Grab our RSS Feed
Video: 60 Minutes - Race For the Electric Car
October 5th, 2008 | Posted in: Video
In case you missed it, CBS 60 Minutes aired a piece tonight called “Race for the Electric Car,” the video is below. The interview features Elon Musk of Tesla and GM vice chairman Bob Lutz.
There wasn’t any breakthrough information here.
Lutz tells the story about how GM was inspired by Tesla. He mentions the real trick for the Volt is software. He again describes how the car might recognize how far the driver is from home and charge the engine just enough to get him there.
Also mentioned are the Fisker Karma and the Aptera, the latter due this winter.
Lutz talked about the cost of the Volt, now how GM is trying to keep it less than $40,000, and how he stakes his reputation on the Volt’s success. Mainly he pointed out the difficulties Silicon Valley start-ups like Tesla are up against in being able to build cars. Tesla’s new sedan is expected to be priced at $60,000.
Popularity: 2%
Related posts:
- Lutz: Volt Battery Suppliers are in a Horse Race and Expect 100,000 in sales by 2012
- Is Tesla Running out of Juice?
- Video: The Latest With Bob Lutz on the Chevy Volt - Photovoltaic Roof After All?
- GM-Volt.com Video Voltcast for Sept. 9th, 2007
- GM is in Race to Survive
(8 votes, average: 4.38 out of 5) 
Loading ...
Posted by: Lyle
October 5th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Interesting. Lutz has his pink tie on but he’s not willing to repeat his statement that global warming is a crock of sh….
LGTVWOTR (lets get the volt wheels on…) NPNS
October 5th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
$40,000 - Ouch! What happened to the $30,000 target?
October 5th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Looks like somebody waited for the tax break to be announced… Anybody else feel like buying a long-range Tesla? With them still saying 40 and mentioning nothing else, this will end up being a $50,000 vehicle to drive off the lot. Sorry, but no. I’d be better suited investing that in a roof full ‘o solar.
NPNS… =$~~
October 5th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I wouldnt repeat it either. But it certainly is a crock of sh*t. The man made part is at least.
Global warming test - http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
October 5th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
#1 Jeffhre
Interesting. Lutz has his pink tie on but he’s not willing to repeat his statement that global warming is a crock of sh….
———————————–
Darn you beat me to it!
But seriously…the pink tie again?!? Lutz is the man…he doesn’t care what anybody thinks, he loves that tie…and gosh darn it to heck, he is going to wear it.
‘GM is trying to keep it less than $40,000′….wheee, hehe. They are just trying sooooo hard to do it. Gosh I hope they can do it figuring in the $7,500 rebate they just paid and lobbied for! I bet they just can!
Quick someone give us Wagoner’s quote about the price again in the mid 30s.
…JonP, I know you got it on speed dial, maybe you’d like to hook us up again.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
“GM is trying to keep it less than $40,000″.
Bob has his Pink tie as well.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
“He mentions the real trick for the Volt is software. ”
I’m glad Lutz recognizes that. As a former programmer/analyst, I can tell you that it’s pretty darn hard to produce large amounts of software fast with NO Bugs.
In October ‘05. Toyota sent out 75,000 notices to owners of ‘04 and 05 Prii, to bring in the car, due to potential engine stalling, and not being able to restart.
The media went pretty wild on this, and many people asked me if it happens to my ‘05. The code is so complex, that only a special combination of events occurring in a certain sequence would cause the problem to happen. My belief is that Toyota had a hard time finding the error.
“There was a “programming error” found in the computer systems of 23,900 Prius cars sold that required a service notice recently, but it is unknown whether the “error”, driver error, or some other issue is the problem. ” It actually happened to 33 vehicles.
Nevertheless, it was only the fine reputation of the quality of the rest of the car that kept it from being a media disaster.
I hope GM is listening.
=D~~~~
October 5th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Well if it is just shy of $40 and we get the $7.5k federal tax credit that puts it closer to the original price.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
#4 voltman :
I wouldnt repeat it either. But it certainly is a crock of sh*t. The man made part is at least.
Wow, it takes a lot of ignorance to say something like that. Unless there is an actual crock of poo involved. I’m glad you’re certain. Most people seem to be one way or the other. Too bad that’s foolhardy, as the more informed you are on this (or actually, IF you are informed on the subject), the more you know that we CANNOT be certain. There is, of course, still a chance that it’s not anthropogenic.
Is it prudent or scientific to toss everything aside and say ‘yup, that sounds bad, let’s say it’s wrong and go about things as we have’ ? I mean, we don’t even know what’s at stake here, beyond the fact that it would be global in scale. Maybe it’s a permanent 1/10th of a degree average increase in surface temperature, maybe we’re already toast for some seemingly inane reason. I think it bears more and constant investigation, and (for MANY other reasons) every effort to move away from our short-sighted, unsustainable lifestyles.
I may be permanently affixed to a sturdy, lofty soapbox, but I cannot stand uninformed, un-thought-out statements tossed around as fact. I don’t know who’s to blame (maybe it’s people like me who scream instead of teach), but righteous old America is getting more backward all the time.
I make the TINY efforts it takes to be substantially more green, and I see the difference on my paperless bank statements (damn, I need solar power though). I would certainly optimize my driving habits for the Volt, and whoever gets one before me and doesn’t, shame on them.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Great placement for GM and the Volt. This type of placement helps with awareness and mind share, both of which are important.
The tax credit should help a great deal if it’s not affected by the AMT. If it is then that could be problematic because I’d guess most first gen buyers would be affected by the AMT.
FWIW the Volt is really looking good. My guess is that the competition will not be from Silicon Valley but from Th!nk and other established companies. I’d be looking for minis and Smart cars though GM really seems to have found the formula before its competitors.
BTW this segment would have been produced long before the tax credit was passed. The credit passing was quite a surprise since everyone had written off the alternative fuel bill right before the rescue plan was passed.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Who cares if Bob Lutz thinks man made global warming is BS? It is completely irrelevant to him making a great car. Does it hurt your feelings? Quit being a baby people. Keep your eye focused on the prize!
October 5th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
stop with all this “MICRO” stuff we are americans we want HUGE CARS why dont they give what we want an e-rev 3/4 ton suburban, 1ton truck, esclade esv, and a hummer. not a stupid micro car and van.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
#11 Belloc
I agree with you. Who cares what Lutz thinks about global warming. What he thinks about the Volt is what matters.
#10 DonC
I wish I could share you optimism that the credit will actually make a difference and increase production levels or improve technology. I haven’t seen anything besides platitudes suggesting otherwise. By the way, your knowledge of economics seems to have increased a lot since you’ve been posting here. Holding back previously or have you been reading up?
October 5th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
If you have a box full of carbon dioxide with a light bulb on one side and a thermometer on the other, would the thermometer read any different than if the box was full of air? Or if you had the above box full of air, would the reading change on the thermometer if you changed the composition by adding two hundred parts per million of carbon dioxide?
I have no idea what the result would be, I have never seen it done.
Red HHR
October 5th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
i hate inviromentialist globloal warming is a scam
October 5th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
wow Dylan, might try educating yourself a bit more if you are going to speak about science.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Mr. Lutz did another good job. This might be his last big project. The electrification of the automobile. His legacy.
Hey environmentalists… What did you do to save the world today? If he helps put out millions of these babies on the road you will have a hard time catching up to him. Even with his two jets and all the Hummers he put out there. His negative net carbon footprint could even end up negating the carbon output of the top million environmentalists combined, not to mention the most important effect - the reduction of imported oil use. Think about it.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
NO…no…no….Mrs. Stahl! The Volt is *not* a plug-in hybrid. The Volt is a R.ange E.xtended E.lectric V.ehicle. Please watch your terminology!
