GM Q&A: Chevy Volt Production
I had a wide-ranging discussion with Robert Kruse, to whom I posed many of the questions readers here asked. Bob is GMs executive director of EVs and Hybrids. In this segment we discussed Volt production.
How many Volts are you aiming towards producing in the first year?
We have not announced a specific number for the first or subsequent years, but I can tell you were not going through all this effort and to this extreme to be a little niche player.
You will see significant and substantial volumes in the first and subsequent years. We see plenty of demand out there.
Is it true that the Detroit-Hamtramck (DHAM) plant where the Volt is expected to be built is only capable of producing 60,000 vehicles per year?
The DHAM plant is probably capable of producing at full capacity close to a couple of hundred thousand vehicles per year. The Volt is intended to be built at DHAM assuming the state and local packages are successfully negotiated.*
Has any retooling began at that facility yet to prepare for the Volt?
No, I would say that we haven’t actually started cutting metal at the plant or moving metal. I would say that the manufacturing and engineering organization have begun their plant designs and layouts. I have the Volt done completely virtually and analytically now. They’re working on the design. I don’t believe they have actually started installing any tooling yet. They have initiated orders for some of the longer lead items as it relates to equipment and manufacturing plants as it relates to the specific model of production.
How long would it take to tool up the plant for the Volt?
Obviously we have announced that the Volt will be in production by November 2010 recognizing our development program. We will be building non-saleable Volt units at the DHAM plant long before November 2010. So everything backs up from there.
So when will the first non-saleable units be produced there?
Right now I’ve got mule vehicles, integration vehicles later on, and manufacturing non-saleable vehicles will happen earlier in 2010.
Is that the captured test fleet?
First we have our non-saleables then we have our captured test fleet which are usually our first saleable vehicles.
Do the non-saleable vehicles go out on the public roads?
After they’ve met certain requirements, yes we can test them out on public roads.
Would those vehicles stay in the possession of GM employees or might others get a chance to have them?
No, maybe on a select basis but not on on an unassisted basis, that’s true for any program.
When will dealers be able to order Volts?, will it be before November 2010?
When we start into marketing and dealer allocation its really outside my swimlane. Typically there will be a dealer certification process, not every Chevy dealer will be able to sell a Volt. They’ll have to go through certification and make sure they’ve invested in their repair and service areas, trained their organization and so on.
*NOTE: The Detroit city council on Monday approved $136 million in tax abatements that GM had requested in order for them to commit to building the Volt at DHAM.
Popularity: 2%
Related posts:
- Production Chevy Volt in late 2009?
- The Chevy Volt Mule Schedule: Final Integration Vehicles to Appear in 2009
- The Chevy Volt Will First be Released as a Captured Test Fleet to GM Employees
- GM Q&A: Volt Vehicle Line Executive Frank Weber on the Current Chevy Volt Mules
- Lutz: Chevy Volt Production to Begin November 2010
(8 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
September 30th, 2008 at 6:37 am
Not a niche car? Better price it right.
A couple hundred thousand cars at the DHAM plant is still not enough, but a good start.
So we’re still at 10,000 the first year?
September 30th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Thanks Lyle, good info (as usual).
JC
September 30th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Can’t wait. Long two years ahead.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Seems like Bob Lutz said a few things that just weren’t close to the reality of things. I’m guessing, he’s doing calculated probes of the customer base to see how deep and wide it is. There will likely be more probes in the future on items like gas prices to determine if the faithful are still out here. We’ve already been prodded on pricing, and initial release locations.
Hazzah! Maybe the regional release of the Volt has been dropped and it’s now wide open to any dealership to prove their worthiness to sell the car.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:46 am
This is an electric car, so in all likelihood, it’s pricing evolution will be similar to most consumer electronics….
Digital TV’s started out well into four figures, and now you can pick some up at around $500. Will even be cheaper once the digital conversion occurs in Feb.
Computers were well over $2000 back in the early 90’s. They’ve come down.
I think you’ll see a similar occurrence. (though maybe not to the point of picking up a Volt for $500). I don’t have a digital TV yet, and I probably won’t be able to afford a Volt for the first several years. But chances are, they’ll come down.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:57 am
I hope you introduce Kanban production. Just because the plant CAN produce several thousand units, doesn’t mean you should. One reason why the Japanese and Germans can protect their price is they don’t over produce (pull principle). It will take the consumer a while to get used to paying sticker price for GM products, but this is the type of car which, due to high demand, can be used to protect the price. Now if the consumer is willing to buy several hundred thousand volts, great, but don’t leave yourself in a position where you have surplus, and you have to give rebates. No rebates. Use this opportunity GM. Best wishes.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:00 am
OF course if they find a way to remove the cost of a full battery replacement from the pricing, this car won’t stay niche and we could bet that after the plant reaches 70% of capacity they will start retooling an other plant to allow greater production, but most likely onto an other continent I hardly see this one plant supplying the whole planet’s production for Volt/Volt like cars.
NPNS
September 30th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Local taxes axed? Check.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080930/NEWS01/809300382
I always have mixed feelings about these things. On the one hand, communities feel like they have to give away the store. On the other hand if they don’t do it, another community will. The losers: all the other taxpayers. Corporate shares of local property taxes have plummeted in the last 25 years. I don’t know how we break this Gordian Knot.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Don’t forget about the battery plant. Announce the winner already.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Last time I went shopping car prices were:
Prius $27,000
Accord Hybrid $34,000
and most other mid size getting 30 MPG $20,000+.
I think the Volt and the Cruze are going to be very popular. And I credit GM for recognizing comsumer needs.
Fuel prices will increase even as demand gradually decreases. I just hope the electric companies don’t gouge when they have our EV’s on line. I plan on contacting the energy commission on the State and Federal levels to get them on board with this concern.
I have contacted the State Of California with a plea to get rid of the front license plate law. I argued that 2 and 3 wheelers don’t require them. And added that millions of cars getting 1/2 more MPG (with less drag) will be very beneficial.
no plug =D~ no sale
September 30th, 2008 at 7:31 am
The UAW workers in Detroit want to work so Detroit will provide the tax breaks it takes to keep the jobs local.
GM good work so far on the VOLT. Remember though you can’t let anyone beat you to market with this.
LYLE thanks for the good work and the time and effort you put in to keep the VOLT NATION informed.
Take Care,
TED
September 30th, 2008 at 7:39 am
I believe this plant currently produces the Cadillac DTS and the Buick Lucerne.
I expect that much of the Volt will come from elsewhere, i.e. battery packs, electric drive system, seats, 1.4L engine, etc. One question would be what material will the body panels be made of, steel or composite? If it’s steel, the panels may be made at the site, otherwise, they will likely be purchased. Composite panels also reduce the amount of tooling needed on site.
I also am wondering about the frame. Bob Boniface showed a slide at a presentation he made in August, and reported these numbers:
10 counts of aero 0.25 miles city
10 counts of aero 0.55 miles highway
10 amps 0.25 miles city
10 kg mass 0.25 miles city
Therefore, to get an additional mile of range in the city, you can reduce drag from 0.25 to 0.21, reduce power draw by 40 amps, or reduce weight by 40 kg (88 lbs). Obviously, a combination of these imporvements can also work.
My point is that the concept Volt called for a 120 kW motor, but now we are seeing 111 kW in the production Volt specs. For a 350 volt battery, this equates to a reduction of 25 amps, or about 0.6 miles increased range.
Now comes one that seems more plausible, weight reduction. The Corvette Z06 and ZR1 make extensive use of aluminum and magnesium in their frame and other components. I’m sure composite panels are lighter than steel (not to mention non-conductive). If GM could shave 350 lbs off the weight of the Volt, it would add about 4 miles of city range, and also better its power-to-weight ratio by 10%, yielding better performance.
