic hope of being able to supply some significant fraction of 85% of gasoline consumption with ethanol — and it looks like there’s no realistic way that can happen, even with the hoped-for success with cellulose, algae, etc. — then E85 is a distraction, IMHO.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Actually, I think 39% is pretty good since most people dont know much about EVs.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:08 am
I wouldn’t put much on the results of a JD Powers “Study”.
Most people don’t know of the Volt and the no “range anxiety” of running out of a charge.
Once they get up to speed on the EV’s then they will want one in a huge hurry.
Ethanol is a Joke. Most of us know it takes more energy to produce than what is yielded….. Diametric to efficiency.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:16 am
“The study also showed that only 18% of respondents believed focusing only on building small fuel efficient cars would properly address the energy crisis, and just 39% felt automakers should focus on building cars with new technology powertrains including electrics and fuel cells.”
Does anyone else see the mutual exclusivity in these two numbers, or do people still want their gas guzzling SUV’s?
I am sure that the survey didn’t ask people about flex fuel approaches - the ability to use pure gasoline to pure E85. Somebody needs to do a better job of explaining that Ethanol does have non-food sources.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Automotive Environmental Index?
That is a massively flawed ranking if they included “Consumer Input”
All the others are measurables except that one.
“Umm..yeah, I think my Toyota Tundra is greener than the Silverado, Toyota makes the hybrids right?”
*facepalm*
July 17th, 2008 at 9:33 am
5 Jason:
That ship has sailed. Look at this site where people are educated on this issue probably more than the general populace and you still have people who dismiss cellulosic ethanol.
Once again, the environmental lobby and greedy large Ag business have ruined a good thing for the American Consumer and small farmers
I am becoming more and more aware with the recent lawsuit filings against solar and wind for environmental study that there is a portion of the environmental lobby who really just want the whole thing to collapse and for us to live in Yurts and mud huts.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Once you point out a Prius out of gas won’t move but a Volt out of gas will, the Volt will score higher. Now if Prius changes that, then….
July 17th, 2008 at 9:40 am
A drop of 43% from 47% isn’t significant, and the reasons they gave (effects on food prices) isn’t a reason for not using ethanol, only corn-based ethanol. It’s also hard to find the stuff.
History repeats itself - years ago the vocal, conspiratorial members of the public were demanding ethanol-capable cars, convinced that the only reason for not doing so was to force increased gas usage,
believing rather illogically that automakers somehow profit when their cars require more fuel or fuel at higher prices - we see just how imbecilic that logic is today. So the automakers responded and now these same vocal people are arguing AGAINST ethanol. Now wait till the folks who believed all the stupid lies of “Who Killed the Electric Car?” and have demanded that automakers build them get a chance to buy one. THEN we’ll hear the rest of the story : the REAL reasons why the EV-1 was such a complete flop.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:42 am
People have been told that electric cars are WAY in the future because battery technology juist isn’t ready. However, GM has met or exceeded every benchmark they set, INCLUDING batterys, but the public coesn’t know that. After GM unveils the VOLT, that will change - and after they start to see them on the street, I don’t think GM can build them fast enough.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:51 am
#2 Fahrvergnugen Fanboy
“Wow, am I first?”
I would like to thank everyone for their input here at gm-volt.com, many happy memories. The sign of the internet apocalypse has appeared and it’s time to shut it down.
/shuts off lights
July 17th, 2008 at 9:52 am
To paraphrase a well known movie:
“If you build it, they will come”
Now if only GM/Chevy would educate the general public about the Volt,
its advantages, etc. they will come and GM won’t be able to build them
fast enough.
Personally, I had hoped to buy one, but given the quantities that Lutz has
indicated they will build and price, it looks unlikely that I’ll have one.
I want one so bad I can taste it…
July 17th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I haven’t read the study yet, but did it mention the time period in which the study was conducted. You ask the same people today the same questions you would get really different answers.
The public will become more informed as gas prices rise. They will start investigating ways to save money. You can’t count on the news media to inform them. People will start demanding solutions and the automakers will respond as best they can. Problem is, the lag time from the demand until the problem is resolved.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:57 am
#5 Jasson M Hendler
Yes there is some inconsistency. If you ask, people want it cheap and great and big .And of course they want it “right now” (that’s me and the Volt :-). Surveys don’t demand consistency. However, if you look at what is happening — a wait list for the Prius, dealers selling it above MSRP, and unsold inventory of large vehicles — gas prices seem a powerful inventive.
The bigger issue, apart from the white noise you get in any survey, is the level of understanding on the part of the participants. This isn’t entirely unexpected since few people get serious about cars until they are actually ready to buy, and this survey included people who are planning to buy in the next two years. The results might be different if only people buying in the next couple of months were included.
Having said that, cost is the biggest factor. I think I saw a survey that a hybrid train system was the number one feature of interest until people learned of the cost, at which point it dropped to number 5. That’s still up there but a big drop.
I’d wonder if a way to address this is a “national security” or “road tax” that would be removed depending on the mpg of the vehicle. So an EV vehicle wouldn’t pay it, a serial hybrid would pay 25%, a parallel hybrid 50%, and a regular ICE 100%. Or like in Europe a big gas tax. In any event, if current gas prices hold we will see the US fleet look much like it does in Europe now.
We will get there, it’s just a matter of long it will take us.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:58 am
#9, kent,
LOL - very astute. All the libs know how to do is gripe - they think of it as leadership.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:00 am
GM has been informing the public about the Volt and its other alternative hybrid and E85 vehicles. I must see at least two or three commercials every night. Probably will not see as many now because of cut-backs.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Ethanol from food sources such as corn and sugarcane is a bad idea. Food should be for people, not cars.
I’m all for other ethanol sources, particularly what Coskata is doing by taking anything with carbon molecules in it (i.e. household garbage) and turning it into fuel for $1 per gallon. Large cities are wondering what to do with their staggering amounts of non-recyclable garbage; this may be the solution for two problems.
GM has invested money in the company and are working on a plant to fuel their vehicles on their proving grounds… with long-term plans to sell large volumes to the public.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Of the approximate 600 friends and family I have, I don’t know of one driver who isn’t waiting to buy a Chevy Volt or plug-in hybrid. The company first to market with a reasonably priced plug-in hybrid will be number one.
God Speed - GM Volt
July 17th, 2008 at 10:10 am
There are many ways to make different types of fuel. All ethanol does not affect our food sources. Even the corn used primarily only affects animal feed. Not that much either. The biggest affect it has on animal feed is that use of corn for ethanol has driven up the price of corn.
We need to research and use every means available to us to produce energy to propel our cars and trucks. We need to drill more for crude, we need to develop oil from the shale in the western states and we need to work hard at developing wind, solar and other alternative sources of energy. And, yes, we need to further develop clean use of our coal reserves.
We need it all and we need it now. Problem is we did not have the incentive in the past to get the job done. Maybe we have such an incentive now. I hope and pray we do. We will all be better off with more sources of energy.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:14 am
“Gee, look at that great big handwriting on the wall. What does it say??”