October 5th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Lyle, is there any news on whether GM will use the Volt Waiting List here? Or should we sign up with our local dealer and hope.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Get rid of the stupid combustion engine and give it more batteries!!!
If someone wants to go on a road trip, they can take another vehicle.
#12, that was funny as hell!! I only read your comment though because my twins name is Dylan. LATE!
October 5th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I personally can’t totally believe in something that can’t be proven with 100% certainty. Such as the cause of global warming: Carbon dioxide from vehicles? Solar flares? Changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun? Car engines generating heat? More people on the planet giving off body heat?
Here’s my “crazy” theory of the cause of global warming: In high school science, we learned the law of thermodynamics which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed… it can only change forms. Low-level heat is a byproduct of energy changing forms, so maybe it’s all of modern man’s use of energy that is causing the world to warm up from this accumulated low-level heat?
Who can say with 100% certainty what theory of global warming is correct?!?
What can be said with 100% certainty is that there a finite amount of crude oil in the ground. Whether we run out in 20, 50, 100, or 1000 years, it will eventually happen. And there is only a finite amount of atmosphere that pollutants can be put into.
I think of the the Volt as more about weaning us off of fossil fuels and lowering pollution… not solving this whole global warming issue that over the past few years has become “fashionable” to be concerned over.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
17 Tesas: “Hey environmentalists… What did you do to save the world today? If he [Bob Lutz] helps put out millions of these babies on the road you will have a hard time catching up to him. Even with his two jets and all the Hummers he put out there. His negative net carbon footprint could even end up negating the carbon output of the top million environmentalists combined, not to mention the most important effect - the reduction of imported oil use. Think about it.”
Hmmm. I never thought of Bob Lutz’s efforts in that way.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
#21 well thought out Gary.
However if you point a flaw out in an environmentalists argument they will change the subject.
I was wondering if I bought a Volt, in addition to the tax rebate, could I sell carbon credits to Al Gore?
Red HHR
October 5th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
The idea of sending Leslie Stahl into territory so obviously unfamiliar to her is what’s interesting here. You’d think 60 Minutes would know better. Stahl predictably blew it - she ended up spouting info that was obsolete 8 months ago. A complete lack of either talent for such a story or energy on her part - it’s hard to say why she flopped so miserably.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Well said, Gary.
I don’t readily buy that man is completely to blame either. It wasn’t long ago, we didn’t have a clue about any of this. Now, we completely blame man’s involvement…? In the 90’s the planet was warming, now in the 00’s it’s cooling. Don’t worry….it’s all man’s fault. There, wasn’t that easy??
Funny, I must be a nut to speak this way. Yet, I am the guy that runs the bio-diesel 48 MPG Golf, has solar panels on my roof, and heats my house with a heat pump; using Northwest hydro-power to do so. Oh, I’m also reading these comments by Cree LED solar powered lighting.
I rarely ever mention this stuff to people. I don’t just go around talking, I just go around doing.
I wish other people would do more of this. Uh hem… Al Gore; who uses 20 times the electricity that I do, and flies from coast to coast in private chartered jets. Must be nice…
Steve
October 5th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
#13 Cautious Fan - “By the way, your knowledge of economics seems to have increased a lot since you’ve been posting here. Holding back previously or have you been reading up?”
I don’t know how much economics there was in that post. More marketing and sales. LOL
BTW the credit should make a big difference. Not to Tesla of course, $7500 is not going to matter when you’re buying a $100K+ car. However, for cars priced in the $35K range you’re talking about a 20% price cut. I think the phase out of the credit will prompt companies like Mitsubishi and Th!nk to target NA rather than some other part of the world. Keep your eye on Th!nk NA. It announced a 2009 roll out but that seemed to die after the realization set in that producing cars in Norway and then shipping them to NA was problematical given the escalating price of transportation. There was some talk of starting production in Mexico before, and I would not be surprised to see them announce production plans in the next few months, much earlier than anyone expected.
For GM it’s really a huge advantage to be able to make higher return on the first generation. You make more, or lose less, and you’re well positioned for the second generation. I actually think this is a better idea than John McCain’s battery prize.
OT but the solar tax credit which was also in the rescue plan will probably make the US the number one solar market in the world, and will give all those Silicon Valley start ups a very good chance of being dominant in solar going forward.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:00 am
$38,499 + 10% = $42,349
less $7500 = $34,849
This is starting to look like a solid final number. 2012 will be an interesting year.
=D~
October 6th, 2008 at 12:11 am
#21 Gary
I personally can’t totally believe in something that can’t be proven with 100% certainty. Such as the cause of global warming: Carbon dioxide from vehicles?
—————-
It’s really a catch 22, isn’t it?
How do you prove something like this for 100%?
I myself believe in global warming and back ’solutions’ to it, because to me, most science points that way, and at the end of the day…what harm can it do me in accepting it…or at the very least accepting the possibility of it?
It’s not like trying to get our cars on electricity or cutting down pollution is going to come back and haunt us later, hehe.
At the very least, I figure if I can run my car with the garage door closed and it doesn’t kill me, thats probably the better choice.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Zach #20
“Get rid of the stupid combustion engine and give it more batteries!!!
If someone wants to go on a road trip, they can take another vehicle.”
*** *** ***
Wrong. WRONG!
Borrowing another vehicle is not only not practical for most situations it’s a waste of our resources unless you believe that anyone can borrow a vehicle on-the-fly that gets better than 50 mpg. And that’s *IF* you could borrow that vehicle on the spur of the moment. The weight of the ICE in the Volt is distant to AERO in AER and may actually deliver in downhill recoups of regen. Silly F. argument.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:14 am
11 Belloc
Yes, I am a baby, and right now I’m crying profusely because you’ve hurt my feelings. And frankly, Belloc, I wouldn’t accept your apology or your prize. (By the way, what’s the prize you’re so generously offering up for our eyes)
October 6th, 2008 at 1:19 am
The more we learn about the climate the more we realize the assumptions and conclusions made just 6,7,8 years ago were so simple compared to what we know now, it is like comparing 8th grade to college.
It is a fact that man has increased the temperature of the planet. As soon as you burn a log or a gallon of gas or lay a square yard of asphalt you have just increased the temperature of the earth. Unfortunately mans role in heating up the earth has been greatly exaggerated because (originally) lack of understanding of how CO2 concentration affects the temp. We now know that increasing CO2 doesn’t result in a linear heating. Higher concentrations therefore don’t have the as great an effect as once thought.
But now Global Warming, changed to climate change, (Hmmm… think about that) is big business and science is taking a back seat to poor science.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:00 am
I believe in “climate change”, but I believe climate change has been happening long before the industrial age. The earth goes through natural phases. Some are very large (like ice ages), and some are very small (like every few years we experience minor cooling and warming). I think people underestimate the power of our environment to self-correct and maintain equilibrium.
I think the big scare of “global warming” and then later “climate change” is a harmless, yet well intended front of some sort to get the worlds attention (without invoking panic) that we should reduce our dependency on oil before economic and political catastrophe occurs when it becomes scarce.
Sure, we have a responsibility to ourselves and our children to maintaining a clean environment. But as Dr. House says, “why is everyone so concerned with motives”. Who cares why Lutz is building the Volt? Who cares if he believes in global warming or doesn’t? Does it really matter as long as we get a superior product? He’s building the Volt, in the end, due to capitalism. Greed has been a fundamental push of progress in this nation since we were colonies. It works quite well.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:39 am
#31 omegamann66
I’m fairly agnostic about the causes of global warming. Just about all the scientists I’ve talked to think the phenomenon is real. My brother the Yale PhD doesn’t. He says it’s sun activity, but I’ve been reminding him that the last time he took this type of contrary position he argued that smoking didn’t have any connection to cancer. That one didn’t turn out so well and he eventually quit.