Therefore, I am expecting to see composite body panels, lighter weight materials such as aluminum suspension parts, magnesium castings, and possibly an aluminum frame. I would expect the frame to be manufactured at DHAM, however, most of the other components would come from suppliers or other GM plants.
This not only provides a better performing Volt, but also minimizes the production line at DHAM to frame assembly and final assembly, thus minimizing the need for tooling and other infrastructure at the plant.
This plant is also one of GM’s plant’s designed to be more environmentally friendly.
http://www.gm.com/corporate/responsibility/environment/recycling/in_our_veh/Final_Lucerne5_1_08.pdf
September 30th, 2008 at 7:41 am
One question I would have like answered is if it is going to be a nationwide release. Being that Houston is the 4th largest city in the counrty I would hope that it would be available here, but because our codes are not as strict as other places like California, I am worried that we will be over looked. Any ideas on that Lyle?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:42 am
I still think that the 2011 model year Volt production will be set low, just in case there are any problems that show up when the first users get them on the road.
Fixing a few thousand cars can be handled fairly easily, and the marketing department can spin it. If it was 100K cars with a major problem, it would be a real black eye for the Volt in particular, but all E-REV’s would be hurt by it.
Now if those first 10K cars work well, I see no reason not to ramp up production to 100K units for the 2012 model year, assuming that there are battery packs available.
Go GM! Go GM Volt Team!!
NPNS
September 30th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Swim lane??
September 30th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Not to sound greedy but I don’t care how few they make in the first year as long as I can get one.
NPNS LJGTVWOTR
Take Care,
TED
September 30th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Encouraging news! I was beginning to think they were maxing out at 10K forever. I think the excitement is helping to push GM in the right direction. I can wait a year to get a more polished version. Remember the first iPod or PC… sometimes its a little prudent to wait for 2.0.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:39 am
#10 Dave K
Last time I went shopping car prices were:
Prius $27,000
Accord Hybrid $34,000
and most other mid size getting 30 MPG $20,000+.
I think the Volt and the Cruze are going to be very popular. And I credit GM for recognizing comsumer needs.
—————————–
The world is going to be a very different place in 2011, much different that today.
There is going to be alot of ‘frugal’ 40MPG+ choices by then. The race is not just electric cars, the race is on to get all the ‘euro-spec’ cars to market here…and they will arrive much sooner that the EVs.
You could consider the 50MPG Honda Insight at $18,500 to be the ‘tip of the sword’ in the spring.
/get used to the term ‘city car’
September 30th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Well, it seems as if people who work for GM can say things without actually telling you anything. Just like politicians. We did get some information from this, but not much. We don’t really know that much more. Thanks, anyway, Lyle. I know you are working hard on this and it is difficult to get anyone at GM to give you straight answers. I can’t say I blame them. Keep up the good work, Lyle.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Well, the sooner GM can crank them out in the tens of thousands, the sooner economy of scale will kick-in. Make no mistake GM, other majors are right on your tail: Nissan, Chrysler, and even the smaller Smarts, Tesla, Th!nk, Fisker, etc.
Looks like I’ll have my EV by 2011; I can’t wait.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:41 am
#18 Statik
We are going to see many changes by 2012, I agree. The city car is just one thing that will come about. A good city car would sell very good, don’t you think?
September 30th, 2008 at 8:54 am
When a person says, that is above my pay grade, or out of my swim lane, it is simply the way a dictatorial elitist tells the lowly interviewer that he has chosen not to answer the question, cloaked in humor.
The reduction from the design target of 120 KW to an actual 111 KW drive motor did not result in a significant reduction in either weight or drag and therefore did not significantly reduce the amount of power needed to complete the test drive cycles
September 30th, 2008 at 9:00 am
The 09 Ford Focus is already claiming 50 MPG hwy. (Canadian) and a base price of around $20 K..
As for “city” cars….. I imagine that 60 - 70 % of most city dwellers rarely travel outside their city unless it is for a vacation.. so a lot of the cars out there are “city” cars.
GM… you should be sending all of your “tester” Volts all over the nation to get a proper testing of all the conditions…
I will take a test mule …. Central Alberta Canada…. we actually have 4 seasons here… I will hang onto it untill my Volt (All black inside and out with all the options) arrives..
September 30th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Can we get a list of approved dealers once they are certified. Since I live away from a major metropolitan area, I may not have a certified dealer. I will drive the 2 hours to Dallas if needed, but a list would make my purchase and service easier.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:21 am
From the article:
Is it true that the Detroit-Hamtramck (DHAM) plant where the Volt is expected to be built is only capable of producing 60,000 vehicles per year?
The DHAM plant is probably capable of producing at full capacity close to a couple of hundred thousand vehicles per year.
—————————-
This is soooo misleading. Notice the answer ‘is capable,’ ‘full capacity,’ and most importantly VEHICLES…not Volts. ‘DHAM’ has 3 lines, each capable of putting out about 60,000 vechiles with two shifts…that is why the Volt number is 60K for 2012.
The other two lines are NOT being tooled up for the Volt, they have no plans on tooling the other two up to produce it. They are already no record for 60,000 units/1 line for 2012.
A shutdown/changover/retool takes about 18 months from decision to production, typically. (An example of the lead time is show by them ‘initiating orders for some of the longer lead items’ now…about 18 months ahead of time, lol).
The million dollar question if you really want the ’smoking gun’ is; “Are you longer lead items on order’ to convert 1, 2 or all 3 lines?” — the answer we already know, is one line.
/nice try Robert Kruse, GMs executive director of EVs and hybrids
Page 11 of the pdf gives the production commitments for Hamtramack (note the MPV7 is scrapped now because of UAW wars):
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-GM_UAW20070928_terms.pdf
Hopefully, a updated list will be released in the next week or two to give us a even clearer/more up to date picture.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:24 am
NZDavid #9
“Don’t forget about the battery plant. Announce the winner already.”
*** *** ***
Yes indeed. Whoever makes the best pack, but whoever it is will use A123’s cells with a modular design. This will make the warranty liability frontier a much kinder and gentler place, and GM can reduce the cost of the Volt accordingly.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:28 am
@ Ray #23: Do you think the Volt will could seriously take the winter temperature fluctuations (aka “Chinooking” ) we have in Southern Alberta? (-30˚C [-22˚F] in the morning to +10˚C [50˚F] in the afternoon).
LGSVMIA! ===[lets get some volt mules in alberta]===
September 30th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Statik #18
“There is going to be alot of ‘frugal’ 40MPG+ choices by then. The race is not just electric cars, the race is on to get all the ‘euro-spec’ cars to market here…and they will arrive much sooner that the EVs.”
*** *** ***
They will, but they’ll never get us off oil. If the entire country switched to econo boxes OPEC would just adjust the string on the yo-yo and we’d still be transferring $700B a year, it would just be for fewer gallons.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Rudi #27
I guess there is one way to find out..
GM 2 mules to Alberta Canada..
1 to the southern end and 1 to Central Alberta..
Then we can compare notes…
September 30th, 2008 at 9:45 am
why dont they build e-rev suvs like people want? hu lyle, WHY NOT!!!!, chrysler did.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I to am concerned over territorial availability, here in southern NV we may have to take delivery in CA even with #11.
Two Chevrolet distributorships were closed here this past week.
(Bill Heard bankrupcy)
#24Can we get a list of approved dealers once they are certified. Since I live away from a major metropolitan area, I may not have a certified dealer. I will drive the 2 hours to Dallas if needed, but a list would make my purchase and service easier.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:07 am
#13 TCook says “One question I would have like answered is if it is going to be a nationwide release.”