Does anyone know the status of the revised Aveo 5 which was supposedly going to be released in July? July is rapidly waning, and I haven’t been able to find it yet.
Will the person who posted the extremely informative (even if it did debunk the Yaris numbers I quoted) link to the EPA or whatever fuel economy rating site please put it up again? Sorry to bother you, but I lost track of it. I want to compare the “new” Aveo 5 to the Yaris, Fit, Versa group. If it is close enough, maybe I will take another run at getting my wife to drive one. Thanks in advance.
Supposedly, they were going to have an uprated engine with VVT. I thought I saw 36 mpg highway somewhere which, as the brilliant commentor correctly pointed out, is Yaris territory.
As you can see, based upon Mr. Lutz’s latest utterances, I am lowering my expectations.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:15 am
We need to do everything NOW.
JMO
Be well,
Tag
July 17th, 2008 at 10:19 am
People will learn as time goes by. I hope.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Quick response to post 8:
If we get to the point where people will no longer be able to run a Prius because it’s out of gas, all of NA and a good part of the world will be in big trouble. 40 mile electric range will do little for people who still rely on the range extender in their Volts to get them around. The Volt will be ALMOST as useless as a Prius if there is no more petrol.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:40 am
What about bicycles?!?
July 17th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I can see why E85 interest is slipping. Besides being battered by all the concern and scare that ethanol production will raise corn prices, cattle feed prices, meat prices and such it also has little to no distribution currently and I don’t really see a big push to expand it’s availibity. In my city of over a million people with hundreds of fueling stations I don’t think there is a single station that offers E85. It’s sort of like there is a vicious circle. E85 distribution won’t grow until the technology and demand for the vehicles exists, but the demand and technology won’t grow until the distribution is there.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:47 am
That is not fair play with ethanol. And this is not fair even with corn ethanol. There is no any animal feed reduction when producing ethanol. We can blame ethanol for lot of natural gas used for distilation process and it is not very energy efficient process but it is not effecting food volume at all. I suspect Big Oil changing focus from primery reasons of high food prices to some minor issues. Still corn ethanol is valid option untill it will be replaced with algae, celuloze ethanol or even methanol.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:49 am
What about the Pickens Plan?
Get the power from windmills/photovoltaic and run the engine on compressed natural gas.
CNG will be much more stable when not used than gasoline/E85.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Why arent the large auto manufactures from europe and asia developing a mass production electric car??
I know, it is a whole lot easier to make a electric PEV vs. a hybrid and/or fuel cell vehicle.
There really isnt any “special” technology to the VOLT….battery, speed control, motor…very similar to the golf cart i have in my garage…and i do not believe that cart is overly efficient
July 17th, 2008 at 10:59 am
#20 noel park
Will the person who posted the extremely informative (even if it did debunk the Yaris numbers I quoted) link to the EPA or whatever fuel economy rating site please put it up again? Sorry to bother you, but I lost track of it. I want to compare the “new” Aveo 5 to the Yaris, Fit, Versa group. If it is close enough, maybe I will take another run at getting my wife to drive one. Thanks in advance.
******************
I think this is the web site you are referring to.
http://fueleconomy.gov
July 17th, 2008 at 11:01 am
By the way..give up on ethanol…it is killing us taxpayers
http://zfacts.com/p/63.html
July 17th, 2008 at 11:07 am
The Ford Dealer told me the other day that the Ethanol in the gas was causing problems with clogging fuel injectors and deteriorating “O” rings. They are recommending cleaning injectors even on cars still in warranty. Seems it burns dirty. I hate to think what E85 might do. Where is the electric when you need it?
July 17th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I try to keep up with the pending advances in automotive technology. I know that available, affordable E-Revs and BEVs are more than two years away. So, if someone asked me what kind of car I would buy in the next two years, I’d probably say “hybrid” also.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:18 am
For the people that argue about ethanol causing food prices to rise and not enough animal feed please check out the link or read below.
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/made/
“In dry milling, the entire corn kernel or other starchy grain is first ground into flour, which is referred to in the industry as “meal” and processed without separating out the various component parts of the grain. The meal is slurried with water to form a “mash.” Enzymes are added to the mash to convert the starch to dextrose, a simple sugar. Ammonia is added for pH control and as a nutrient to the yeast.
The mash is processed in a high-temperature cooker to reduce bacteria levels ahead of fermentation. The mash is cooled and transferred to fermenters where yeast is added and the conversion of sugar to ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2) begins.
The fermentation process generally takes about 40 to 50 hours. During this part of the process, the mash is agitated and kept cool to facilitate the activity of the yeast. After fermentation, the resulting “beer” is transferred to distillation columns where the ethanol is separated from the remaining “stillage.” The ethanol is concentrated to 190 proof using conventional distillation and then is dehydrated to approximately 200 proof in a molecular sieve system.”
The anhydrous ethanol is then blended with about 5% denaturant (such as natural gasoline) to render it undrinkable and thus not subject to beverage alcohol tax. It is then ready for shipment to gasoline terminals or retailers.
The stillage is sent through a centrifuge that separates the coarse grain from the solubles. The solubles are then concentrated to about 30% solids by evaporation, resulting in Condensed Distillers Solubles (CDS) or “syrup.” The coarse grain and the syrup are then dried together to produce dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS), a high quality, nutritious livestock feed. The CO2 released during fermentation is captured and sold for use in carbonating soft drinks and beverages and the manufacture of dry ice.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:36 am
#29 Joy:
Yeah, that’s it. Many thanks for your help.
2009 Aveo 5 auto……………….25 city…………….34 highway
2008 Yaris auto………………….29 city…………….35 highway.
Come on Chevy, raise your game a little more. Send the Cobalt xfe team to Korea and help them to tweak the mileage up. You can do it!
Oh, the bragging rights!!!!
July 17th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Honda Fit auto…………………27 city……………..34 highway
Nissan Versa CVT……………27 city……………..33 highway
Nissan Versa auto……………24 city……………..32 highway
July 17th, 2008 at 11:51 am
#27 Larry - Your comment beat me by one hour.
I have become disillusioned by GM’s comment to the Department of Transportation that it only intends to sell 200,000 Volts in U.S. in the first five years. I think the rest will go to Europe. The other companies planning to release electric cars are also talking about an initial price just under $40,000. While I still love the idea of electric cars, I don’t think they will give us much relief from high gas prices in the near future. Sales will be limited.
JD Power’s survey is already outdated because it didn’t include conversion of cars to natural gas. It seems only cars built before computers can be converted cheaply so realisticly we’re talking about new cars here. Natural gas production in the U.S. increased by 9% in 2007 due to new discoveries. If we do get to drill offshore much of what’s found will be natural gas.
I’m thinking that until Lithium Ion prices come down and car companies recover their development costs, natural gas will be the way to go.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
ROBERT M SPERRY (#10):
“People have been told that electric cars are WAY in the future…”
… at the same time, they’ve been told that Hydrogen is right around the corner.