In any event, I have two responses to the question of whether man is playing a central role in global warming. One is to ask how much heat is produced by burning 30 billion bbl of oil annually. Two is to ask why Blaise Pascal’s argument in support of the existence of God isn’t relevant.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:49 am
To all the sceptics: who are you going to beleive, 90% of scientific studies or 10% that are contradictory? Scientists are not on an ego trip. They report what they find. If scientists in countless fields all come to the same conclusions don’t brag about conspiracies cause it just shows ignorance.
Just think for a moment, ALL OF SCIENCE is based on probability!
Yet, we can touch and feel all the things that science gives us. But on one important issue that may or may not destroy us, we put our heads in the sand. Draw your own conclusions , by all means, but please understand ALL the facts before you act like an ignorant red neck by talking about that which you have no understanding. I don’t know all the facts but I do understand we are going through changes and the end result is uncertain.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Andy, if all scientists were merely unbiased observers that might make sense. Many of us consider the grants provided for research on ‘climate change’ and the huge trucks of money Al Gore and his ilk are raking in on green industries and have a tendency to be suspicious of their motives. Its the old ‘follow the money’ arguement.
As best I can tell, ‘climate change’ is a political movement not a scientific one. If you’re on the left, its gospel truth (oops sorry about that). If you’re on the right there’s often doubt. It seems to me that the biggest beneficiary of ‘climate change’ are candidates and parties that run around with the chicken little cry of ‘the sky is falling’.
I suppose we’ll see…
If science teaches us anything its that a) its VERY often wrong at first. b) the earth and the creatures on it have a pretty good balance set up that keep things from getting out of control. c) swings in environment have happened before and will likely happen again.
A couple of memories… The doomsday clock. All the dire predictions of unprecidented hurricane activiy after Katrina. Bush’s fault as I remember.
Many of the same people have predicted dire consequenses before.
Chris
NPNS
October 6th, 2008 at 3:44 am
I was hoping for $35k before the tax credit. Oh well. And why can’t these news people get it right… after 40 miles electric, the ICE/GEN starts, powers the drive motor and sustains the battery at around 30% SOC.
I did get the electric service to my house upgraded this past week which included two 240V outlets in the garage for future electric vehicle charging.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:05 am
What most folks fail to comprehend is that the earth is a non-linear system. The consequences may be dire indeed. Weather and our protective ozone layer are two that come to mind. There may be no consequences. We don’t know. Therefore it is totally irresponsible to assume they are not and behave as such. I believe that as a good steward of the earth I should try to leave as small a footprint as possible. It is still too big. Our goal should be to leave the earth is better shape than we found it for the generations that come after us. Quitting smoking was hard. Quitting/reducing using oil for transportation will be hard. Big vehicles for the most part are an addiction.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:17 am
DonC. #33
“I’m fairly agnostic about the causes of global warming. Just about all the scientists I’ve talked to think the phenomenon is real. My brother the Yale PhD doesn’t. He says it’s sun activity, but I’ve been reminding him that the last time he took this type of contrary position he argued that smoking didn’t have any connection to cancer. That one didn’t turn out so well and he eventually quit.”
*** *** ***
There are also cycles of the earth that include the ice age to consider. There is a list of 3100 PHDs who’ve signed a petition that says that global warming is BULL. Regardless of which you believe the, the time is NOW for EVs and our future. That’s fine, let the envioro’ argument drive our quest for energy independence, but by God LJGTVWOTR!
October 6th, 2008 at 5:35 am
Well , you don’t have to be Einstein to SEE the changes around us. It may not be apparent to you, but in my lifetime , its turned ugly were I live.
My point is that the 3100 are in effect denying any responsibility for change when its not totally clear what is causing the change:pretty foolish I would have thought. I would have thought that if its even only a 10% probability, we should be bloody worried and change our behaviour just in case. Just like smoking.
You cant just say Humans have no input to climate change when you dont have all the knowledge required to make that ascertion
At least with EVs, we are in a win win situation.
October 6th, 2008 at 5:47 am
Chris, the government has to fund these research fields because no industry is going to fund its own extinction. To have genuine research, it has to be independant. Do you want tobacco companies in charge of health? Sorry if you don’t like it, but thats the experience of the last 50 yrs. Besides, I don’t know too many scientists who are millionaires. Most are on scientist wages so do it for a job.
Climate change is real, not political. We don’t quite know all the mechanisms or how much effect we have, but its happening. That surely is enough to worry us.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:03 am
To the global warming wing nuts:
What Lutz actually said is that “… man-made global warming is a crock of s@#$.” which is correct, as it would be obvious to anyone but rabid left-wing environmental idiots. If any of those idiots, along with the delusional left-wing so called scientists, that continue to spread their nonsense, had half a brain they would be able to look at actual data and recognize it as a fact.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:18 am
I haven’t owned a TV for 25 years. No joke. Now after watching this video, I can see why people are so cynical. The major impressions left by this news article were:
• The batteries blow up and catch fire (even though GM’s batteries don’t).
• Ethanol doesn’t work (even though it works great in Brazil and American start-ups).
• Running on electricity from coal is worse than gas (even though it’s twice as good).
• Electric cars are all about global warming (even though terrorism and economic disaster are much closer at hand).
• Investing in an electric car is a crazy idea (even though we won’t have enough oil to power cars by 2020).
The amount of casual mis-information is stunning. I can see why TV is brainwashing America. Throw the #^%$^ thing out! Or better yet, throw away that cable TV bill and watch just DVDs instead. The internet is a much better source of news. My DSL service works great. How much is that cable TV bill now?
October 6th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Trying to get back on track with the article, was it just me or did it seem like she truly loathed Lutz? I don’t usually watch 60 minutes and don’t know her, but during the interview it just seemed like she was talking to the guy who called her kid ugly or something.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Here is exactly what the United States needs…
1) a 4-5 seat small commuter car with fold down rear seats that is 100% battery EV and gets at least 50 miles per charge. It’s function is a “go to work and come home” car.
2) a 5 seat sedan with fold down rear seats that has a decent cargo/trunk area. This car is a serial electric/gas hybrid. It’s function is to be a “go to work and come home” car that can also function as a long distance traveler due to the ICE.
In the 2 car suburban family of modern America car #1 is “Dad’s” car and car #2 is “Mom’s” car. Car #1 is pure commuter and Car #2 is commuter/grocery getter/soccer practice/trip to the beach.
For the big city folks car #1 may very well meet all their needs.
If GM could put these 2 cars on the showroom floor for a base price final out the door of $30k - $35k you could literally sit back and watch the world change before your eyes.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:34 am
How about we just forget about global warming? How about we round up all the people that don’t want to make any changes and send them (by sail boat) to any of the mega third world cities around the world (take your pick). Have them breath the fresh air of pollution deep in their lungs and then ask if we should maybe work towards more clean technologies. Imagine these large cities filled with electric cars, buses, taxis, trucks, clean factories, etc.
Most of the people around the world will probably not be able to tell the difference between a few tenths of a degree increase in air temperature but the number of lungs around the world being damaged by the filth is not able to be calculated.
Each and every one of us can find a great reason to move towards renewable energy systems. Take your pick and let’s get going.
The next time someone tells me they don’t believe that humans are warming the globe I’m going to tell them, “Great! So are you telling me you have no good reason for us not to clean up our mess?” If someone can look me in the eye and say “no” then I would tell them that they are in the minority. So if Mr. Lutz wants to bring GM back to glory, Al Gore wants to save the polar bear, I would like to end the reason to have resource wars, my friend wants to keep the US economy stable and the lady down the street wants to clean up the pollution in the city so she can breath easier, does it really matter the motivation for the needed changes?