======================================
The information that we have from GM so far is that initial release will be in CA, DC, FL, and possibly NY.
GM has said that would be to keep the geographical distribution small, making it easier to correct any flaws discovered in the initial year.
It may also be to give a minimally adequate supply of cars to the dealers who invest their own funds to buy equipment and train personnel. After all, 10K cars divided by 100 dealers is just 100 cars per dealer per year, which is only 8 to 10 cars a month, not very many.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:14 am
LJGROTA! (Let’s just get rid of the Acronyms) I know, they make us feel like insiders. But, graphics are way cooler; like that plug symbol somebody made up (=D–). For you shorthanders, how about _O_O_ ? Does that look like Volt wheels on the road?
September 30th, 2008 at 10:26 am
This is absolutely great news about production numbers. If the statement “You will see significant and substantial volumes in the first … year(s)” doesn’t dispel the idea that GM is only making 10,000 during the first 12 months, nothing will. That sounds a lot closer to 60,000 than 10,000. (I don’t understand why Rashiid translates this to 10,000).
The tax credit may be at work here, and the CAFE credit may be as well. But the motivations don’t seem terribly relevant. Whatever works. (GM has never paid a fine for violating CAFE and it probably doesn’t want to start now.)
#15 Bob - Yeah “swim lane”. You have to admit it brings up a better mental picture than “not in my silo.” Ba ha ha ha ha ha ha!
#25 Statik - C’mon. He wasn’t misleading. He just answered the question about the capacity of the plant. If he didn’t say a couple of hundred thousand everyone would be saying three lines with a total capacity of 60,000. He probably doesn’t know we contacted the WSJ reporter so we have all this info about the union agreement and the number of lines and so forth. Sneaky us.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:34 am
#34 DonC
“significant and substantial volumes” is sufficiently vague. It could mean 10k units.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Speaking of Chrysler, how do they think they will get 40 miles per charge out of the Mini-van and Jeep without a lot of aerodynamic changes like what the Volt went through? Or can they actually do it with no styling changes? Did GM re-design the Volt from the concept to the production version just because they thought it required those aerodynamic changes to gain the 40 miles per charge? I admit I want to believe GM and am waiting to see how Chrysler will change the Mini-van and Jeep to get the 40 miles per charge.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:41 am
#33 ThombDbhomb
No, sorry. It does not look like a Volt with the wheels on the ground. Better keep trying.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:45 am
. . . . . . . ___
. . . . . __/. . .|___
=D~~|_@____@_| ?
…aughh, no backslash!!!
Guess we’ll have to stick with the acronyms — this isn’t an ASCII-art-friendly forum.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:46 am
#28 Grizzly - “If the entire country switched to econo boxes OPEC would just adjust the string on the yo-yo and we’d still be transferring $700B a year”
Nah. Both supply AND demand are inelastic. Once oil is pumping there is no easy way to turn it off. That’s why we’re now seeing oil prices drop so rapidly — we’re driving less and the economy is in recession so demand for oil has dropped — and since supply is so inelastic we need a large drop in price to have supply match up with demand. Similar dynamics we had on the way up only now it’s running in reverse.
It’s also a reason why a good argument can be made that all drivers should pay taxes to subsidize the prices of high mileage cars. As more people buy higher mileage cars or EVs, demand for oil drops, benefiting every driver and household. For example, the drop in oil from $150/bbl to $100/bbl saves the US a billion dollars a day. (20M bbl/day X $50/bbl). Every Prius and Insight and Cobalt does its part.
Inflating your tires helps a lot too, but that’s a topic for a different day.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:47 am
#38 Jackson
I can see what you mean, I think. A garage with an extension cord attached to the Volt. Ok, but pretty hard to type each time. Good try, though.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:48 am
#6 Ken Clymer:
I agree. The whole point is to make a car of such excellence and advanced engineering that people will line up to pay MSRP. That is the only way GM will ever regain profitability.
#18 statik:
Yeah, or how about BYD/Berkshire Hathaway? That’s enough to make your blood run cold.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:49 am
#38 Jackson
That was funny
September 30th, 2008 at 10:49 am
#28 Grizzly
They will, but they’ll never get us off oil. If the entire country switched to econo boxes OPEC would just adjust the string on the yo-yo and we’d still be transferring $700B a year, it would just be for fewer gallons.
———————-
The same can be said if we all switched to EVs overnight too.
That might have been the answwer when Nixon was president, but the problem is much larger than that now. If every car was a EV tomorrow, America would still be dependant on foreign oil…big time.
Factoids:
America consumes about 21 million barrels a day, and it is growing. America produces about 7.5 million barrels a day, and it is shrinking.
Finished Motor gases total: 9.2 million, of that maybe 6 million makeup passenger car usage
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm
=====================================
The fact is the only way America uses less oil, is if it can’t get it. World production is at ‘peak oil’ now according to most. Certainly it is well known that American peak oil came in the 70s. EVs cannot even hope to counter balance the losses in US domestic production at this point, let alone keep increased demand in check.
The revolution from oil will not be born out of social consciousness, concern over mounting debts or fear of our enemies…it will be born from necessity. It will be forced upon us, as less and less crude is pulled from the ground it will get harder and harder to acquire and the price will go higher and higher forcing us to either do with out, or use alternative energy.
The consumer/human nature gravitates to the path of least resistance, for the next decade or two that is city cars first, cheap hybrids second, then electric vehicles.
=====================================
Handy links
US production:
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/MediaLib/Images/Home/Sections/Energy/Oilimports1.png
World production:
http://jluscher.googlepages.com/world_crude_oil_production.png/world_crude_oil_production-full.jpg
( I will note that the short term outlook on the consumption/production ratios will probably blimp due to a worldwide recession in 2008-???…but the trend is the same).
September 30th, 2008 at 10:51 am
lets talk Regen. braking. when the accelerator is released,
dose the volt coast
dose the volt slow because of the dynamics of the electric motor
does the volt motor switch to a reverse mode
what happens when too much regen occurs –does abs activated.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:51 am
#36 N Riley:
Big battery.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Jackson: Nice! I tried to draw one using dashes and slashes lol .. but it failed miserably
September 30th, 2008 at 10:53 am
hi statik #18,
If you would like to drive another Japanese car then buy it.
Each time you fire up your Japanese hybrid you will be burning costly fuel. So instead of $220 a month with your current Accord, you may be able to spend just $160 a month with your Insight. Provided you feather the throttle and do as much coasting as possible.
I’ll be honest with you and say that I do not like coming up behind a 55 MPH Prius on the freeway. He is mizing a few dimes and causing everyone else to brake. This is not the way for America to get off the oil habit.
I plan on spending $20 on gasoline and $30 on electricity per month with my American made Chevy Volt. And I plan on driving the way I want to. These numbers may be even lower as the Facilities Manager at work is considering adding 10+10 recharge spaces in our 2 parking structures. I was the one who started the ball rolling on this as I work close to him. This is the equivalent of $20 an hour when all are in use.
Santa Monica Expo 09/26/08
http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/Volt_P225-45R18.jpg
no plug =D~ no sale
September 30th, 2008 at 10:53 am
#39 DonC
The oil being pumped out of the ground can be controlled by shutting down some wells through the control valves. The oil already pumped and in the supply “pipeline” cannot be reduced so it continues to arrive at port when demand is down there by having more supply on hand than demand presently calls for. Sooner or later supply will be reduced because less is pumped and will catch up with demand. When that happens demand can outstrip supply causing prices to rise.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:58 am
#36 N Riley “Speaking of Chrysler, how do they think they will get 40 miles per charge out of the Mini-van and Jeep without a lot of aerodynamic changes like what the Volt went through?”
