There has been some public debate about the appearance of the production Chevy Volt’s front grille. It is unique in that it isn’t a series of bars across an opening, but rather a closed but very firm and strong panel with openings around the sides. The panel has etchings that simulate a true grille. The graphic above is a close-up view of that surface.
I had the chance to discuss this important desaign detail with Bob Boniface, who is the Volts’ chief designer.
Are you considering offering different colorations of the front grille?
No. We looked at this in different colors. We looked at in in dark tones and raw metal like this and frankly we like the sealed up look better. We thought it was more modern.
How about black alternating with the silver?
No we didn’t look at it in alternating or striped. When you look at the “down the road” graphic or the long distance view of the car, when they go black it looks a little more conventional. And to me and all of us in design, when we see this “coming out first” surface, it signifies you’ve got something different here. People are used to seeing the grille as though it is the mouth, that’s how it reads. Seeing this sealed up and all of a sudden it takes on a different character and people say “what is going on up there.” It doesn’t aspirate like a regular car.
Nov 3rd, 2008 (7:28 am)I have to admit … I do like that head on view.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (7:35 am)Is it really metal or plastic?
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (7:42 am)I agree with psklenar #1.
It is sharp looking. I think the lights help.
The grill doesn’t matter that much to me.
I just want to see the Volt priced for the masses as soon as possible.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (7:52 am)I still think it would look better not with different colored louvers, but with smooth louvers, sans the “chicken wire” etching. Again, Ford had a few cars like some of the 90’s Tauruses and the Escort and IMHO it looked modern and clean.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (7:59 am)Form follows function. I didn’t like it at first but the grille has grown on me. I just want to see the Volt on the road, grille or no grille. I am shopping for a wind generator to put on the top of my house, by 2011 photovoltaics may be cheap enough to be an option as well.
Then I will visit the gas station maybe once every two months, for a whopping 5 or 6 gallons…
I cannot wait!
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (8:11 am)/somwhere, Nasaman’s ears are burning.
I still wonder why we need such a big grille at all?
As is, it lets in such a small amount of airflow, that I think Chevy had the opportunity to do away with the whole conventional grille thing and do something unique.
I find nothing wrong with it at all, as it stands now…I just prefer styling cues that say, ‘I’m different, I’m special’
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (8:35 am)I wonder if someone will add a fake turbo air intake on the hood.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (8:37 am)It looks nice to me and I cannot wait to get one of the first Volts so I can parade it. (Like the guy with the hummer in “Who killed the electric car”). I just want to parade it in a much more environmentally friendly way…..40 miles at a time.
Take Care,
TED
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (8:40 am)The grill on that color car is fine, but that color on a black car will look out of place. Makes me wonders if the designers really thought this through enough. Design and concept are fine, but reality on the road makes the deal. I will buy the Volt regardless, but there are people that care more about form than function. Sales could be lost.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (8:40 am)Ditto Ziv @ 5–let production roll.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (8:52 am)Sorry for the hijack-The Air Car
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/106040/Air-Cars:-A-New-Wind-for-America’s-Roads
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (8:53 am)I like the front it reminds me of a cross between a Cadillac CTS and a Saab 9-3
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2008/def/2008-D3-Cadillac-CTS-OC-Angels-Front-1920×1440.jpg
http://www.thetorquereport.com/22008saab93sportcombi.html
I’m sure there will be a lot of after-market parts if people want to go crazy with customization. I typicaly like the factory stock look on cars.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (8:58 am)I keep seeing photos of the front of the Volt with little red lights, even some white lights that look very blue. Both of these colors are illegal in Michigan. I’m not sure of other states. Obviously GM is aware of these laws, but curious why they would put red lights on the front knowing many people will not have them on their Volts.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (8:59 am)#11 Spins
Gave us a link to an Air Car.
—————-
I have to wonder how companies expect to sell these things when they make them look so stupid.
Is that design extremely aerodynamic? If not, what is the point? The Volt is going to look so nice next to this Air car. But the 106MPG does sound promising.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (9:08 am)5 ziv; 6 statik…..
———————————————————————————————————————————
I agree, ziv, that form should follow function and that the grille has grown on me somewhat. I also agree, statik, that the Volt’s styling cues should say, ‘I’m different, I’m special’ —but more emphatically than the current design, which too closely conforms to Chevy’s plain-vanilla standard dual grill. Remember the hugely-successful 1982 > Camaro Z-28’s and Transam Firebird’s? Neither had a conventional upper grill —only below-the-bumper openings —and both strongly said, “I’m different, I’m special”! And their sales figures reflected it!
Bob Lutz could (and should, IMO) direct Bob Boniface et al to design a Super Sport version of the Volt with trim changes that make it TRULY DISTINCTIVE……
…..for example, WITHOUT the conventional-looking grill, but instead a wide, narrow horizontal-slot grill that admits some air, perhaps with LEDs somewhat like the original Transam’s (or current Mustang’s) “Knight Rider’s Kitt” slotted grill. NOW THAT’S A DISTINCTIVE (AND ENDURING)* DESIGN TOUCH!!!
*The current Mustang-based Kitt retains the narrow slotted “upper grill” used 25 years ago on the 1st Transam-based Kitt — now that’s enduring! See…..
http://65mustang.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/kitt.jpg
and http://themes.belchfire.net/screenshots/KITT.jpg
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (9:21 am)IMO the Volt would look much better with no grill at all. No grill would make the Volt stand out from the rest of the cars on the road.