If we don’t do anything all the things listed above will just get worse. It’s surprising that fixing one major underlying problem can have so many benefits. Can someone please give me a good reason not to change? Are we all just arguing what is the bigger reason for change? I see a lot of mouths flapping but I rarely hear anyone say we should just continue to burn fossil fuels to our heart’s content and not change.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Belloc Says: @11
Who cares if Bob Lutz thinks man made global warming is BS? It is completely irrelevant to him making a great car. Does it hurt your feelings? Quit being a baby people. Keep your eye focused on the prize!
*************************************************************************************
I agree with you 100%. Too many complainers who don’t know what they are really complaining about.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:46 am
#4 voltman Says: “I wouldnt repeat it either. But it certainly is a crock of sh*t. The man made part is at least.”
————————————————————————————–
Global warming is like religion. Either you believe it or you don’t. Arguing about it just makes people angry.
So let’s stop talking about global warming. There are plenty of other reasons to drive electric:
1) Spending $700 billion every year on foreign oil is a huge drain on our economy. In addition, much our our tax dollar goes toward keeping the oil flowing:
http://www.setamericafree.org/saf_hiddencostofoil010507.pdf
2) Much of the foreign oil comes from countries whose people are hostile toward America (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, etc.)
3) The link between oil money and terrorism is undeniable. For example, Osama bin Laden’s money comes from oil.
4) If oil continues it’s monopoly on transportation, then the U.S. will lose it’s stature and influence in the world. The dollar will weaken. Everything will get more expensive. Europe and China will become more influential. Sound familiar?
So how about we stop debating Bob Lutz’s environmental and political views, and start talking about the Volt and other electric cars again? Please?
October 6th, 2008 at 7:50 am
They put more focus on that global warming statement than they did on the car.
They also said that there wasn’t a working prototype, which is incorrect. There might not be a full up Volt prototype, but the battery, motor and control technology is in prototype, and testing.
They drove around in a $100,000 sports electric and said Vroom Vroom and never showed anything close to an accurate picture of the state of electric cars.
They could have been talking about flying cars in the same tone. So we had a bunch of old people telling us about future cars instead of investigative reporters telling us about what is in production.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:54 am
This guy is a crock of shi#. GM is burning through $1 billion a month and borrowing from us the tax payers while this joker has 2 helicopters and 2 planes???? What a joke, how about taking a pay cut buddy and save 1/2 billion per month (you know what I mean). Where’s the accountability?
October 6th, 2008 at 8:04 am
I thought the video was good and very interesting. Anyone who has not actually watched it should do so. The Silicon Valley vs Detroit motif was a little bit artificial, but there is enough truth to it to give the program a flow, and the comments of all the individuals were fun to hear.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I can’t stand listening to leslie. This wasn’t a plus for the volt. Lutz should have said no to 60 minutes.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:49 am
45 Texas
“The next time someone tells me they don’t believe that humans are warming the globe I’m going to tell them, “Great! So are you telling me you have no good reason for us not to clean up our mess?”
I don’t believe humans are warming the globe in a significant way.
The problem is, Man made global warming is far from a fact at this point. Fools like Al Gore keep telling us we are 2 years from some type of unstable tipping point and there is going to be a major catastrophe if we don’t act now. This is Chicken Little on steroids.
Some of the facts are that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas. By far. Only 387/1,000,000 of the atmosphere is C02.
Water vapor (hard to control) is gives 95% of the greenhouse effect.
If the atmosphere were totally C02, the greenhouse effect would go down because of the lack of water vapor.
The impact of C02 is logarithmic. The major impact comes from the first 50 ppm or so. Going from 300 to 350 ppm makes very little difference.
If the feedback mechanism were true, ie: More C02 > Higher Temp >> More water vapor >> Higher Temp >> More C02, then the system really would be unstable and we would already have the runaway global warming that could not be stopped.
More C02 is exchanged with the Earth each year through natural processes than the man made component of C02.
Man made C02 has decreased over the last few years but total C02 in the atmosphere has gone up.
CO2 is not pollution. We breath it out constantly and plants love it.
Al Gore and Hansen from Nasa keep claiming the Arctic ice sheet will be gone in a few years. They cite a paper that was highly discredited but they cite it anyway. CNN claimed this last week. Data have been available since August that show Arctic ice gains in 2008 were very large. All predictions and models were wrong.
http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees+Massive+Gain+in+Ice+Coverage/article12851.htm
Antarctica is in a long term cooling trend. Can’t explain this too well with global warming models, let’s ignore this anomaly for now.
There are models that indicate that cosmic radiation and its impact on cloud formation (ie: the water vapor issue) is the issue. A paper I read in 2007 showed the link with Sun Spot activity and its impact on this issue. Sun spots are way down, we should see some cooling. So far this model is proving reliable.
You heard it here first. Global temps will fall for the second year in a row this year based on the above models.
The list of issues can go on.
The problem is, if we sink our resources and energy into fighting C02 (a harmless gas that we breath out and that plants love) we most likely are just wasting money. Kind of like trying to fight a rising tide or stopping the Mississippi river with mud dam. A fools errand.
The world does not have the resources to fight a boogeyman like C02. It is also interesting to note that the people who signed on to Kyoto saw and increase in C02 production over the last 5 or 6 years and the US saw a decrease. Kyoto, the global warming nuts dream has resulted in no real decrease in C02. The only beneficiaries are China and India. There has been a huge transfer of wealth from Europe to China.
If global warming were the only issue, then many would not support the Volt. All this hoopla of batteries, extra cost, extra weight, less room in the car, etc, etc, to save 1 gallon of gas per trip. Definitely not worth it.
Fortunately, there are other reasons to support the Volt. Cleaner air, energy independence, reduction in need for war, and generally less money to oil dictators’ are obvious benefits.
Another benefit I see from the global warming hysteria is the renewed interest in nuclear power. Irrational anti-nukes tend to correlate well as a group with irrational global warming nuts. Nuclear is the lesser of two evils for many in this group and this issue may finally break the stalemate and allow nuclear plants to be built.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:58 am
#26 DonC
For GM it’s really a huge advantage to be able to make higher return on the first generation. You make more, or lose less, and you’re well positioned for the second generation. I actually think this is a better idea than John McCain’s battery prize
_____________________________________________________
So are you agreeing the credit is going straight to profits? And you like the idea!!! That’s a new paradigm on gov’t involvement in industry. Reallocating profits within the private industry.
Wasn’t GM promising production level numbers before the credit? Didn’t Tesla start producing cars before the credit. Is there a any evidence suggesting these credits will actually INCREASE the PRODUCTION level of the cars worthy of the 700 million dollar investment.
My economics comment was on your previous posts.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:07 am
#4
voltman Says:
I took your global warning test, got 8 out of 10. But the test doesn’t support you assertion that global warming is not man made.
Remember that no one knows how gravity works, or even if it is real. It is just a theory. But I’m not going to jump of the bridge to prove it to you.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:08 am
On the $7500 rebate. Experience has shown that when states sponsor colleges with things like education grants, etc., the price of college goes up. Clearly, GM will charge a higher price for the volt with the Govt. $7500 on the table than if there were no $7500 on the table.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:18 am
#14 Red HHR
“If you have a box full of carbon dioxide with a light bulb on one side and a thermometer on the other, would the thermometer read any different than if the box was full of air?”
Carbon dioxide’s specific heat capacity is lower than air’s specific heat capacity. That means a box full of carbon dioxide would heat up faster than a box full of air. The more carbon dioxide you add to air, the more the air will behave like carbon dioxide.
Flying Spaghetti Monster help us. Many people sound so sure of themselves. Their faith in the crock is as strong as their faith in W, circa 2000. You know what is a crock? This notion of infinite resources and total freedom. You people still buy that? You so crazy. Fiddle sales must be going through the roof.
I’ve had my say. Thanks for lettting me vent. Go ahead, flame away. I’m not listening. I’m waiting for Lyle’s next post so we can get back to something we can discuss thoughtfully. Go Volt!