GM marketing has done an excellent job of convincing everyone that you need the best aerodynamics to get 40 mpc but there is an easier way to get more miles per charge than aerodynamic changes, simply add more batteries.
GM has stated they will use a 16kwh battery, but only allow you to use half the capacity, 8kwh. Chrysler has stated they will use a 22kwh battery and haven’t stated what percentage they will allow you to use. So if they need to they could use 16 or 18kwh to get the 40 mile range.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:59 am
#34 DonC
This is absolutely great news about production numbers. If the statement “You will see significant and substantial volumes in the first … year(s)” doesn’t dispel the idea that GM is only making 10,000 during the first 12 months, nothing will. That sounds a lot closer to 60,000 than 10,000. (I don’t understand why Rashiid translates this to 10,000).
————————————-
Production commencement is not synonymous with production at capacity. I think we referenced this in another thread? (I’m not digging up the link though, hehe). We drew parallels to the new flex RWD platform in Oshawa for the Camaro. Production itself is technically running, as it has been for several months, but it is only spitting out a couple cars a month. The line is not full integrated and operational, alot of testing, training, etc. I think that is why GM/Lutz is on record at 10K for 2011.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:59 am
#35 ThombDbhomb - “It could mean 10k units”
This doesn’t seem a reasonable interpretation in the context of GM’s production output in general and the capacity of DHAM in particular. Additionally, although he wouldn’t commit to a specific number, he said specifically the production would not be that for a niche car, and less than 1000 cars a month is definitely a niche vehicle for GM. Don’t you think?
September 30th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Grizzly #28 says,
They will, but they’ll never get us off oil. If the entire country switched to econo boxes OPEC would just adjust the string on the yo-yo and we’d still be transferring $700B a year, it would just be for fewer gallons.
————
Yup. You nailed that one right on the head.
OPEC has got us by the wallet unless we get off of oil.
EREVs, IMO, are the only way to go at this time.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:01 am
DonC # 39
“Nah. Both supply AND demand are inelastic”
*** *** ***
You obviously meant elastic as opposed to “inelastic”. Regardless there is a big difference between sort term and long term. Short term effect is that the quantity demanded goes down along with price. Long term effect would be a shift in the entire demand curve. The result would be that they’ve got us, and they do.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:03 am
#46 Noel Park
#49 Jack
I agree larger batteries will do the trick. But I am not too sure Chrysler is as far along with their design as they have implied. We don’t really know what was in the test vehicles they let the reporter drive and ride in. Both the Mini-Van and the Jeep would lose tremendous space with a battery much larger than the one in the Volt. I suppose you could break the battery up into many smaller pieces and distribute it around the available space. That would cause more difficulty in controlling the battery’s temperature, but otherwise would work, I suppose. Just doesn’t seem like adding a bigger battery is all there is to it.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:07 am
#5 Benson
I agree with you opinion on the market. To add to that, production costs do not set the price. Supply & demand set price. So hoping the price drops as batteries get cheaper isn’t realistic. Companies always have, and always will, charge you as much as they can, irregardless of their costs. Long-term, costs affect the supply because if companies can’t make profits, they exit while if excess profits are made, entrants join the market. Production costs do set a minimum vehicle price, the recurring costs do.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:10 am
#50 Statik - “I think that is why GM/Lutz is on record at 10K for 2011.”
I put this in the “Outdated” bin. The same category as I put Lutz’s comments about how the gen-set will charge the battery. I don’t know if it’s economics or the commitments they made to get the loans or the tax rebate or what, but I see a complete break from the past plans about production. I read these comments as a clear signal that GM is upping the production numbers for the first year.
This guy is a corporate player. He hasn’t wandered off the reservation. He’s giving an interview, which you can be sure he’s cleared with the Public Relations Department which is ever so sensitive about building unrealistic expectations. And he’s saying: “You will see significant and substantial volumes in the first and subsequent years. We see plenty of demand out there.” Take it at face value that in the first year we’ll see “significant and substantial volumes,” which I can’t believe would be a puny 10000 units.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:16 am
#12 BillR
Great analysis. 1 nitpicky correction. Carbon fiber is actually highly conductive. This is a common misconception that arises from the need to protect carbon fiber aircraft from lightning.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Volt to be displayed in Texas 10/17+18/08
http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/Austin-Car-Show_10-17-18-2008.jpg
NRCLNS
No rich Corinthian Leather, no sale!
September 30th, 2008 at 11:20 am
#47 Dave K
hi statik #18, If you would like to drive another Japanese car then buy it.
Each time you fire up your Japanese hybrid you will be burning costly fuel. So instead of $220 a month with your current Accord, you may be able to spend just $160 a month with your Insight. Provided you feather the throttle and do as much coasting as possible.
I’ll be honest with you and say that I do not like coming up behind a 55 MPH Prius on the freeway. He is mizing a few dimes and causing everyone else to brake. This is not the way for America to get off the oil habit.
I plan on spending $20 on gasoline and $30 on electricity per month with my American made Chevy Volt. And I plan on driving the way I want to. These numbers may be even lower as the Facilities Manager at work is considering adding 10+10 recharge spaces in our 2 parking structures. I was the one who started the ball rolling on this as I work close to him. This is the equivalent of $20 an hour when all are in use.
——————————-
While I am sympathetic to the American situation, as we have a symbiotic relationship (Canada), I do not feel the need to spurn a foreign automaker if America can’t build me what I want to drive. (6 of the last 8? cars I’ve own have been domestics)
The fact is, yes, I’m on the list for a Honda Insight. They are being made right now…the hit the market in 6 months. The Volt doesn’t exist in any real sense, you can’t order one. I will probably drive my Insight for 4 years before I can get a EV from GM.
As for me personally. I produce 26kW of power a day and use 15, the rest goes back to the grid…which saves my country from burning fossil fuels. That Japanese hybrid that I will be ‘firing’ up, only does so on rare occasions…you see I just moved the family within walking distance of work…and I have a electric scooter if I don’t feel like walking it….and a SMART TDI (72 mpg euro spec) for trips without our son
When the Volt (or any other domestic or otherwise EV) does come out, the Insight gets sold. I don’t see a problem.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:20 am
#56 DonC
I tend to agree with your assessment of the first year’s production volume. I don’t think it will be only 10,000 Volts. I believe GM has decided to strike while the iron is hot, so to say. With high demand and a good tax credit, GM can sell all they can make. I think the first year’s production will be in the 50,000 vehicle range with succeeding years increased as demand is satisfied or increased. GM wants to recover as much of their investment as it can as fast as it can. So, that would imply sell more the first year while your justification for a higher price is supported. Later on the price can be slowly reduced while production is increased keeping the profit total quite high. GM is not going to lose any more money on the Volt than it has to.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:22 am
#53 Grizzly - “You obviously meant elastic as opposed to “inelastic”.”
No I definitely meant inelastic. That’s why the oil shocks are so hard on the economy. If you have a huge SUV in the driveway and gas goes from $2 to $4 you can’t change your driving habits that quickly. You’re stuck. Same on the production end. Once the oil is flowing you can’t just stop pumping. So in the short term oil producers can’t change supply very much and oil consumers can’t change demand very much.
This is why the price swings are so huge. Because of the inelastic supply and demand curves you need relatively large price changes to effect equilibrium. The classic example given to illustrate the phenomena are ten people on an island with an item critical to survival. With ten items you have equilibrium. Eleven you have no price. Nine and you have an infinite price.
If we do this right we will own their asses. Don’t forget that in the early 1990s oil was $15/bbl. It doesn’t take a huge cut in demand to effect huge price drops.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:26 am
#54 N Riley
I don’t know about the Jeep, I think the minivan is the much more likely vehicle to be produced and I don’t think you will lose tremendous space. The minivan is a much larger vehicle than the Volt to start with. A 22khw battery is 38% bigger than the Volt 16kwh battery, but I’d guess that the cargo space in the minivan in more than 38% bigger than the Volt.