In truth, this is reversed. Skewed public opinion, based on bad reporting, is an extremely difficult thing to contend with.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
#36 d burgdorff
Except that natural gas distribution is not widely available like gasoline. Where it is found the location is not set-up to handle “drive-in” traffic. Plus, we will be as subject to price hikes from natural gas suppliers as we are now with gasoline and diesel suppliers. There is no easy solution until we are able to get Volt like vehicles out there in greater numbers than initially we will see. The Volt like vehicles offer us the best of both worlds. It is the type of vehicle we need in vast numbers.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I agree T Boone Pickens has a good idea to remove natural gas from electrical generation. But, you could also say the same thing for coal or the other non-renewable sources of power for electrical generators. Natural gas needs to be used primarily for home heating. It should be used through-out the country in place of petroleum products like diesel or fuel oil and coal. I just wonder about how much that would cost to use wind power to replace most of the other non-renewable sources of power. Nuclear seems to be a better solution. The new nuclear designs are dependable and safe. We should start building them now. Every state should have two, three or four as needed to supply energy for homes, businesses and to power our vehicles.
It is a start, but where does it lead us?
July 17th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
some tree hugging enviromentalists are nuts sorry but its true
if ur sueing to get rid of solar and wind power? how nuts do u have to be seriously? … look at the amish in ohio i think its like 85 thousand farmers r using solar power for refrigeration and such
even they figured out the best way to go.. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of the rest of us . yes im striking at the whole of the worlds pride if these people say no to just about every technolofy for the last 1000 or 200 years.. except solarpower and refirigeration and electric lights .. maybe istead of laughing at them we should learn from them forget our arrogance and learn … it turns out they are much smarter then the rest of us..
July 17th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
As the official, resident evil neocon scumbag on this site
, I can tell you what the ultra-right has started saying about the Pickens plan.
Yesterday, Limbaugh had an “expert” on his show, who reported that Wind power was effectively useless for replacing fossil fuel, because of it’s intermittent nature. His position was that the need to suddenly replace electricity from becalmed turbines would require virtually 90% of wind energy’s power output to be “backed up” by keeping fossil plants on hot standby, burning fuel. It was the most cautious, worst-case, exaggerated scenario imaginable, blown all out of proportion; which is typical of the worst in alternate-fuel skepticism (he once repeated that discredited email forward about how enviornmentally bad the Prius really is, on his show).
This argument against Wind power does not take into account the emerging technology for large-scale storage of electricity in specially made Sodium-Sulfur batteries (there’s already one being tested at a windmill, and various large-scale pojects underway), or the possible use of thousands of old BEV batteries in a decade or so (to say nothing of pumped hydro, which is possible now).
You know, for an official evil neocon scumbag, there’s a lot I disagree with Rush about.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
US MPG numbers are watered down. I drove to canada last summer in a 2001 nissan sentra. 67 mph crusie control WITH AC RUNNING. Straight run, no traffic. I got 36 mpg. Not scientific, but under new EPA MPG this car would be getting in the low 30s at that speed.
I wish they would publish fuel economy that assumes a no traffic, 55 mph drive, which is what more and more people will experience as fuel prices go up.
Is it me, or are other people noticing people driving slower on the highways and less traffic? I’ve only been doing 50mph in the right lane for months now. I’m actually starting to enjoy it, I feel safer and don’t have to be on top of the steering wheel as much.
–
#DA
July 17th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I am looking into my crystal ball about the electrification of cars and just don’t see it becoming an affordable solution for many years to come unless there is a sudden technological breakthrough. A person with average income will still be tethered to an ICE for the foreseeable future. I also see electric rates jumping substantially in the very near future in many areas of the US eroding some of the cost benefits of EV’s. The best we can hope for is an incremental increase in mpg’s with newer ICE technology and increasingly more efficient hybrids thrown into the mix. I also see cellulosic ethanol/bio-diesel as the one way to bridge the gap. Is there really any other affordable solution right now to petrol? As an example, the new MINI gets near 40 mpg on a regular basis without all the hybrid stuff. The MINI D (which we can’t get here in the US) gets over 50. Don’t mean to be pessimistic but a lot of people here have been looking through rose colored glasses for too long (including me).
July 17th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
CORN ethanol is crappy. Someone made a post here that said it takes enough corn to feed one person for a year as it does to make one gallon of E85.
SUGAR CANE ethanol makes a ton more sense, and has a higher energy yield. and aren’t there states in the US suited for growing sugar cane?
July 17th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Speaking of the Prius: Here are some spy photos of Honda’s Prius clone:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/16/spy-shots-hondas-hybrid-prius-fighter-caught/
July 17th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
My gas pump says “up to 10% ethanol”. I am driving very consistantly now and my milage varies quite a bit. I am about of the opinion that if they just sold me less gas by the percent that is ethanol I would actually get better milage for my money.
It is looking right now like the first afordable electric will be the Subaru. They are shooting for prices under 20k.
Fisker Karma will be delivered 4th quarter 2009 to the US targeted at about $80k.
Mercedes says it will eliminate fossil fuels from its car lineup by 2015.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
#42 DA
I decreased my speed to 65 and yeah, i’ve noticed people going slower too i think. There aren’t as many people passing me as im going 65 as i thought there’d be.
And also, you’re right about the fuel economy stats. When the 2006 civic came out (new body style) it showed 30 city, 40 highway, but that was the old way of EPA testing. The exact same car got bumped down to 26 / 36 i believe. So basically the new way of EPA testing is WORST CASE figures. You’ll get their shown mileage, if you’ve got the AC on, 4 passengers, and floor it off every red light.
They SHOULD show a “feahter foot” figure….”this is what you’ll get if you drive with a light foot and keep the revs low” You’d get 43ish MPG in the same civic. My friend with a cobalt just told me she changed her driving habits (not even drastically) and she’s getting 37 MPG. You can milk over 40 on a chevy Aveo, but the sticker still says 34 highway. Oh well….
July 17th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
#41 Jackson
I think i just read an article that Rush just got a multiyear contract for some insane amount of money (was it like 50 or 100 million/year). With money like that being throw at him, you really have to wonder what its for.
I really don’t know how this is happening, i started to feel it years ago. Stories sounding a bit off, and now more an more. It’s like there is an active disinformation campaign conspiracy in the old media. From news papers to radio to tv. I’m not just talking about them running stories about brittney spear’s panties or lack thereof, or paris hilton’s most recent moronic comment. Every time I am unfortunate enough to turn on the nightly news I see something like Kattie Kouric running a graphic of a gas pump showing the national average price, follow up by some statement about rising demand. As if we need the news to tell us that fuel prices are up. This is news?
As per windmills, i’m sure that expert on rush’s show is NOT a billionaire. T-Boone is, and he’s convinced a group of other smart millionaire and billionaire investors to join him in putting 10 billion dollars into Pampa, TX’s 4000 MW windfarm, which will be the largest in the world. Many of them are old texas oil tycoons and wallstreet private equity funds. They’re all stoooopid right?! Rush’s expert knows best.
I dont see how any one can really knock t. boones plan. It amazes me when they say things like “WE shouldn’t build windmills.” Who’s this friggin WE? Last I check T. boone is saying private investors will build them, they just need some corridors to get the power out, and maybe some fast tracking on licenses and those endless ‘impact’ studies to determine how a windmill on the prairie will affect the mating habits of the indigenous spotted beetle, while food prices in are causing starvation in the third world and killing the working folk’s household budget here.. If his windmill require hot idling natgas plants, then he’ll have to pay for that cost. Let the freaking market decide.