October 6th, 2008 at 9:24 am
It’s funny… I consider myself an environmentalist of some sort, but I really don’t care much whether global warming is man made or not. I’m more concerned about creating American energy made in America that doesn’t rely on one non-renewable energy source: crude oil. We don’t want to rely on Saudi, Venezuela, and Nigeria as our energy source. We need alternative sources (wind, solar, nuclear, etc…) to reduce our addiction to oil! Stay focused guys!
October 6th, 2008 at 9:58 am
The 60 minutes show wasn’t the most flattering, but there’s no such thing as bad news.
I wish they would have designed the battery packs to be swapable/removeable. That way i could have one pack charging at home while i was using the other while driving around. I’d i get 80 miles without gas, and my battery life would double. A battery pack would probably cost $10K, at current prices, but if it came down, i’d probably buy one for $5K.
Or how about allowing the consumer to buy the size battery they want. If it was all modular, you could go with what you could afford or whatever you wanted. I could buy 16KWh of battery life, and just put in what i needed and leave the others in the chagers.
With swapable batteries, it would also be possible to stop at some sort of gas station and give your depleted battery and some money for a fully charged one. The equivalent of filling your gas tank.
Sorry, random thoughts.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Lutz is nuts.
In Colbert Report he actually said 65,000 scientists don’t think global warming is man made. Really, that many climate scietists are even around ?
Considering that no peer reviewed research paper says global warming is not man-made it is quite easy to figure out who is a crock of sh*.
It is kind of funny some people have doubts about the science of exactly two subjects - climate change and evolution. Exactly two subjects that happen to be politically used by a certain political party … I wonder why …
October 6th, 2008 at 10:21 am
33 omegaman66: But now Global Warming, changed to climate change, (Hmmm… think about that) is big business and science is taking a back seat to poor science.
I totally agree. Since big business has finished making its money on the ozone layer panic (e.g. for only $1000, convert your car from old dangerous CFCs and buy the newer safer product!), now they can sell based on the global warming–or climate change–boogeyman.
The finite crude oil supply and pollution levels are a real measurable issue. Let’s focus on those problems.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:24 am
#53 Cautious Fan
(directed to DonC, but I want to stab at it) Wasn’t GM promising production level numbers before the credit? Didn’t Tesla start producing cars before the credit. Is there a any evidence suggesting these credits will actually INCREASE the PRODUCTION level of the cars worthy of the 700 million dollar investment.
————————————————
Promising does not equal reality. How is GM’s track record on promises with the Volt so far?
This rebate puts fire under GM. The old rebate was worded ‘per manufacturer,’ now it is a industry wide competition.
Basically, it is ‘on like Donkey Kong’
October 6th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I was pretty pleased with Mr. Lutz’s performance. At the end, I felt like he did as well as I could have hoped for. I sure wish he had shaved better however. What was he thinking?
I had to give him credit for his throw away line at the end, “I stake my reputation on it, such as it is”. He actually threw in a few other little tidbits of humility along the way as well. It could have been worse.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I was pretty pleased with Mr. Lutz’s performance. At the end, I felt like he did as well as I could have hoped for. I sure wish he had shaved better however. What was he thinking?
I had to give him credit for his throw away line at the end, “I stake my reputation on it, such as it is”. He actually threw in a few other little tidbits of humility along the way as well. It could have been worse.
————————————
It is one thing to be a d***hebag, and another thing to know you are one and embrace it. That being said, it doesn’t mean Lutz is not a amicable guy or someone you’d like to hang out with.
A little self deprecating humoUr goes along way.
.
.
.
.
Which also gives me a excuse to post a random internet video about the subject: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1832251
October 6th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Statik,
“JonP, I know you got it on speed dial, maybe you’d like to hook us up again.”
Funny..
But I’m still at 37.5K for the Volt before tax credit. Nothing in that video made me change my mind.
My thoughts are the Volt is probably right around 40K production cost right now, there willing to take a 3-5K hit for the 1st 3 years to get production ramped up. If you think about it, all they really have to cover is labor/parts. I seriously doubt there trying to build in money to each volt to cover R&D cost. Not to mention the whole (2nd battery) money built in to the price. When there on the 3-4th gen of the Volt i would expect to see that come off, or way down based on real world data.
I’m expecting Volt’s in the dealership able to bought buy us in Nov 2010 with a msrp of 38K. Dealer markup will probably put it at 40K.
We will probably be able to buy it at an MSRP of 38K, or maybe at invoice which will be 37.5K buy late 2011.
I am fully convinced GM realizes how important the Volt, the Cruze, and the Malibu are to their immediate future, so I’m expecting aggressive pricing just like they do with the Malibu.
Another thing is the Volt’s success has more to do with the company’s perceived viability than the company’s profitability. If this car explodes and they have to take a 5K loss on each one for the 1st 200K units, they lose a million dollars. But it will be alot easier for them to get financing, and alot better for their stock value. So lose a million dollars to be able to borrow an additional 3-4 Billion at lower rates.
Your thoughts?
October 6th, 2008 at 10:51 am
#59. There is a list of scientist doubting global warming is man made. In fact, there are several lists. One is maintained by Arthur B. Robinson, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
From May 2008.
Robinson spoke about his petition signed by 31,000 U.S. scientists who reject the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.”
The signers of Robinson’s petition, including 9,000 Ph.Ds, all have one thing in common. They believe that human rights are being taken away.
By the way, there are plenty of peer reviewed papers that go out that pin global warming on other things (Not C02).
It is the “Global Warming is Manmade” crowd who are narrow minded. Anything that casts doubt on their orthodoxy is pigheaded , ignorant, or funded by big oil. If you don’t believe in MMGW, you should have your meterologist license removed and you should not get funding for your research. There is no room for doubt.
October 6th, 2008 at 11:04 am
#56 ThombDbhomb
Cool, that is the best answer I have had. I usually get something about a plate of glass in the sky. Something I assume comes from Al Gores movie. Of course I have also been told that we were going to run out of gas 20 years ago… Anyway I want a Volt. Think that they are cool. Besides we buy too much oil from overseas.
Red HHR ( Just hit 50,000 miles and going strong )
October 6th, 2008 at 11:11 am
#53 Cautious Fan - “Is there a any evidence suggesting these credits will actually INCREASE the PRODUCTION level of the cars worthy of the 700 million dollar investment.”
#61 Statik - “Basically, it is ‘on like Donkey Kong’”
You gotta love Statik. He basically has gotten to the heart of the matter in a far more colorful and succinct way than I could. Thanks Statik! (Just as a note, I think this incentive is closer to $2B. You said 700 million but it would be $7500 X 250,000.)
Of course we cannot have any evidence today that what happened Friday will effect production increases in two years. We’ll have to wait for that evidence. But I’d be shocked if we don’t see it. This credit virtually guarantees that GM will NOT be producing 10K Volts during the first year. It also virtually guarantees that Th!nk and similar car companies will come out with cars earlier than they would have otherwise.
Take Th!nk. They’ve said they have a $17K car and a $15K battery at modest levels. Take $7.5K off the battery price, and then another say $3K for volume, and they now have a $22.5K electric car. Or take mini which is looking at an electric version. Same type calculation with higher numbers.
However these numbers only work for the first 250,000 cars. That’s OK because as you move up the learning curve your costs drop fairly dramatically. So you need at least 100K of those cars to be yours, and the only way to insure this is to start producing them. The earlier you start producing the more of your costs you can recover and the faster you move up the curve. But you have to move fast or your competitors will get there first and you’ll have to absorb those costs yourself.
Yeah, Statik has is down perfectly: it is ‘on like Donkey Kong. They’ll all be racing to get those cars on line.
OT: Yes I do have an economics background.