#56 DonC
You are putting a lot of faith in a very vague comment. “significant and substantial volumes” as compared to what? 10000 Volts is substantial if you compare it to Tesla or Aptera or any other electric car manufacturer out there.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:27 am
#59 Statik
A Honda Insight? What are you thinking? I’d be all over the CR-Z if I was going the parallel route. LOL That looks to be a cool looking small car. Not as smash mouth as your Concept Volt but nifty.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:27 am
#59 Statik
I don’t see a problem with your plan either. Each of us must plan our lives the way we think best. You, obviously, have done an excellent job of planning yours. Great job and I wish you luck with the Honda Insight. I have been thinking about getting on the Honda Insight waiting list also. I have also been considering a Toyota Prius. The Prius is more expensive, but it is a little larger and a proven vehicle. What made you chose a Honda Insight over the Prius, if you don’t mind me asking?
September 30th, 2008 at 11:32 am
#63 DonC
I don’t want to answer for Statik about the Honda Insight over the CR-Z, but space available in the vehicle may be one consideration. The Insight will be a sedan while the CR-Z will be a two door sporty job with a lot less space. It is a great looking concept, I will admit. It may be a two seater from the looks of it.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:40 am
#53 Grizzly
I agree with #61 DonC and want to add some additional examples. If OPEC has us by the gnads, why has oil price dropped from $140 down to $100. Any why didn’t OPEC exercise this awesome profit making power sooner?
Trust Occam’s razor. It’s not a conspiracy. The Saudis always have, and always will, seek to maximize their profits. It’s not evil. But their power is limited. OPEC can’t just drop production to raise the price unreasonably. If it was that easy they would’ve dropped production long ago. But they can’t control their members perfectly (or the other 60% of the market). If OPEC drops official production “too much”, they provide an incentive to their members to cheat even more and pump over the quotas, punishing the faithful. OPEC is not omnipotent.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:51 am
#66 Cautious Fan
“OPEC is not omnipotent.”
I agree, but they are just like taxes. They will be with us until the day we die. But we may be able to control how much of our “national treasure” we send to them annually.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Statik #43
“The same can be said if we all switched to EVs overnight too.
That might have been the answwer when Nixon was president, but the problem is much larger than that now. If every car was a EV tomorrow, America would still be dependant on foreign oil…big time.”
*** *** ***
If we switched to EVs overnight I can assure you that that would put a huge dent in the 21 million barrels we consume every day. We’d probably still have to import oil, but no where near the same level.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I hope they build more than 10,000 to start. Demand will be high and if people can’t get them when they want them…they may chose a different car.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
#63 DonC
#59 Statik: A Honda Insight? What are you thinking? I’d be all over the CR-Z if I was going the parallel route. LOL That looks to be a cool looking small car. Not as smash mouth as your Concept Volt but nifty.
—————————–
I would if I could. I’m in the ‘what to drive now’ mindset. I have to drive something as I wait for a 4 seat EV.
The CR-Z is late 2009-2010 Japan/Europe only, NA production later—sometime, lol…and priced at $25,000 euros. Feels alot like the Volt press. I’d probably get a CR-Z delievered the same day as the Volt.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Tesla proved that you don’t have to be a huge, traditional carmaker to build a high-performance electric car. It ought to be relatively easy to get a van or jeep shell quickly off the mark and run 40 miles with terrible aerodynamics … if you don’t intend for the battery to last more than Tesla’s 2 - 3 years.
The Volt’s guiding premise, after the EREV concept itself, is that the battery can last for the car’s expected lifetime. Chrysler may be under no such compulsion.
Chrysler may be intending to use much more of whatever size battery pack their vehicles have to get extra AER miles.
The last time this was discussed, Statik pointed out that there would be a great incentive for Chrysler to fulfill the California expectation (if not regulation) of 10 years / 100 - 150,000 miles, under warranty. If California wants it, they will get it — but a warranty is, at the end of the day, a piece of paper.
To get their cars out the door quickly, I think Chrysler will purposefully send them out with batteries they know won’t fulfill the vehicles’ warranties. The owners will just bring them in for warranty repair, and they’ll be replaced.
This leaves us with two drastically different paths to the same result:
On the one hand, GM is over-engineering it’s electric drive system to last 10 years or 100,000 miles, perhaps at the risk of inadequate range; and are reportedly costing a replacement battery in order to hedge their bets.
On the other hand, Chrysler may be gambling that battery technology will exist in 3 - 4 years which will allow more of a pack’s capacity to be used over a longer lifetime: meaning that they may only have to replace an EREV battery under warranty once and not twice. I would expect Chrysler to also roll the cost of one replacement battery into the purchase costs.
Chrysler may offer a ‘merry life,’ but a short one: By gambling on the future, they get a timing payback now; but maybe a disaster later.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
#64 N Riley
#59 Statik
I have been thinking about getting on the Honda Insight waiting list also. I have also been considering a Toyota Prius. The Prius is more expensive, but it is a little larger and a proven vehicle. What made you chose a Honda Insight over the Prius, if you don’t mind me asking?
—————————-
To be fair, the ‘waiting list’ for me is my name at the dealership…thats all they can offer apparently until late October when they figure out just exact how everything works.
The Prius and Insight ’seem’ to be about the same size, so that was not a consideration.
For me, the decision came down to assuming/hoping Honda will build a reliable product and the Insight will/should have better technical specs that the current gen Prius…as it built to compete with the ‘future gen’ Prius. (probably not as efficient…but more affordable)
The other thing is that the Prius is well…ugly, and old. If the ‘next gen’ was available now, I would buy that in a heartbeat and forget the Insight existed.
Unfortunately, the new Prius does not exist and it won’t be released until fall 2009…then you still have to hurry up and wait to get one, I figure another 8months/year+ wait…might be late 2010, early 2011 to get that…and then I’d be annoyed I could order a plug-in just about the time I received my ’standard issue’
…odds are still strong that the plug-in Prius will be in my garage someday I think.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
(part two):
In that same earlier thread (”Chrysler goes electric”?), nasaman weighed in on the van concept; pointing out that the batteries could be much wider and longer in order to be thin enough to fit under the large floor area with minimal height increase.
He also believed (as most did on that thread) that the minivan had the highest chance of being offered first.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
#71 Jackson
Re: battery differences/life expectancies between GM and Chrylser’s EVs
Maybe I’m wrong on this, but aren’t both GM’s and Chrysler’s packs coming from the same company (A123) and based on the same technology/chemistry?
I was assuming they were…that the only difference was pack size. (I guess there could be different cooling applications, but no major differences)
It would be very interesting to see it play out, (if it is even possible), to have two seperate paths be developed by the same small company…you’d think there would be some conflict of interest issues? If there is not already, GM and Chrysler are assumidly both doing independent testing and modifications.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
CF #66
“If OPEC has us by the gnads, why has oil price dropped from $140 down to $100. Any why didn’t OPEC exercise this awesome profit making power sooner?”
*** *** ***
SHORT TERM demand and supply. The economy is going into a recession and less fuel is demanded. To stave off this drop in demand a monopoly like the OPEC cartel must entice us to use more fuel. They have no choice but to drop the price. You will see the same thing happen when EVs start to hit the market. They’ll tighten their belt and open the spigot to drop the price as low as they feel will kill the demand for EVs. How does it feel being a spinning disc on the end of a string?