Sure sure, he’s asking for an extension of a modest tax credit. 15 bil/year for 10 years is not a lot for the kind of megawatts he’s talking about (200 mw). There are subsidies like that and greater built into other aspects of the energy system. Isn’t it amazing how the state that regulates the least has the most windpower in the country (TX)?
In short, i can’t stand Rush, and all these other talking heads spewing lies to the sheep who can’t think for themselves. We have to keep educating the masses as best we can.
–
DA
July 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
#41 Jackson
People are creatures of habit. Wind is just sooooooooo enviro it just sets off a reflexive negative response. Same thing happens on the opposite end with nuclear.
You get the impression a lot of these guys are in a 1980s time warp.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
@ 42.
I am one of those people. Set the dial to 60. Sit back and enjoy the ride. Anything past that and you start losing MPG quite quickly. Why bother, my ‘94 Cavalier consistently gets over 30 MPG on the highway with the AC ON!
July 17th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Here is something to think about
2007 Malibu Maxx with a 3.5 V6 @ 215 HP
$ 800.00 worth of modifications… (air intake, exhaust and a tiny bit of chip work)
REAL LIFE Driving results
City 30.7 MPG Canadian (25.6 MPG US)
Hiighway 39.2 MPG Canadian (32.7 MPG US)
about 20 - 25 % better than when I tested the milage with the original factory air intake and exhaust.
This is barely what the spec sheet for the car showed on the new car sticker.
If GM or any of the other car makers can give me a car with “real world milage” of 45 MPG Canadian or 40 MPG US I would snap it up in a heart beat…
Come On GM…. get your house in order…
Deliver the VOLT in BIG numbers in the fall of 2009 and you will never have to worry about sales….
July 17th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I think the Volt is the perfect beginning solution because oft it’s gas/electric design. The electric motor drives the tires, thats the beauty. When batteries get better and have at least a distance of 400 miles, we can move off any liquid or liquified fuel. The best part is we can stop opening our wallets for yet other “fuel” . I would rather put that cash in my wallet than give it to other companies (oil companies) that have soaked the consumer. I am cynical about any reason we need to be forced to seek out another “gas station” The beauty of electric, is that people will be able to install solar panels on their properties, apartment buildings, etc and recharge. I for one, think this is a solution for our everyday “fuel” dependance.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
#48 DA
Leaving aside the irony of having the quintessential “market guy” make the case for government subsidies, the Pickens Plan has several parts, and not all of the parts make sense. Chief among them is requiring two huge changes: replacing gas with natural gas as a vehicle fuel; and replacing natural gas with wind as a source for electrical power.
The obviously better solution would be to replace gas with electricity and flex fuels and to use wind to augment the exisiting sources of electrical power. That is one rather than two replacments and can meld more or less seamlessly with the existing infrastructure.
The tax credits and so forth should not be an issue. We do build highways and so forth. The playing field just needs to be level so others can compete if they so choose.
I haven’t looked at the numbers seriously but if the new generation of thin film solar creates electricity at $.06/watt, as a host of companies are claiming, then even wind at $.11/watt isn’t looking that attractive. Not only would the price be higher, solar wouldn’t need such long transmission lines. This, however, is probably at least five years away and the production issues still need to be worked out. Until then wind is certainly a good alternative and if nothing else can replace coal which is associated with a host of negative environmental and health effects.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
#53 Don
I am totally on board with getting off any fuel. But lets us not forget even with E-flex, there are plenty of long-haul drivers out there. 18 wheelers, buses. Why are orders for nat-gas buses thru the roof? maybe we don’t convert all the exxon and vlo stations to natgas. but lets not forget that there will still be a need for some kind of portable fuel, even if we get the magical 300 mpc EV.
This problem is SO big (14 mil barrels/day of imported oil) that EREVs and natgas conversions can both make sense. let me point out so other reasons why his plan makes sense:
Windmills are baseload. According to the study GM sited, only 250k vehicles can be charged at night with the current infrastructure. If you expect e-rev to achieve sales in the millions, we are going to need a lot of baseload. Natgas plants are ONLY economical b/c peak pricing is much higher. I know that solar is becoming competitive, great, lets build those suckers too. The point is that markets will figure this out. I dont see a problem with a temporary tax credit for a form of emissions free energy. Finance it with a small fuel levy on the natural gas. Now we’ve at least attempted to capture the environmental externalities.
Don’t forget you need to compare windmills with the cost of oil not natural gas b/c nat gas is the comparative intermediary to displacing oil. also, you dont’ think it would be better to run natgas in a volt? you don’t have to worry about the fuel aging problem. i’d love to buy a natgas volt or eflex!
–
#DA
July 17th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
#40 Jeremy
I consider myself a near-environmentalist. I believe that we can still live our lives as we do while being more responsible and not tearig up the planet. I do not believe in living in mud huts and such.
#42 #DA
The EPA uses an immensely unrefined standard. Testing is done with a full tank, designated closed facility, and a lone 5′ 9″ driver weighing approximately 170 lbs. Their test standards are theoretical, not real world, as not everybody weighs 170.
#44 Mike D
Being a native south Louisianian living in Birmingham, Alabama-to answer your question:There are a few states suitable for growing sugar cane (a far more efficient source of ethanol)-Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, the Florida panhandle and lower/central South Carolina. Where I’m from in Louisiana, sugar cane grows like bamboo.
#46 Len
Trust me, they WILL find a way to keep you paying $4/gal. regardless of what we think is fair. Believe me, if they could charge you $4/gal for 50% ethanol/50% water they would…
#47 Mike D
My close friend who works for a dealership here said that the EPA changed mpg ratings when they changed driver conditions to an open road versus the closed track and that hwy test ratings are done at 75 mph, not 55-65 as they previously have done for years.
#48 #DA
Rush Limbaugh is like the internet-100% information - 7% reliability
No disrespect to JD Power and ASSo. but they employ more than 4000 people. For all we know, that very deductive survey could have been someone’s office pet project to put something in a Wall Street Journal filler page. Besides, I find it hard to grasp that they have figured out the american consumer’s car buying habits and goals with only 4000 people. I guess the other 299,996,000 U.S. citizens don’t count…
July 17th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
The US currently leads the world in Wind Energy, thanks to those wind farms in Texas.
I believe that the high temperature Sodium Sulfur batteries (the size of tractor trailers) have the potential to solve or greatly mitigate the intermittency of wind.
The problem is that you can only build and install these things so fast, and no faster. I read an article which quoted a Wind Energy Association report that by 2030, 20% of US electricity demand could be met by wind energy (this was a few months before the Pickens plan was widely put forward). That’s a long time from now …
Regardless of whether or not you think that human activity is causing it, the climate is changing (it always has changed, always will; that’s what climates do). I have a nagging concern that shifting wind patterns could put all of those expensive windmills into a new “calm” zone, with most of the gusts moving somewhere else, by mid-century.