October 6th, 2008 at 11:15 am
#66.
Keep in mind that Specific heat is not the issue. It is thermal radiation properties of the gas at specific frequencies. Specific heat is irrelavent.
Also, we are at 380 ppm. That is 1 part C02 for every 2332 parts gas. Changing this from 280 to 380 to 480 is not a factor in the gases heat capacity and thermal heat up for a given amount of energy.
It is the glass plate analogy that makes more sense just like a greenhouse. Light (thermal energy) coming from a thermal source at 6500K (the sun) passes through but thermal energy coming from a source at normal temperatures like 300K ( a different wave length) does not.. And remember, the big glass plate in the sky is made of water vapor, not CO2. Without the greenhouse effect, we would all freeze to death.
October 6th, 2008 at 11:35 am
#64 JonP
Another thing is the Volt’s success has more to do with the company’s perceived viability than the company’s profitability. If this car explodes and they have to take a 5K loss on each one for the 1st 200K units, they lose a million dollars. But it will be alot easier for them to get financing, and alot better for their stock value. So lose a million dollars to be able to borrow an additional 3-4 Billion at lower rates.
Your thoughts?
—————————————–
Hehe, you do what I do from time to time.
Million = Billion I assume
“Another thing is the Volt’s success has more to do with the company’s perceived viability than the company’s profitability.”
—I agree with this statement. Volt is only part of the company’s profitability picture in a post Chapter 11 scenario.
“But it will be alot easier for them to get financing, and alot better for their stock value. So lose a million dollars to be able to borrow an additional 3-4 Billion at lower rates.”
—You lost me here, you might have to expound a bit. Who is them? GM, or the comsumer? As for stock value, well, I don’t think I need to comment on my position on it, hehe. As for GM ‘borrowing’ anything now…they can’t. Whatever they have left is what they have.
Just watch what is going to happen to Ford next month, that will be a sign of the times…they have a billion and change coming due that they would normally just refi, but no one is going to even give them coffee money so they are going to just have to flat out pay it off with their cash reserves. This process is going to be seen repeatly in the industry from now on…and will be the catalyst of the ‘thinning of the herd’
October 6th, 2008 at 11:37 am
#67 Don C.
& Statik
Agree totally.
It’s on like Donkey Kong……. (LMFAO)
Another thing about the credit bill i like which someone mentioned on that forum, it gives the automakers incentive to put bigger batteries into vehicles, or bigger batteries into bigger vehicles. Since they set up the credit to be by Kw after what 4 i think.
October 6th, 2008 at 11:46 am
# 61 Static #76 DonC
I agree that GM is more motivated now. But I think you’d agree they were strongly motivated before. They need the Volt as badly as consumers do. Is this extra “little” piece of motivation worth 700 million? Will we actually get something for it? Since it can’t really be shown that we will, isn’t that called a bad investment? Both of you guys know economics. What are the costs to society of public feeding trough?
Boss:
“Johnson, what’s your plan for my money”
Johnson
“Sir. I’ve got a 700 million dollar investment. I can’t show if it will work. Most of it will actually evaporate in costs but we may make some money.”
Boss;
“So the downside is I loose 100%. The upside is unsure…..Johnson, you should work for the gov’t where you don’t have to make a business case”
October 6th, 2008 at 11:59 am
#67 DonC
#61 Statik - “Basically, it is ‘on like Donkey Kong’”
You gotta love Statik. He basically has gotten to the heart of the matter in a far more colorful and succinct way than I could. Thanks Statik!
Take Th!nk. They’ve said they have a $17K car and a $15K battery at modest levels. Take $7.5K off the battery price, and then another say $3K for volume, and they now have a $22.5K electric car. Or take mini which is looking at an electric version. Same type calculation with higher numbers.
Yeah, Statik has is down perfectly: it is ‘on like Donkey Kong. They’ll all be racing to get those cars on line.
OT: Yes I do have an economics background
==========================================
I thought you’d enjoy my highly technical conclusion.
I’d also like to mention you seem to be taking alot of flack recently for perhaps not being so swift with the financial knowledge. I’d like to say that although we do not always agree, I find you to be one of the most well versed in the US financial system and the realties facing the economy and the Volt itself. I didn’t see alot of people chiming into our discussion on CDS when they were thinking about bailouts, hehe.
I was thinking about Th!nk on my shortlist myself, but the fact they seem pretty distracted in Norway made me figure we won’t see any significant presence from them soon.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
#71 Cautious Fan - “But I think you’d agree they were strongly motivated before.”
Actually I think GM was between a rock and a hard place. They do need E-FLEX to succeed and expand, and they did need to sell more than a few Volts. However, the problem GM had, and it was mentioned, was that they were going to lose thousands of dollars on each one they sold. When you’re struggling financially this is not something you can afford to do. What to do? Their solution was to limit the number of cars in the first production year to 10K and to price the car higher than desired.
By giving them an instant 20% margin the $7.5K credit changes the calculus. For example, with the credit GM can price the car at $42K and have the effective price be $34.5K. At that price GM may make a bit of money, or lose very little, and position themselves for the expansion of E-FLEX.
(PS: I’m still laughing about Statik’s donkey kong comment. It was priceless.)
October 6th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
We (okay, “I”) Interrupt this thread for some good news (well, I think so, at least):
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2008/10/thorium-energy-independence-and.html
“WASHINGTON – Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today introduced legislation that would pave the way for thorium nuclear-fuel reactors in the United States.
The Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008 would establish offices at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy to regulate domestic thorium nuclear power generation and oversee possible demonstrations of thorium nuclear fuel assemblies.”
October 6th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Another note I think is interesting:
This rebate is about kWh and electrification of automobiles, NOT lithium batteries.
So the real wild card here is, what is stopping anyone from dropping in conventional batteries?
Who cares Lithium is better? Who cares that it is more dense, lasts 10 years versus 3 or 4. Look at the advantage the other way around. Conventional batteries are a fifth the cost, have unlimited availability and they can be on the road almost immediately, with $7,500 off.
Just reverse engineer the ‘rebate’ car to accept lithium packs ahead of time and there is zero trouble swapping them out if the customer wants.
Example:
Lithium Volt: $40K+ (which allows costing for 2 lithium packs) -$7,500 = $35-39,000 to the customer probably bottom line.
Standard pack Volt: $28,000 (allowing costing for 3 standard packs…has to hit some states 10 year warranties) - $7,500 = $20,500 and endless supplies on the road with the option to swap out later
Seems like a ‘no-brainer,’ but maybe I am missing something, this was just a off the cuff, napkin back thought again. Anyone care to speculate? Viable?
October 6th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
#72 Statik - “I’d also like to mention you seem to be taking alot of flack recently for perhaps not being so swift with the financial knowledge. I’d like to say that although we do not always agree, I find you to be one of the most well versed in the US financial system and the realties facing the economy and the Volt itself.”
Thanks for the kind words. Actually I never had thought of it this way. It may be that when PhD’s from the University of Chicago think you’re not a lunatic, and in fact will collaborate with you, you’re not likely to be fazed by the fact that people on an Internet board think you’re an idiot when it comes to economics. Whatever! LOL
Everyone it entitled to their opinion and to some extent I don’t expect them to comprehend the financial meltdown. It’s something quite outside their experience.
If they criticized my driving skills that would be different …. !
October 6th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
One of the main points of the (in my opinion not very favorable) CBS story was the idea that all of theses EREVs, plug ins and BEVs would “be powered by coal,” coming at this from the Global Warming angle.
The announcment of a bipartisan-sponsored bill (not passed yet, alas) to develop Thorium power is decades overdue and great news: The only place with more known Thorium reserves is Australia, so it makes sense from a strategic standpoint to develop it.
…and, as I’ve said here before, if you are a believer in Global Warming, you are a fan of Nuclear energy; even if you aren’t aware of that, yet.