September 30th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
#74 statik
“I was assuming they were…that the only difference was pack size. (I guess there could be different cooling applications, but no major differences)”
Couple of things to consider:
1. GM and Chrysler have different internal requirements. I would imagine GM will overdesign this system resulting in compromises while Chrysler will get the system to work with few compromises but will not be so robust (based on my personal experience working in the auto industry).
2. The batteries may be the same, but the battery pack electronics and software will be different if made by another company (like Continental, LG, etc). Never underestimate the effect of software on automotive electronics….
September 30th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
DonC #61
“No I definitely meant inelastic. That’s why the oil shocks are so hard on the economy. If you have a huge SUV in the driveway and gas goes from $2 to $4 you can’t change your driving habits that quickly.”
*** *** ***
True, you can’t necessarily change your basic driving habits, like to work etc.but you certainly can change your marginal driving habits and people do. Part of this is borne out of the fact that there are obviously no real viable substitutes, unless you drive an EV or a flex-fuel vehicle and have E85 in your area, and there aren’t many of either.
I still find it odd that neither of our presidential candidates has a true meaningful energy plan that includes RE EVs. They have both mentioned the Volt and talked about tax rebates, but neither has put the focus of our trend toward energy independence on what we drive. I can’t think of a better start.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
#36 N. Riley - “Speaking of Chrysler, how do they think they will get 40 miles per charge out of the Mini-van and Jeep without a lot of aerodynamic changes like what the Volt went through? Or can they actually do it with no styling changes?”
The Chrysler and Jeep vehicles seem more a scenario than a realistic vehicle. The Jeep is actually the more difficult because of the wheel motors and all the issues involved with that.
The Chrysler simply won’t work as presented. You can’t start with that heavy a vehicle with such mediocre aerodynamics and use that small a battery to go 40 miles. And let’s not forget the 1.0 L engine. You could doubtless cobble together a demo car but not a production car you could actually sell.
The math is fairly straightforward. Doubling the weight doubles the losses attributable to rolling resistance and to climbing and to accelerations. Doubling the CdA doubles the losses attributable to aerodynamic drag. Since doubling seems to be what we’re looking at these seem good approximations.
So you’d need about 16kWh to move the Chrysler 40 miles. You could be somewhat more aggressive about the battery pack and use more than 50%, say 70%, but that means you’re looking at a 23 kWh battery. And that would be very risky to use that much of the pack given how many cycles you’d expect over the course of a year. Just not very realistic to put a $10K part at that much risk.
The 1.0L engine would be a joke given the 1.4L engine in the Volt is not going to be able to drive up hills at 80 mph.
Theoretically it’s all possible (well not the engine) but it would cost a bundle for basically the same vehicle you could get for $20K less. I can’t see the point in spending this much to save ten bucks of gasoline. I can see the premium for the Dodge EV or the Tesla or the Volt, but a minivan is basically practical transportation, and modding a minivan with a battery doesn’t strike me as practical. In this regard it has less appeal than the hybrid Escalade, and that doesn’t seem to be jumping off dealer lots.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
#77 Grizzly - “I still find it odd that neither of our presidential candidates has a true meaningful energy plan that includes RE EVs”
I think you’re wrong on this. Obama probably has the most comprehensive approach. His stated goal is to eliminate oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela in 10 years. The first four out of the six items on his list are related to EVs:
• Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
• Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
• Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
John McCain is not as specific but he’s more or less on the same page. He is suggesting the $300M battery prize and a $5000 tax credit for no emission vehicles.
All in all it’s not a bad set of positions.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
#74 statik
#76 aspherical
It’s interesting to note that using all of the Volt’s pack capacity (Tesla style) would give you 80 miles AER … but not for ten years, or even five. Is it not too far fetched to suppose that a larger vehicle might go farther with not all that much more battery, with no change in chemistry (or even, with cheaper chemistry)?
Also, aren’t we actually looking at A123 or LG Chem cells in the Volt (depending on who wins that now-infamous battery contract)?
September 30th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
GM could use more of the battery but why do it when in 24 months they can have a update out that tells the car to use 60% or 70% or 80%. When new the car will go over 40 miles maybe 50-55 miles and at the end of life go at lease 40 miles before the gas engine kicks in. I drive about 25 miles per day on avg so I would use no gas most of the time. Sign me up for a E-Rev.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
#80 Jackson
#81 GGGG
I see your points, but I’m trying to think of other expensive automotive parts (excluding filters) that are allowed to rapidly degrade in performance over a few years time. I would start to think, “Oh, I shouldn’t drive the Volt today so I can save the range for next month.” I personally don’t like that idea. I would rather have the car run at 40 miles AER day one and 40 miles AER year ten. I want a robust design. That’s just me.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Aspherical-
The problem with batteries is that no one has run these new chemistries for 10 years. A123 seems to be very confident of 3 years and warrent the Prius Hymotion packs for that. GM is hoping that by treating the batteries with kid gloves they might last 10, but who knows? Of the batteries out there I would put my money on A123, but we will have to see how long any of them last. If you want certanity, wait 10 years. Some of the guys that fly model airplanes with them have gone 2000 cycles, but the capacity has fallen to 80% of original (if I remember correctly). They are not treated with kid gloves, but they aren’t abused either. They charge more than 80% and discharge below 30%.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Aspherical (#82):
Me too. I’m actually agreeing with you. I don’t trust Chrysler to do the ‘right thing.’
This just in to the news desk:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/09/free-piston-engine-could-be-twice-as.html
New made-for-range-extender idea may be 50% efficient, is much simpler (can something like this really work)?
For those of you who won’t click a link: you know those flashlights that have no battery, the ones you shake (causing a magnet to repeatedly pass by a coil in a tube)? Imagine a gas-powered one.
This approach actually reminds me of one I saw decades ago (which came to nothing) which substituted the second piston for a hydrostatic accumulator (used as a recoil device).
September 30th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
#72 Statik
Good reasons all. The Insight is about 3 inches shorter, 1 inch narrower and 2 inches lower than the 2009 Prius. When the 2010 Prius comes out that difference will grow another 2 or 4 inches in length, another inch in width and may stay about the same in height difference. This is based on everything I have been able to cull from different car sites. I almost bought a 2009 Prius a week and half ago, but another person got to it first. There is one coming in I could get, but it is another $3,000 over the other 2009 I missed. I am in a wait mode until I find more details about the Insight later this week after its unveiling in Paris. Maybe by next week we will know more specifics. Then I will do a final analysis and decide. I sure do like Honda cars better than Toyota cars.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
#68 Grizzly Says: “If we switched to EVs overnight I can assure you that that would put a huge dent in the 21 million barrels we consume every day. We’d probably still have to import oil, but no where near the same level.”
——————————————————————–
70% of the oil consumed in the U.S. is imported. U.S. oil consumption breaks down as follows:
• 44% gasoline (mostly for passenger vehicles)
• 17% diesel (mostly for heavy duty long distance travel)
• 5% jet fuel
• 15% home heating oil
• 19% other (petero-chemical, plastics, fertilizer, etc.)
Since EVs don’t address diesel, jet fuel, home heating oil, etc, U.S. energy independence will require a range of solutions. The U.S. also imports natural gas. So if we truly want to become energy independent, we must find a way to reduce 70% of our oil consumption while also reducing our natural gas consumption.
Here’s one possible range of solutions:
• Convert most passenger vehicles to EVs, with or without range extenders. This would reduce our gasoline consumption by around 80%, which would reduce our total oil consumption by around 35%.
• Convert the remaining 20% gasoline usage to ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol would not affect food crops. This will reduce oil consumption by another 9%.
• Convert diesel and jet fuel to bio-diesel and bio-jet-fuel from algae. Note that ancient algae is what made the oil that’s in the ground today. Genetically engineered algae can be grown in the desert within closed loop bio-reactors that use very little water. More info here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ToojK_MJd0
This would reduce our oil consumption by 22%.