It is now possible to put windmills on floating, offshore platforms which could be moved by ship should this happen at sea.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
#54 DA
I’m with you on tax incentives, or for that matter rebates, and I’m with you on the need and desireablity of diversifying the sources for electrical energy.
I’m also not opposed to CNG vehicles at all. The problem is that there aren’t many CNG stations. The friends who have the Civic have put in the in-home fuel stations. No more gas station trips for them. But for more general use we’d need to have a lot of infrastructure and that takes time. Fleets of buses make sense since they go back to base each night and refueling would not be an issue. Long haul trucks would be trickier.
I don’t know if I really buy the 250K limit on night charges. it seems like we have enormous excess capacity for most of the day. But that could be a big problem for sure. More reason for the wind power.
I’m not trying to dismiss the Pickens Plan. It’s a great start. It just needs some tweaking. And keep in mind we don’t have never use any oil, we just have to use a lot less of it.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
#45 Noah Nehm
“Speaking of the Prius: Here are some spy photos of Honda’s Prius clone:”
Thanks for the link. It was good to see the pictures.
Looks like Honda took a Prius and stretched it a couple of inches each way and put a new front end on it and called it a Honda Hybrid. The similarities are astounding. Does that mean all Japanese hybrids will copy the Prius? They pretty much copy each other’s cars now. Usually Honda is the leader in new designs. It will be interesting. Anyone hear anymore information about when Toyota and Honda will release their new hybrids? I know they will be shown at the Detroit Auto Show in January. When will they make it to the dealer showroom?
July 17th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I am happy about the EV iterest level since there is very little info in the public on EVs yet.
On the ethanol front, I agree that distribution network for it is the major issue. It has nothing to do with reducing feed corn availability. That is just not true.
Whether E85 distribution increases or not, it would be stupid for all new engines to not be designed to run with E85. There is no cost delta and the software needed in the engine control module is simple since it already adjusts for some level of ethanol anyway. Additionally, some countries (like Brazil) demand that all vehicles sold there be FlexFuel capable, so autio manufacturers are already doing the work for some engines.
If the ICE in the Volt is not E85 capable, it would be a real missed opportunity.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Most Americans have a high I.Q. (Idiot Quotient) with regards to automobiles. Most of the youth today cannot even change the oil in a car, they are clueless. The two most important features they are looking for in a new vehicle is MPG and iPod connector, that’s it, SOLD! They do not even understand what Hybrid means and have a tough time even spelling ‘EV’. A JDP survey like this is meaningless.
Somebody please, slap me naked and hide my clothes.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
#48 #DA
“In short, i can’t stand Rush, and all these other talking heads spewing lies to the sheep who can’t think for themselves. We have to keep educating the masses as best we can.”
If we depend on the “news media” to keep us informed with what is really happening, we are lost. They do have a “story” to tell and it does not have our common good at its heart.
Use as many sources for information as you can find. Analyze everything and weigh it against who provided the information. Ask what do they have to gain by what they are providing. Remember the old axiom: “Don’t believe anything you read and only half of what you see”. That can certainly be applied to today’s media.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I agree with #60 I B. Also this waiting is killing me. Volt obcessed! My co-workers have duct-taped my mouth shut. My wife left and took the kids and my dog ran away! No one wants to hear anymore about it from me. I keep shocking my tounge with a 9 volt battery just to maintain any sanity!!!!! PLEASE HURRY GM!!!!
July 17th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
18 Nelson
That’s getting out the vote.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/transformers-2-corvette-on-set/926910/
those green cars maybe a volt?
July 17th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
#64 Jeremy
Let us hope not. Thanks for the link. Somehow I just can’t imagine GM morphing the concept Volt into the two green vehicles shown. Don’t know what they are, but I hope it is not the Volt.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
# 64 Jeremy
On further examination of the pictures, NO. They are not Volts. They are two door cars. Shorter wheel base, smaller tires and just not the Volt. Of that I feel fairly sure. Thank God. They are next to ugly.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Maybe the top of a tractor trailer is a good spot for solar cells, you could provide some electric boost and up your milage.
I have nothing against T. B. Pickens plan except the part where he is looking for a subsidy. My pocket is just about subsidized out. I really can’t afford this war much less some more “subsidizing”. Same with the Volt. I’d like a Volt but won’t be able to afford it so I will wind up with a Subaru. Do you think I want to subsidize your Volt. That is pouring salt into the wound.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
#64 Jeremy:
Those cars are butt ugly, looks like they came out of a Hulk movie. They look similar to the Chevy Beat than a Volt.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Len:
With 50% efficient multi-junction cells (like the ones on the Mars Exploration Rovers), maybe. It would cost more than several rigs to do.
But seriously:
Tractor trailers would benefit greatly from drastic aerodynamic design, and biodiesel or LNG fuel.
Yes, LNG, not CNG, like Busses. I don’t know that any CNG adaptation would get a truck across the continent. While harder than a central base for a City Bus system, it ought to be much easier than a more generalized system for cars. Truck stops / freight terminals are much more widely separated than gas stations, and would require less overall infrastructure to do. LNG could arrive at those places in dewar tanks on truck trailers or rail cars.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
well they dohave simular outlines from what i can tell i cant see if the are two door but the basic designs are soo simular but then again they all r simular to a prius
btw that red car in the middle could possibly a mock up of a flex fuel suv? its 4 door i belive i see a door handle at the very back part soo theres no truck space but passenger carrying remains the same
the volt could be simular the door handle being so far back / no truck space
just a thought
July 17th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
my bad i seen a diff pic of it
and it seems its only tape or a back end light
theres no second handle
yay that means its not a volt..
does a happy dance
July 17th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
The green car is the Chevy Beat. The red car is the Chevy Trax. The Volt is larger than those cars…
July 17th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
The Volt better have a very W.I.D.E stance, much wider than those pukey pocket rockets. Closer to the new Camaro (same designer). Also important that the wheels are flush to the outside for aerodynamics. After passing 40mph the wind is the Volt’s biggest enemy.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Not much to talk about, is there? Oh, well. There are going to be many, many days like this. We have a very long wait ahead of us with just a little news here and there.
Lyle still does a great job. It is about time Lyle gets his ride in the Malibu mule. Then next up is a ride in the production Volt. That would give us really something to talk about.
See ya……………
July 17th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
22 Cire
One of the pithiest statements I’ve seen around here in awhile.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
In the 50’s they scared us with threats of Martians attacking the Earth. It soon discovered that humans on Earth actually had to abandon Mars because the impending loss of water. So my friends, WE are the Martians (not Earthlings). Soon to be Martians running around in Volts.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
As reported by Fox News.com:
WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday failed to approve a Democrat-backed energy package that would have required oil companies to explore leased land for oil reserves or give up the leases.
The 244-173 vote was not enough to overcome an agreement House leaders had come to requiring the bill to pass on a two-thirds margin. With 417 members voting, Democrats would have needed 278 votes to prevail.
Twenty-six Republicans voted with Democrats on the bill. There were 11 Democratic defections.