We now return to your thread, already in progress
October 6th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
#77 Jackson - “…and, as I’ve said here before, if you are a believer in Global Warming, you are a fan of Nuclear energy; even if you aren’t aware of that, yet.”
Most understand the connection between nuclear and CO2 emissions (or lack thereof). Isn’t the former head of Greenpeace a big proponent? But from a practical perspective it would seem that nuclear is not going to happen. It’s just too expensive, requiring both incentives AND loan guarantees (whereas other forms only require incentives), and it needs more water than is available. Then of course there are the pesky safety, terrorism, and disposal issues.
I’m thinking that the solar tax credits in the bailout bill are the nail in the coffin. In ten years solar will have gone crazy and is going to be more cost effective than nuclear (assuming anyone has idea of what the costs are — French accounting doesn’t count). Plus it will have more political clout. That will be the end of the push for nuclear although we may have a few nuclear plants where it makes sense.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I’ve just been reading Thomas L. Friedman’s “Hot, Flat and Crowded”, an interesting take on all of the above.
#45 Texas:
Well said. Good work. Congratulations. Thank you.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
#77 Jackson
We now return to your thread, already in progress
============================
Momentary ‘re-hijack’
GM tumbles to 54-year low as overall market drops.
Shares of General Motors hit lowest price in more than half century as overall market plunges
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/gm_dow_mover.html?.v=1
October 6th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
under 40k?!! Really?
I was hoping for under 30k then the Gov’t rebates tide to it would put it around the cost of the prius ~23k
I was counting on the Volt to be an practical everyday car for everybody, not a luxary sedan. The people that are counting on this car to save them from gas prices can’t drop 30k-40k for this car
October 6th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
#75 statik said “So the real wild card here is, what is stopping anyone from dropping in conventional batteries? ” Then he goes on to say “Lithium Volt: $40K+ (which allows costing for 2 lithium packs) -$7,500 = $35-39,000 to the customer probably bottom line.
Standard pack Volt: $28,000 (allowing costing for 3 standard packs…has to hit some states 10 year warranties) - $7,500 = $20,500 and endless supplies on the road with the option to swap out later
Seems like a ‘no-brainer,’ but maybe I am missing something, this was just a off the cuff, napkin back thought again. Anyone care to speculate? Viable?”
================================================
What is left out is the issue of physical size and weight of the batteries. If “standard pack” is twice the size and twice the weight, then the battery moves up into the passenger compartment another foot or two, and the mileage goes down by some amount, and the Volt moves from OK to barely OK or not OK.
Size, weight, and battery capacity are critical variables as the first two trade off against the last. Everyone wants more of the last, but not more of the first. The pain of the trade-off is diminished by paying more to get a better battery, and the fact that people are willing to pay much more shows how difficult a tradeoff it is.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
#64 JonP says “My thoughts are the Volt is probably right around 40K production cost right now, there willing to take a 3-5K hit for the 1st 3 years to get production ramped up. If you think about it, all they really have to cover is labor/parts. I seriously doubt there trying to build in money to each volt to cover R&D cost. Not to mention the whole (2nd battery) money built in to the price. When there on the 3-4th gen of the Volt i would expect to see that come off, or way down based on real world data. ”
========================================
It is tempting to think of the cost of a Volt as a fixed and easily defined number. It’s just not so.
An aspect of the Volt or any other car is that costs come in many different forms. There is the incremental cost of building an individual car, the cost of setting up a production line, the costs of warranty service, the cost of the building and land that holds the factory, research costs, marketing costs, and administrative costs (including the administration of Chevy and GM as a whole). All of these costs are covered by the sale of some kind of car or truck.
So the cost for bulding Volt number 10,000 is probably less than $20K (think of the cost of putting together a Cruze plus the cost of a battery).
But one would be foolish to think of incremental construction cost as the “real” cost, because all the other costs are real too. So the question is how much of the other costs the Volt program can carry. To some degree that is arbitrarily decided by management, to some degree by accounting rules, and to some degree by past history. But, presumably, when Lutz talks about the “cost” he is including a chunk of the real costs that are not specifically construction cost of that individual car.
Note that cost and volume are tightly related, because many of the costs are fixed, or fixed over a year’s time period. So the “cost” of one car depends in part on how many others are built within the same accounting time period.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Elon is a pinhead who set back Tesla a long way. Except for the funding.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
fcku the environmentalists. Global warming is a religious issue not a scientific one. That is to say its a con job with the end goal of bilking huge amounts of money out of the economic system.
Coal is cool. EnvironMENTAL cases scuk. Surprise Surprise governMENTAL case regulation scuks too.
Hey Elon ….cost 2X thus its at least 2X as hard. MONEY == WORK
October 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I saw most of the 60 minutes segment on the electric car and though Bob Lutz did just fine. He had to suppress the urge to talk too much about global warming and I can’t blame him.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
#68, nuclearboy
I have been called less than educated more than once. I just am confused by the catastrophic consequences to life as we know it by a thermal difference of a couple hundred PPM of carbon with a couple of oxygen atoms attached. Sure everything has a consequence, just is it worth worrying about?*(please do not answer)
I found it interesting when I figured out that for every pound of gas I put in my car, three pounds of carbon dioxide came out. It just floats away and makes the blanket that covers the earth just a little bit thicker,*(keeping us warmer?)
#61, Statik
What is Donkey Kong? Will the Volt come preloaded with that or what?
Red HHR (with comfy heated seats)
October 6th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
40 Mile REV VAN = Big smiles with $7,500 credit
I can’t wait to see their price.
Is Thorium better in some way than Uranium?
October 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Hey, Statik, I just told my local Honda salesman to put my name on the list for a new 2010 Honda Insight in April 2009. They are taking $300.00 deposits to get in line for first come, first serve Insights. I am going for a white one, I think. Looking for more specs on the Insight than Honda is putting out yet. Know of any?
October 6th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“Let me show you my carbon footprint, first I need you to turn around and second I need you to bend over”
carbon credits = crock of sh**
Did you all know that as humans we each exhale about 300 grams of CO2 per day, as the human population goes that’s 6 billion tons of CO2 each day.
Petrol consuming vehicles “exhale” 4-8 billion tons of CO2 each day depending on which inflated numbers you want to go with.
The earth’s wetlands/farmlands/shorelines emit 100-120 billion tons of CO2 each day!
I say we kill off half the world’s population through nuclear eradication, we’ll reduce CO2 emissions by 3 billion tons each day and the nuclear winter will help solve global warming.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Jim 75 (#88):
Follow the link and poke around at thoriumpower.com, or wikipedia has (had?) some good articles.
In brief:
* Thorium is much more plentiful than Uranium, and the US has plenty
* A reactor using a Thorium fuel cycle can’t make weapons-grade nuclear material (in fact, in can consume such material)
* A Thorium fuel assembly lasts longer than Uranium, so there’s less waste
It’s inherently safer, since Thorium can’t produce enough neutrons to have a “runaway” reaction (this also means that, in theory, a “sub-critical” reactor is possible — which [oversimplification alert] would be much smaller).
The details of the proposed fuel cycle are actually quite complex (and it’s been awhile since I read about it), but one of the consequences is that existing nuclear waste which can remain hazardous for tens or hundreds of thousands of years can be ‘consumed’ to make much less waste, which doesn’t last nearly as long (together with more energy) .
Who knows? Research into new reactor fuel cycles could conceivably develop a system which can be cooled with seawater, or air; or be otherwise less subject to the weaknesses that hamper existing reactors. We won’t know until a research program has been running for awhile.
Yes, it will be expensive to develop, but we’re looking at clean energy for a couple of centuries on known US reserves alone; at least once there are enough reactors. Yes, it will take a long time to develop, too. Better to get started now …
October 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Statik,
When i said “them” i meant GM. Also i was assuming their particular position as far as financing. Not including the overall credit crisis the country as a whole is facing. I just think that the Volt’s success will make it easier for them to get credit.