• Convert natural gas used to make electricity to wind turbines and solar power. Use some of this natural gas to replace home heating oil.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
What’s needed to facilitate alternate energy such as solar-thermal and wind energy is an improved way of getting the power from the places it’s most efficiently collected to the urban areas where it will (mostly) be used.
I like to think in terms of a National Superconducting Grid. This is an area where Government could actually help instead of trying to regulate existing energy resources, often to their detriment.
There needs to be a research phase for the basic technology, but also for the economic models used to share it’s capacity among different electricity providers.
There needs to be planning for right-of-way and basic civil-engineering preparation for construction and other supporting infrastructure needs.
There needs to be a publicly-funded pilot program to build a coast-to-coast backbone for the system; structured to help provide incentive, and build the capability of industries which can later service the demand for inevitable follow-on feeder-lines funded privately.
Imagine cities on the East Coast being powered after dark by solar thermal energy plants still in sunlight out West. Imagine the winds roaring down the plains recharging electric cars on the calmer West Coast (and eventually, everywhere).
The Pickens plan, or anything based on it routinely ignores the need for such an energy delivery scheme, and I see no one out there promoting it.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
#79 DonC
Neither presidential candidate has a true plan for getting us off petroleum, especially foreign petroleum. I know Obama has stated he will get us off foreign oil in 10 years, but there is no way that can happen in even 20 years. John McCain’s plan is ok, but no better. We are faced with two candidates that offer a lot of talk to try to sway voters while neither will do a third of what they promise. The real differences are that one is from the left-wing of his party and the other is from the middle of his party. That is the real difference. I don’t look for any politician to really help the average citizen. If you don’t train yourself to be self-sufficient, then you are in trouble.
But, maybe we can help ourselves by buying hybrids, EV’s and E-REV’s. That is what we are here for, isn’t it. To be self-sufficient in vehicle purchasing and to move ourselves one at a time off foreign oil. One at a time. Obama and McCain can either help or get out of our way.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
DaveG and Jackson has presented us with two good comments. I agree with both. It will take a lot of hard work, much devotion and a tremendous amount of pressure on congress to get something done. There has to be a ground swell effect or congress will sit on their collective butts and do nothing but raise their salaries and benefits and pass laws helping their “friends”. T. Boone Pickens has at least some good ideas, but even he recognizes the need for a national system for transferring power from where it is developed to where it is needed. In the meantime, we need to drill for more natural gas and crude on our own lands and offshore. What really amazes me is that we have such tremendous natural gas reserves but are prevented from drilling for it by congress. To the extent that we do import a large portion of the natural gas used in this country. Makes you wonder just who congress is working for, doesn’t it?
September 30th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
#87 Jackson - “What’s needed to facilitate alternate energy such as solar-thermal and wind energy is an improved way of getting the power from the places it’s most efficiently collected to the urban areas where it will (mostly) be used.”
Or local production and storage which eliminates the transport. A closed loop fuel cell system for storing electricity in combination with a solar system would be an elegant solution. I’d expect in a few more years the technology will be there to make the numbers pencil in. (I have trouble seeing how the numbers will ever work for fuel cells in cars).
#88 N Riley - “Neither presidential candidate has a true plan for getting us off petroleum”
Getting “off petroleum” and, for example. Obama’s goal of getting “off Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil” are two different things. The latter is possible the former is not. Keep in mind that oil from Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria would represent about 70% of our imports, about 1.0M bbl of the 1.4M bbl we import daily. For long hauls the energy density of gasoline cannot be beaten. Maybe natural gas but that’s about it, and then not for ocean transport.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
#89 N Riley - “What really amazes me is that we have such tremendous natural gas reserves but are prevented from drilling for it by congress. To the extent that we do import a large portion of the natural gas used in this country.”
We have turned the West into a pincushion looking for oil and natural gas in the last eight years. There has not been any holdup. We don’t import much natural gas or LNG, much less a lot. Basically we’re awash in natural gas because all the oil exploration in the West and in the Gulf has come up empty on the oil front but has resulted in a lot of natural gas finds.
There is also a ton of natural gas in Alaska but pipelines are costly and we have something of a glut on our hands.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
#90 DonC
I am in total agreement to get us off any petroleum products coming from the middle east or Venezuela. Doing that would make us all feel safer at night. Problem is that if we don’t buy the oil from the middle east or Venezuela, someone else will. The only good thing about that is that it won’t be our money they use against us. It will Europe’s, China’s and Africa’s. But we need to do it as soon as possible. I have faith in our armed forces (assuming we don’t get another president who makes it his business to nearly destroy our military like two I can name, but will not) to defend us from anything coming our way from the middle east or Venezuela.
Time will tell whether Obama or McCain will fulfill their promise of energy independence. Somehow I remember all those other presidential promises to do the same all the way back to the mid-1970’s.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
#91 DonC
Then if we have a glut of natural gas, we need to really get on the ball with using it to fuel our power plants and heat our homes more. Let’s stop using diesel fuel (or fuel oil) and start using natural gas. So, what is the problem with doing that? Is it transportation lines (not talking about Alaska)?
September 30th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
≠D~ = no$
September 30th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
LG says it again.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10053539-48.html
(LG Chem initially has guaranteed Hyundai enough batteries for 20,000 cars a year, Lee said. LG Chem also has the battery pack contract for the Chevrolet Volt, scheduled for sale late in 2010. )
Take Care
Arch
September 30th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
#88 N Riley Says: “I know Obama has stated he will get us off foreign oil in 10 years, but there is no way that can happen in even 20 years.”
————————————————————————————-
Actually, Obama’s plan is:
“Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined”
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
The Middle East and Venezuela only account for 38% of our oil imports:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
That equates to 27% of our total oil consumption. I think that is very possible within 10 years. We could even exceed that goal if we really put our mind to it (and if gas prices stay high).
September 30th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Keep in mind that the oil companies are multinationals and they will sell to who ever buys. “Our” oil isn’t our oil at all once it is out of the ground, it is the oil companies. We simply provide our natural resources at a cut rate price so they can sell them to the highest bidder which could be China.
I think a little photovoltiac on every roof would cut down on transmission losses. T.Boone wants the taxpayer to fund this infrastructure so his windmills will make money for him.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
#79 DonC
#88 N Riley
Neither presidential candidate has a true plan for getting us off petroleum, especially foreign petroleum. I know Obama has stated he will get us off foreign oil in 10 years, but there is no way that can happen in even 20 years. John McCain’s plan is ok, but no better.
Time will tell whether Obama or McCain will fulfill their promise of energy independence.
============================================
“Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving.”
—-Richard Nixon, 1973 State of the Union address.
America went from importing a third of its oil to importing 3 times the oil it produces.
“These are the goals we set for 1985:
Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent. Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level. Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported”
–Jimmy Carter 1977
“When our administration developed our national energy strategy, three principles guided our policy: reducing our dependence on foreign oil, protecting our environment, and promoting economic growth”
-George Bush Sr, October 1991
—-
It ain’t happening.
Try to just stop using more every year…then talk about reducing…and then talk about gaining independence. *cough* never going to happen until all the oil runs out *cough*
Problem is not just increasing consumption, or the fact you use THREE times what you produce….you produce less every year as well.
Oil independance is no more going to happen than everyone on this forum sells their cars, rides the bus to work and powers everything off solar, stops using/buying anything that is plastic (and it wouldn’t hurt for no American to give birth to more than 2 kids)…because that is the kind of radical change that it would take, to even give you a shot in the dark of achieving that goal.