This bill was aimed at accelerating the leasing of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; would have required energy companies to drill on pre-approved federal land or lose their lease (Use it or lose it); would have provided for more infrastructure to get oil out of Alaska; and would have banned the exportation of domestic oil from Alaska.
The bill also was aimed at blunting GOP efforts to permit oil exploration off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Democrats said the legislation would spur drilling on already available lands in Alaska, the West and the western Gulf of Mexico.
Republicans scoffed that the so-called Drill Act — imposing a tougher “use it or lose it” rule on leases already held by oil companies — would do little to boost oil exploration, saying current policies are aimed at the same goal. A vote was set for Thursday.
Democrats, however, didn’t appear serious about trying to pass the bill. By allowing it to come to the floor under the two-thirds rule, it all but sealed its fate to that of a similar bill that failed under such rules two weeks ago.
On the eve of the vote, the Interior Department issued a major new lease in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, known as NPR-A. The Democratic bill would require a more active Interior Department leasing program on the reserve, which is located to the west of the off-limits Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, the subject of a long-standing battle between environmentalists and the oil lobby.
“Democrats brought forth their ‘Use It or Lose It’ bill without knowing it was already the law of the land,” said GOP Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo. “Today we’re reminded that the majority’s efforts to ‘unlock’ NPR-A are about as necessary as passing a bill ordering the sun to rise.”
The oil lease proposal is an effort by Democrats to counter a push by congressional Republicans to lift a long-standing drilling ban on most offshore U.S. waters.
With gasoline prices exceeding $4 per gallon, public opinion on energy issues is shifting in favor of a more permissive stance on drilling, even though the idea of opening the Atlantic and Pacific coasts or the eastern Gulf off Florida’s beaches to oil and gas companies has been long seen as a nonstarter.
“Drill now, drill everywhere,” said Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C., describing the sentiments of constituents whom he surveyed.
Democrats are scrambling to appear pro-drilling — hence the “Drill Act” title for Thursday’s bill — even as leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., are dead set against reversing the long-standing drilling bans along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
Democrats say the industry should first go after oil and natural gas in areas where they hold leases. They also say Republicans are simply seeking political advantage with a pro-drilling plan that won’t deliver new U.S. oil for another decade or so, and that the GOP’s fixation on drilling is a smoke screen for the Bush administration’s inability to prevent the sharp spike in gasoline prices.
“The administration’s responsibility was to protect the American people from this kind of gouging, and they did nothing,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. “So today they’re trying to deflect the very legitimate criticism of, ‘What did you do on the watch?”‘
In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., moved to begin debate on a bill aimed at curbing speculation in the oil markets that Democrats say has contributed to the rapid rise in the price of oil.
The bill would increase staffing at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and require the CFTC to curb the size of speculative positions held by traders who aren’t using the markets for legitimate hedging purposes.
Republicans hope to use the bill as a vehicle for votes on further offshore exploration, among other pro-energy production measures.
*************************************************************************************
Seems things really are messed up in Washington. Both sides appear deadlocked. The Democrats don’t want drilling on any land that is not already under lease (or so it seems). The Republicans want to drill where everyone says we have most of the oil reserves - in places the Democrats want off-limits. Something is got to give. I stand with the Republicans on this idea of drilling. We need more oil while we study, test and build alternative energy sources. The money the Federal Government gets from these new leases should be devoted to those new alternative sources.
It just appears that Republicans are more “pro-energy” and the Democrats are more “pro-environmental”. I think we should be able to balance both of them and get the crude we need to tide us over for the next 10 years. Drilling just does not cause the envirnomental problems it did 50 years ago. Lets get real and put some sound policies into effect.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
#42 DA
I’m driving more slowly these days, about 60 mph on interstates where the slowest speeds used to be about 70, and to my surprise lots of drivers are about the same speed. People are figuring out how to save money. I don’t know what fraction it is, but it is not just you.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
#78 RB
I have noticed it also. I have been setting my cruise on 60 on the interstate going home and quite a number of cars and trucks are staying with me. Quite a few are zooming on past, also, I must say. Probably about 10-15% going slower, is my guess. But, it is a start, right?
July 17th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
They got this new way of drilling these days. It’s called HORIZONTAL DRILLING. So lets just drill horizontally all the way to the MiddleEast. Just park a platform off their coastline in the ocean and get drilling NOW.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
They better let McCain ride in a real Volt prototype. I know Condo Rice got a ride in an early Tesla. It’s only fair, let’em drive it GM. (free publicity - repeat - free publicity)
July 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
“Once you point out a Prius out of gas won’t move but a Volt out of gas will, the Volt will score higher. Now if Prius changes that, then….”
Having run out of gas in my 2002 Prius, I can tell you - it will indeed move. Went a few miles actually. BTW, Japanese method for telling you that you have run out of gas…
WARNING: HYBRID SYSTEM FAILURE (just what you want to see two weeks after buying your Prius).
Also, where as us Americans are used to the gas gauge hitting “E” and having a small reserve. My 2002 Prius hits one block before E and that means it’s on reserve and will be empty in a couple miles. I now try to avoid letting my Prius get below a 1/4 tank.
***
Ethanol = good
corn-based ethanol = not so good
But even still, I’d wager that the price increase in food (even corn) is far more attributable to $4-$5/gallon gas prices than ethanol.
***
The whole study is significantly flawed as it’s based on the knowledge of the masses (ie: who learn via the media in cyclic regurgitation).
***
“The Volt will be ALMOST as useless as a Prius if there is no more petrol.”
Not true, because it will be E85 capable. You can distill your corn into whiskey. And drive on that.
***
“Ford Dealer told me the other day that the Ethanol in the gas was causing problems with clogging fuel injectors and deteriorating “O” rings. They are recommending cleaning injectors even on cars still in warranty. Seems it burns dirty.”
Ethanol does NOT burn dirty. It’s probably much cleaner in fact. However, it is corrosive to a lot of gaskets used inside many cars. An E85 capable vehicle has been made with gaskets that can withstand ethanol.
That said, many states started substituting 10% (E10) ethanol for MTBE in their gasoline. It’s supposed to be safe at this dilution, but there is some question as to whether this is fully true or if there might be some added wear.
Note, you will also get less mileage with E10 gasoline than you will with traditional mixes.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
#77 N Riley
Actually they’re equally stupid. At best the Republicans would get us 3B barrels of oil a year starting in 2048 (we make more than twice that many barrels of ethanol today) and the Democrats will get us no oil anytime. Hard to tell the difference.
We are out of oil. US oil production peaked in 1970. Today we’re at production levels last seen in 1946. We will probably exhaust our domestic supplies by 2018. As Steven Colbert says: “All our oil is under other countries. How did that happen?”
Any proposal, and that includes these plans, which are designed to boost US production are non-solutions designed to win political points rather than solve actual problems. Meanwhile, each month we spend $12B in iraq and probably double or triple that protecting our oil interests in the Middle East. And while we do that, we also send billions of dollars to hostile regimes like Russia, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.