Yeah i meant billion, duh
————————————————————————————
RB
I understand your point, but i just think for purposes of “guessing” a price for the Volt it’s hard to incorporate a factory/land they have had for decades, or administrative cost. R&D same thing because like you said it’s a floating number, and as the Volt evolves over the generations it increases & decreases. Assuming the 1st Gen will not have to absorb all of the original eflex R&D cost. Warranty we could factor using current pricing, but thats not as easy as it sounds.
What do you think it’s dealer invoice price is going to be?
October 6th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I watched this last night and was very impressed by 60 minutes coverage. The solar panel on the other car was nice. It looks as though this may have been filmed a little while ago because of all of the pre-production volts.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
The Karma is sweet! I think I will wait till I am rich and just buy that one.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
#89 N Riley
Hey, Statik, I just told my local Honda salesman to put my name on the list for a new 2010 Honda Insight in April 2009. They are taking $300.00 deposits to get in line for first come, first serve Insights. I am going for a white one, I think. Looking for more specs on the Insight than Honda is putting out yet. Know of any?
—————————————-
That is the same story my guy was telling me over the weekend. All he knows for sure apparently is that each dealership is getting allocation numbers based on historic dealership volumes, with a intial trickle volume all around as ’show ponies’
So I am first on the list there…and he is a top 10 nationwide dealer, so huzzah for me! Although there is only 3 people total on the list…so not as exciting really, hehe.
The only other thing I know for sure…it doesn’t come in white. (Heeh, I kidd).
October 6th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
The REAL trick for the Volt is to get the price down to $25,000.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
#82 RB (in response to me #75, talking about a wild card non lithium battery car)
What is left out is the issue of physical size and weight of the batteries. If “standard pack” is twice the size and twice the weight, then the battery moves up into the passenger compartment another foot or two, and the mileage goes down by some amount, and the Volt moves from OK to barely OK or not OK.
Size, weight, and battery capacity are critical variables as the first two trade off against the last. Everyone wants more of the last, but not more of the first. The pain of the trade-off is diminished by paying more to get a better battery, and the fact that people are willing to pay much more shows how difficult a tradeoff it is.
———————————————
I agree with you on all parts. Alot more pack size would interfer with the car’s interior/trunk/performance. I agree people are willing to pay more, that they want the lithium packs. I’m with you 100%.
…however (you knew it was coming)
Are people not willing to put up with those inconveniences if the trade off is they get a car in 3-4 years sooner, and for $15,000 less? (Also with the knowledge they can swap out their packs down the road if they want).
I’m not talking about everyone doing this of course…or the general population. I’m just talking the ‘early adopter’ crowd. I’m just talking about the first 250,000.
For myself personally, I would have no trouble making this decision, I wouldn’t hold off on a purchase for 3-4 years when I could have it today with a lead acid pack and swap it out later.
To be fair, I’m not saying it is viable solution or even that is what will remotely happen, I have not sat down and thought it through at all really, I’m just ’spit-balling’ it. A ‘what if’…if you will.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
#83 RB - “An aspect of the Volt or any other car is that costs come in many different forms.”
This is a most important point and one frequently lost in the discussions. Volume is key on two fronts. First it gives a larger number of cars over which to distribute the development costs. Second it allows GM to get better prices from its suppliers - ordering 100K of battery packs or consoles will fetch a better price than ordering 10K because the suppliers likewise have to recover their development costs.
The tax credits will make increased volumes possible because GM now has an additional $7500 to work with on each car.
The other point which is frequently lost is that “cost” should be average long term costs, not incremental costs, and that costs should include a profit. Unless these situations occur, companies don’t stay in business.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I bet keeping it under $40,000 is AFTER the $7,500 rebate! OUCH. I think I’ll wait for the Tesla and I bet it will have some style and not look like 90% of the other cars on the road.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Statik, my local dealership is a pretty high volume dealership, also. I feel pretty confident that I will get one in April. I think I will be about number 3 or 4 on the list. White is the way to go.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
#97 Statik
I agree there would be many takers for a vehicle with a “standard” type of battery pack even knowing that in 3, 4, 5 or more years later they would have to replace the pack. If the vehicle was designed to be able to take a “modern” battery pack when the swap out time came, it would be a even better deal. Saving $15,000 or more up front with the savings on fuel over the span would be very enticing. All electric range would not have to be even close to 40 mpc to make it attractive.
Over 95% of my driving is short distance driving of less than 20 miles round trip back and forth to work. Only three or four times per year I go out of town of about 120 miles round trip. Maybe some years 5 or 6 times.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
#91 Jackson
“Yes, it will be expensive to develop, but we’re looking at clean energy for a couple of centuries on known US reserves alone; at least once there are enough reactors. Yes, it will take a long time to develop, too. Better to get started now …”
————————————————————-
Well, at least you are not in the “its going to take x-number of years, so let’s not do anything” crowd. I agree that it will take many years to develop and put into production. That is enough reason to get started now. We also need to drill now and drill everywhere until we can develop other “alternative” fuels. We can’t just stop and do nothing. Every year we delay is another year lost.
Thanks for the information about Thorium.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
N Riley, haven’t you got the picture yet. Thorium reactors are just vapourware. The volt is now within reach, alternatives are now in reach too. I agree do it.
October 6th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I only read up to #50 or so but noticed you all don’t get it about the warming.
Every time we burn up some coal or oil we turn it into gas. Some goes back into the plants, some gets lost into space. As we are making the planet lighter we are slowly getting sucked into the sun.
Hence, Global Warming!
If GM offers zero percent financing I will gladly pay a bit more.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
89 N Riley
Was the deposit you put down with Honda, refundable?
I am “unofficially” on the waiting list for an Insight, but maybe I need to make it official. Just not sure yet that the Insight is going to spec out to what I want.
Any more on the Insight specs?
I apologize for hijacking the Volt thread to discuss evil competitors, but I still like to read about the Volt, just will not have deep enough pockets to ante up for one.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Voltman says : “I wouldnt repeat it either. But it certainly is a crock of sh*t. The man made part is at least.”
Global warming test - http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
_____________________________________________________
I’d put you in the same idiotic class as I would your twin brother Lutz…..
are you saying that pumping billions upon billions of ballels of oil out of the ground as well as billions of tons of coal and burning it up into the atmosphere is not harming the Earth?
Are ya that “STUPID”?
You “TYPES” have to be on fire to realize that the house is burning down!
Idiot!
October 6th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
#92 JonP said
“What do you think it’s dealer invoice price is going to be?”
================================================
Maybe the MSRP on the base model will be $38,900. That way with the option packages the MSRP on real cars will be low to mid 40s, and then with the rebate will be back around $37K.
I think GM would like to know the demand at about that price. They would rather not have a price so low that it generates a lot of price-based demand while volume still is low, and they don’t want a price so high that there are no sales after the initial bulge.
I think GM has been telegraphing us with comments like those in the current video about trying hard to keep the price under $40K. To me that suggests that the base model will be priced there, and they can declare victory.
Of course, I’m just guessing on the MSRP. Whatever it is, the dealer invoice will be the same less about 16%. If there is demand at the MSRP, as we all expect, that will make it a better than average car for dealers if they can get Volts to sell.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
#89 N Riley
Hey, Statik…Looking for more specs on the Insight than Honda is putting out yet. Know of any?
#105 JEC
Any more on the Insight specs?
——————————————————-
Hot and fresh off the press in just the last couple hours:
Honda has given the Insight it’s own site:
http://world.honda.com/Hybrid/
There isn’t a whole heck of alot there yet, some basics on the hybrid drive and some new pictures…but at least there is something.