It has to just run out. A quicker plan for American independence off of oil would be to use as much of the stuff as you can and exhaust the world supply. That will be the catylist of change…in some ways, it has already started.
America would not vote for a President who truly had a plan to get them off foreign oil. They just want to vote for the guy who pretends the best.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
#21 Riley Re: “city cars”
Today I went past a Smart Car in traffic. First one I have seen in actual use on a highway.
Frankly it looks a little pathetic and rather easily smushed. I just kept thinking “jaws of life, jaws of life’.
Maybe people will be buying things like this in large numbers one day, but I sure do prefer the Volt idea. More like a real car. Maybe the Volt and its brethren will help me stay out of those little pea pods when gas gets to $52 per gallon.
NPNS
September 30th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Some new battery tech from Toshiba:
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=OPBX2QMMI2WJ2QSNDLSCKHA?articleID=210604693
6000 cycles for the new vs 500 for the old. Full charge in 10 minutes.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
#95 Arch - You always surprise me with your great catches. So LG has the Volt contract, eh? Interesting find.
#98 Statik - You never surprise me with your optimism! LOL Actually high prices are doing their work, and I do believe the environmental and national security components are also a very big factor. The technology is also there this time, which was not true in the past.
True no one wants to actually sacrifice to get there but we’re working on that. Hey, you have a solar system, and you don’t have it for financial reasons.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
#101 DonC
#98 Statik - You never surprise me with your optimism! LOL Actually high prices are doing their work, and I do believe the environmental and national security components are also a very big factor. The technology is also there this time, which was not true in the past.
True no one wants to actually sacrifice to get there but we’re working on that. Hey, you have a solar system, and you don’t have it for financial reasons.
————————————————————-
You got me, hehe. I’m not optimistic.
I don’t believe people are good at their base, I believe most are evil, I believe they are selfish. I’ve been around the block a few times…and that has been my experience. I see so few examples of honest sacrifice for the betterment of others or genuine kindness that it shocks me when I do see it, almost to the point it is unrecognizable to my mind.
So therefore, I believe any true change is born by pain, by suffering, by greed…not by compassion or selfless sacrifice. I know that sounds bad, but it doesn’t make it not true…it’s human nature.
I believe dependence on oil will subside only when the pain and external pressure makes the ‘easy road’ turn into the ‘high road’
/as always, I would be delighted to be wrong
September 30th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
100 Len
I too like the battery. I like this even more. Methanol has 5 hydrogen atoms. It sure is easy to work with instead of hydrogen.
http://www.wirelessandmobilenews.com/2008/09/toshiba_fuel_cell_cell_phone_d.html
Take Care
Arch
September 30th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
#98 statik Says: “Oil Independence is no more going to happen than everyone on this forum sells their cars, rides the bus to work and powers everything off solar, stops using/buying anything that is plastic…”
————————————————————————————-
Let’s forget about optimism vs pessimism, and just look at how things are now vs 10 years ago.
10 years ago, terrorism wasn’t really a big deal. The world trade center was bombed in 1993, but nothing really happened. Some U.S. embassy was bombed - when was that? Nobody cared.
10 years ago, gas was less than $1/gallon.
10 years ago, global warming was only discussed among scientists.
10 years ago, consumer electronics used Ni Cd batteries. NiMH batteries were just starting to ramp up. Lithium was just a song by Nirvana.
My point here is that 10 years is not really that long of a time. Conditions for EVs, PHEVs, and E-REVs are just now becoming ripe. $4/gallon gas only became a reality just a few months ago. And for some reason, people are only now starting to connect the dots between oil money, terrorism, and the economy. It takes people a while to get their heads around a new situation, but it is starting to happen. It’s like a big boat - it takes a while to change direction, but when it does, things start to happen.
So now that the motivation for oil Independence has become clear, we just need to figure out how to do it. I think the methods I propose in post #86 are a viable way to get there. It’ll probably take 20 years to become fully independent, but we can do a lot in the first 10 years.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
#86 Dave G
I agree that displacing petroleum won’t be easy, because as you point out, plug-ins will not replace long haul diesels or jet aircraft.
In your solutions, however, you miss one big answer, and that is coal-to-liquids (CTL). The technology exists to make synthetic gasoline and diesel fuel from coal. CO2 produced by these plants can be sequestered underground in large geological formations.
When combined with an IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) power plant, coal could be used to both supply power and liquid fuels. Studies have shown that this concept could replace the old inefficient coal plants with these new state-of-the art plants that have almost no emissions and emit little CO2.
Combined with E-REV vehicles, we could essentially eliminate coal plant emissions, become net exporters of oil products, and reduce our CO2 emissions by 40%.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Arch - that is definately more practical than a hydrogen based fuel cell.
There is work on alge based CO2 scrubbers that actually make fuel. Whoda thunk it.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Don’t want to turn this political, this is from Obama’s website”
“Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.”
My point is we get most of our oil from Canada and Mexico and we always will. We also will always get oil from the Middle East. There is 1 Global market for oil We will get it from wherever is cheapest. The cheapest oil in the ground is from the Middle East. No Oil platforms to move for Hurricane, or North Atlantic storms, no deep sea drilling etc.
We can only hope to reduce the amount of our oil consumption so that when the price spikes, it has limited affect on our economy and our way of life. That is the beauty about domestic electricity, nuclear, wind, solar, the price doesn’t change. The price of oil can go to $300 a barrell, but if we ran on electricity we could sit back and relax. With electricity you are buying an insurance policy for the future.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
102 Statik
“/as always, I would be delighted to be wrong”
======================================
Come on Statik, are you saying your ALWAYS delighted when wrong?
I am going take a guess that maybe you mean you want to wrong about “bad” things, such as human nature.
I highly doubt you would be delighted to be proven wrong that a financial decision that you made cost you say, $100,000.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
106 Len
There are lots of ways to make methanol. Right now most of it is made from natural gas. We seem to have a lot of that. Most race cars think it is a better fuel than gas. Indy 500 has been run on it for many years. During WW II the Germans ran out of gas and oil. Their fighter planes ran on methanol. They took garbage and cooked it to just below the burning point. The gas given off was condensed into methanol. When I built my hybrid car that was my fuel of choice. Fuel made from garbage.
Take Care
Arch
September 30th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
#108
102 Statik, “as always, I would be delighted to be wrong”
Come on Statik, are you saying your ALWAYS delighted when wrong?
I am going take a guess that maybe you mean you want to wrong about “bad” things, such as human nature.
I highly doubt you would be delighted to be proven wrong that a financial decision that you made cost you say, $100,000.
——————–
Hehe, no…I would not be delighted to lose $100,000. I mean ‘as always’ or when I say, “I’d be delighted to be wrong,” I mean it.
I know that is redundant, and doesn’t make logical sense, but it conveys the message that I understand I have said the same phrase multiple times on various differnt issues….and by getting out in front of it and accepting my repetitiveness, it theoretically makes it not necessary for someone else to tell me, “Statik, you always say that same thing…I think you are being disingenuous”
/thats what I meant by it anywhoo
//this thread is now offically too long, hehe
September 30th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
#105 BillR Says: “In your solutions, however, you miss one big answer, and that is coal-to-liquids (CTL).”
————————————————————————————–
Yes. The U.S. has been called the Saudi Arabia of coal, so methanol and other CTL solutions can play a vital role.
And there’s also domestic oil from stripper wells, tar sands, and oil shale in addition to ANWR and off-coast drilling.
I’m sure there are some other solutions to oil dependence as well.
But the main point of post #86 is that we need multiple solutions to end our dependence on foreign oil. There will be different solutions for different types of oil consumption. There’s no one magic bullet that will solve everything. So it doesn’t make sense for someone to bash bio-fuels or some other solution just because they happen to li