There is no oil fairy. Get over it. People can take all the shots at e85 they want, but E85 is a hundred thousand times more likely to solve the energy problem than the lame ideas we’re seeing debated here.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
#79 N. Riley said “Probably about 10-15% going slower, is my guess. But, it is a start, right?” My experience has been about the same.
Going as fast as possible has been so ingrained around here (in NC) that frankly I’m amazed that as many as 15% are about like me. Yes, it’s a good start,. I think the fraction will grow as people realize that they aren’t alone, i.e., they are not going to be run down from behind because a whole lane is moving along more slowly.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Actually, I am planning on setting up a Micro Brewery in my garage, with the main purpose of powering my Volt ICE. I don’t need no stinking gas-o-leeeen. Since I will be using the battery mostly, I might have some of that go-juice converted to me-juice.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
77
Did anyone else laugh themselves to tears on that quote from Dodd of all people?
July 17th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
#83 DonC — Re peak oil. With greatest respect, one has to be careful about what is or is not available. The question really cannot sensibly be asked except in the context of price. There is a lot of oil available at $140/barrel that is not available at $20, in the US and elsewhere. Of course, people investing their own money are going to want to be sure the higher prices will continue, and industrial processes take a while to come on line. If the higher price continues, though, there’s a lot more oil that will become available. Of course, demand will continue to increase as well, so having more supply does not necessarily imply that prices will come down.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I agree with many of this threads posts, E85 is bad news, literally a bribe by candidates for swing state votes.
However I would like to address the concept of the folks who want their “gas guzzling” SUV’s. I used to own a boat and a heavy duty truck to tow it to the harbor and back to the house. The round trip was less than 20 miles. Now if that truck had been a PHEV with an all electric range of 25 miles or more, it would not have burned any gas for its required purpose. Same for all my “around town” trips to the park, store, and barber shop.
Now an SUV could carry a bigger battery, say 25 KWH capacity, and sure it would “guzzle” more domestic energy than our beloved Volt, but would be more friendly to the environment than todays non hybrid fleet average 23 MPG gas user.
What is the point? Our animosity toward “SUV’s and trucks” is misplaced, and should be redirected to vehicles that burn gasoline from foreign oil, those that cannot replace the gas nozzle with an electric plug.
Lets give people choices rather than take them away.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
The 1970 peak for US production is based on known reserves. How can we say what may lie undiscovered offshore, where drilling and exploration are prohibited?
However, the issue and purpose behind new drilling isn’t really to “get back up” to where we were in 1970.
Suppose you fell out of an airplane. You have a parachute. “But why should I pull the ripcord? I’ll still be falling. I need to get back up to the airplane!” No, you’re never, ever going to get back up to the airplane, you don’t have a rocket on your back, you have a parachute.
If you pull the ripcord, you will still be falling, that’s exactly right. But while it might not seem important now, you will appreciate the difference, later; when you get to the ground.
Oil supplies are falling. The issue isn’t somehow bringing them back up, it’s slowing the fall, to mitigate the inevitable effects of no oil at all.
Solar arrays, nuclear plants, electric cars, windmills; it all costs money. None of it happens if, at any point, the economy gets crippled by a lack of energy.
How long would it take to completely re-pave the Beltway around Washington DC? How about if you could get all the cars off of it while you do it? You could repave it a lot faster, but the area would be crippled during that interval, and nothing much would get done. It takes longer to do, but you have to keep traffic open during such a repaving, because that road is critical to the area. Our economy and our energy infrastructure is the same. You have to keep what you have going while you build for new conditions. To do anything else is irresponsible at best, and suicidal at worst.
(re-posted from another thread)
July 17th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Are EVs in the USA required to have a beeper when in reverse ? I have heard of owners killing children who could not hear them backing out of a parking lot. I don’t think a Prius has a reverse beeper. Maybe Big Brother needs a different set of regs for electrics, since they are so quiet. Some company once proposed a fake exhaust noise maker be installed to coerce gearheads into migrating to these silent cars. Some people will not drive a vehicle that doesn’t have a throaty V8 exhaust note.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
#85 Home Brew
Now that sounds like American engineering. I like the “me-juice”.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
#86 Morgan
“Did anyone else laugh themselves to tears on that quote from Dodd of all people?”
Dodd always makes me laugh (or is it cry). These days it’s hard to tell the difference. Dodd is a joke. Makes me sick to even look at him. Talk about do nothing.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
The entire Congress is a joke these days, not just Dodd.
As bad as Bush’s approval ratings are, I think Congress is in the Single Digits (heading for the negative frontier). Remember that CONgress is the opposite of PROgress.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Congress has never been serious about E85 except as a means of buying support and votes. They send tons of money to farm states and companies working on E85. It seems strange that some of that money makes it back to the congressman as a donation. Or is that just the way it works in the “development and research funding” bills passed by congress?
When you have foxes watching your hen house, you are in deep trouble. We have a lot of foxes in congress and in Washington as a whole. It is not a lot better away from Washington. Politicians use local and state elections the same way the baseball major leagues use farm teams. They learn all the “tricks of the trade” on the local and state level. They are all hoping to get “promoted” to the big league in Washington where the real money can be “made”. We have a congressman from Mississippi who was a local politician. He got elected to congress about 15 to 20 years or so ago. He left here as a poor man. He is now one of the richest men in Mississippi with a lot of real estate holdings. He is still in Washington working on his next 100 million.
They are nearly all crooks. They are not looking out for us.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
“We are out of oil. US oil production peaked in 1970.”
I wonder why it has peaked? Hmmmm…. Oil Oil Everywhere but not a drop to drink…. I mean drill for.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Diversity…new catch phrase for the automobile.
Too few people control the limited energy source of the automobile. One of the biggest features of an electric vehicle is the diversity of the energy sources. The general public needs to be educated that electricity is not an energy source. Coal, natural gas, hydro, wind, etc. are energy sources that are used to produce electricity.
While some folks here would disagree, but nuclear plants produce nuclear waste that generate electricity a by-product.
July 17th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
A little off topic but also on the fueleconomy.gov website is a really nice summary of where the energy that you put into a car actually goes… Typically, only 12.6% of the energy you put into the car actually goes to pushing the wheels…
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
I’m sure I will reference this in the future for something.
Also, there’s an article in EDN which I don’t know if anybody mentioned but it talks about the efforts to reduce power consumption in the car systems that don’t go directly to move the vehicle (such as reducing power used by headlights). It’s somewhat technical as it’s targeted to the engineers out there. It also references gm-volt.com a few months ago when we were discussing the issue of power consumption in the subsystems (apparently this author references gm-volt.com fairly frequently, too).
http://www.edn.com/article/CA6570998.html
Some points:
Tesla estimates cabin cooling in an EV would typically require 2kW. They estimate heating normally occurs with ICE waste heat equivalent to around 3kW. The Tesla fellow they were interviewing also pulled a back of the napkin estimate that an “extreme case” load for heating or cooling would consume 8% of the range… Headlights, 1.5% of the range.
July 17th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
gieso # 59
“If the ICE in the Volt is not E85 capable, it would be a real missed opportunity.”
*** *** ***
I couldn’t agree more. There are just too many myths about ethanol, and most are untrue. The reality is that as we move to RE EVs we’ll need less and less liquid fuel over time, and I don’t see anything wrong with E85 as a range extending fuel.
I’d love to see Coskata build a plant in Naples and export the ethanol to the US, both sides would benefit.
July 17th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
J D Power has always low-balled EV (HEV, PHEV, BEV) prospects. In this case, I do not believe that many of the 4,000 survey respondents are knowledgeable about EVs. The demand for EVs of all stripes will be there once the public realizes what they are. The Prius has raised the awareness of HEVs but the nuances of a PHEV or a BEV remain a mystery to most.
July 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
The oil companies will support ethanol because they have the fuel service stations and the infrastructure in place. If we all go ICE/EV, all we do is plug in at home. What may become a problem in the distant future is finding a location to buy the fuel for the ICE. Now wouldn’t that be something!!!!
July 17th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
#87 RB
#89 Jackson
#95 omegaman66
With all due respect, you guys do believe in the oil fairy! I’m truly stunned. The facts are really not in dispute: US oil production peaked in 1970; current production levels are at or below the production levels of 1946; the downward spiral held even during the time when the big finds in Alaska came on line. Saying that US oil production peaked in 1970 is about as risky as saying the Giants will win the Superbowl in 2008. It’s an historical fact, not a subject for conjecture, and no one who is even passingly familar with the subject is suggesting otherwise. (This is not BTW unique to the US — every oil producing oil field in the world is in decline).
Why is this happening? Pretty simple. The largest fields were found first, and they have now run dry or are in the process of running dry. We have had new finds and production from those finds, but the new fields are smaller and can’t make up for the lost production from the earlier and larger fields. (As a FYI, oil is very concentrated, with 1% of the oil fields in the world holding 75% of the world’s oil)
FWIW all of this was predicted by oilmen long before 1970. It’s just basic stuff, hardly esoteric, and rests on the principle that the largest, and easiest to produce from, reserves are found first. In a sense it’s the oil equivalent of the principle that it’s easiest to pick the low hanging fruit.
Geologists do know where to look for oil, and they’ve gotten quite good at knowing about how much a field will hold. If the MMS estimates 29B barrels at a 95% probability, and we know historically the amount found is what they predict at that probability, then that’s more or less what we’re going to find. If you think that we’re going to find 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000 times that much oil than what is predicted then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d love to sell you! (For reference, after more than fifty years of exploring the Gulf exactly one, one-billion-barrel oil field has been found).
But you don’t have to listen to me. This is the message that T. Boone Pickens, a guy who knows about oil, is trying to convey. There is no oil. We have run dry. So it’s time to stop the silly “we’d have all the oil we need had we drilled” stuff and actually move on to something real rather than imaginary.
If not, then why not wholeheartedly support the Democratic proposal to have the oil companies drill on the 68 million acres of land they currently have under lease? Surely there must be two or three Ghawar sized fields there! That has to be an incredibly great idea. Or does even your imagination have limits?
July 17th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
101 DonC We are basically on the same side, in favor of moving away from oil into electrically powered transportation. Much of what you present is interesting.
Still, and with greatest respect, when you write statements for dramatic effect such as “There is no oil. We have run dry.”, it leaves unclear how much of what you are saying that is objectively true, and how much is language added for dramatic effect.
I think the main point you are making and with which I agree is that oil is becoming increasinglhy expensive so we have an urgent need to shift to alternatives. At the same time, extracting oil is not like pouring out water from a bottle. There is no full, and empty with fixed points in between. There can be less or more oil depending on how much one is will to pay to get it. The same is true for oil, water, and many other natural resources. You are right that we have pumped much (not all) of what is cheap, but there is a lot more that is more expensive.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:15 am
I think flex fuel capability probably does not add much to total car cost. Thus if I were to buy I would just include the capability for ethanol as a matter of course.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Check out the following plan to get America off foreign oil by oil billionare T. Boone Pickens. He wants to implement his plan within the next 10 years. He is currently building the largest wind farm in the world in Pampa, TX (4000 megawatts) and his plan makes sense!
Harness the wind and solar to generate electricity for the VOLT!
http://www.pickensplan.com
July 18th, 2008 at 8:08 am
I’d like to see a future versions of the volt available with a longer range battery for up to 250 miles, or a generator able to run on compressed natural gas, not gasoline. I have an uncle that works for our local electric company and a cousin that works for the local natural gas company. I’d rather give my money to them than the oil companies! The local station owner isn’t making any money on my gas purchases!
July 18th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Reguarding #12 CBK
July 17th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I am a Volt customer that has given up. I had a Lexus RX400H SUV hybrid with a little over a year left on a lease, but I just turned it in early and replaced it with another hybrid (GS450H). I intended on getting a Volt when the lease ended but doubts about availability plus the things I read have lead me to believe the Volt would probably not have the luxury features I now enjoy with my Lexus have caused me to doubt I will ever drive a Volt.
I hope I am wrong but I will enjoy the Lexus for the next three years and watch this site for developments (by the way I and many others are on a Volt waiting list, does the list matter, will we get any kind of advantage in obtaining a Volt because we signed up early?).
I knew the Volt would not be available when the lease ended on the Lexus SUV hybrid but I was going to drive my 1996 Corvette for the short time I anticipated between the lease end and the Volt to be available. But with the low production numbers anticipated and the reports that many won’t even be sold in this country I believe I would have to drive the Corvette a lot longer than the few months I had thought I would. Plus my concern that the dealers will tag a premium on the car and sell them for thousands over list I have serious doubts I will wind up being able to buy a Volt when the 3 years are up. As far as I am concerned if GM doesn’t get their act together and have a supply of Volts to sell to the public by time the lease on the Lexus GS450H (hybrid) expires in June of 2011 I may just buy out the lease on the Lexus and keep driving it. I can keep he Lexus for long trips and buy a second electric only car, instead of the electric Volt with an ICE extender, to use for short trips. The best think for any car company is to have people lining up to buy their car, but the worst thing is to have people that want the car but buy something else because they can’t supply them in sufficient quantities. GM should be preparing today to not only to run the Volt assembly line around the clock but to also have the building capacity of two or more factories (two or three assembly lines side by side in the same building) ready to build them.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
PS My Lexus GS450H with about 200 miles on it is getting about 27 MPG with every luxury feature you can think of and it goes from 0 to 60 in 5.2 seconds. My Lexus RX400H hybrid got the same MPG when it was new and it improved to 30 to 33 after a few thousand miles. I expect a similar improvement with my new one. I have a bad back and other physical problems so I really need something comfortable. So the matter of driving a roomy comfortable car isn’t just a matter of desire or want, it is something I need because something that is all crammed and jolts you every time you hit a bump in the road will put me in so much pain I wouldn’t be able to drive it.
Some people have to realize that the are some people that have physical needs that require them to drive something on the large side.
I try to do my part by driving a hybrid and not trying to be the first car to take off at every light. The 1996 Corvette was purchased new in 96 when gas wasn’t and issue and it doesn’t get driven that much because I have a hard time getting into it, but believe it or not it gets in the mid 20s to high 20s on the highway and high teens to low 20s around town