Also, no grill would probably make the Volt design more aerodynamic.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (9:29 am)I could see generation 2 not having a grille once people have gotten used to the idea that it’s pointless and just another place to clean and get wax stuck in when they wax the car.
to quote the “old man” from a christmas story. “It’s smiling at me.” I don’t need my car smiling at me. Chop it off and throw it away.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (9:54 am)I’m seeing reports that the Feds have declined to use any of the Federal Bailout money to support GM/Chrysler. I think it is all pretty meaningless until Wednesday. Whether you agree with supporting GM/Chrysler with tax dollars or not, and regardless of which candidate you support, I think we can agree that the winner will have a big say on how this issue plays out.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (9:55 am)I was doing some reading for a class and ran across the following:
Tagamet – a drug that reduces heartburn, indigestion, and ulcers.
I thought it was hilarious.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (9:57 am)For cost reasons, GM required the Volt be built as a variant of the Cruze.
The Cruze has a grill, which the Volt did not need.
The Volt design team had to do something, so they covered the grill opening with a piece of plastic. It doesn’t look too bad, it just looks like a grill replaced with a piece of plastic.
It is not what might have been had the designers been in a position to start from scratch.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (9:58 am)I love the volt and going to get one. However the front is not innovative and I am a little disappointed.
What it reminds me of is the Lincoln Mark V that car that had the hump in the back because the old ones had a spare tire. This design never really made the car sell..
IF the design team didn’t need the grill then design a nice front with out it. Many cars didn’t have grills. Corvettes, Taurus etc.
Fake appliances on cars attract attention and not necessarily good attention. The design team is on thin ice with this as far as I can see it. But they might be right when people ask why it does not have air holes people will say because it’s electric.
Oh and you know the after market folks will be all over this making a replacement.
http://www.eisemann-theater.com
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (9:59 am)Insightful article on the GM merger. Pointed out why GM wants to avoid bankruptcy. Consumers won’t buy from a bankrupt automotive company….they’re worried that the warranty won’t be honored.
http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12516528
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (10:10 am)I’m a little disappointed that GM won’t come up with different grille schemes for different body colors (this would’ve been a relatively inexpensive way to ’stand out,’ as I don’t believe it’s ever been done).
As others point out, if GM doesn’t do it, aftermarket suppliers will.
No grille at all, in my opinion, would make the Volt look too much like the dreaded Prius; which also has a smooth aero-nose.
None of it makes much difference in my Volt-buying desire, certainly not as much as cost and availability.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (10:25 am)NASCAR grills are decals as the air flow is restricted to a lower intake for aeodymanics (down force)
So it is with the VOLT the grill is more aestetic than functional.
Just get us the car…
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (10:31 am)All I know is, it’s going to be fun to remove bugs from that grill at Spring and Summer time.
I like the look, I’m not I will like cleaning it
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (10:35 am)Treasury denies GM’s $10,000,000,000 merger assistance funding.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/03/business/03gm.php
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (10:40 am)GET A SINGLE VOLT ON THE ROAD THEN WORRY ABOUT THE APPEARANCE!
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (10:45 am)The grille is one of the most important personality cues of the whole car, it should have strong contrast, distinction, and symmetry (natural, not forced).
Not only does the Volt have the typical ugly/complicated grille of the Chevy brand, but its a simulated one at that – which makes it even more lame.
There’s nothing modern or unique about it, its bloated, plain, and ugly. Soft.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (10:52 am)@ 27 THOM (and similar posts)…
>> GET A SINGLE VOLT ON THE ROAD
Amen. I think, with two years to go before the projected and limited-availability debut of this car, more than a few of our heads are going to explode!!
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (10:59 am)Brad G # 16
“Also, no grill would probably make the Volt design more aerodynamic.”
*** *** ***
This is the reason for the louvers. They are there to make the car more aerodynamic and actually open when airflow is needed to the radiator for the ICE. Why they think the chicken wire faux grille is necessary or even aesthetic is beyond me.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (11:01 am)Drop the grill. The benefit to styling is minimal; it adds cost and creates maintenance issues for the consumer.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (11:04 am)I’ve said it in other threads, I’ll say it again… I had really hoped that GM would have had no or very minimal front grill…. for the same reason they are hiding the tail pipe! Make it clear that this vehicle is different, don’t put lipstick on an EV so it just looks like all the other cars (or in this case all the other Chevy’s) on the road.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (11:12 am)It’s great the way it is. Just build the damn things already. I want one!
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (11:40 am)I don’t like the grill.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (11:49 am)As I have said in a prior post. The design of the nose is fine. It’s the license plate that is going to drag on the aero and the looks.
I hope GM can come up with an idea for a good looking plate mount that is easy on the drag issue.
Corvette style mount?
http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/Corvette%20mount.jpg
=D~
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (12:13 pm)Today of course is Q3 ‘rustle-roundup’ of the three months sales we already know about…and later, we have October sales.
Q3 totals are out, I’ll give random highlights for those who like to know whats happening:
Global Units Sold:
TY:2,114,000
LY:2,387,000
-11.4%
Places that were good:
GM’s Latin America, Africa and Middle East and Asia Pacific regions
Places that sucked:
North America sales down 18.9 percent, in Europe sales were down 12.3 percent.
In North America, biggest loser brands were:
HUMMER -58.4%
Saab -36.3%
Cadillac -27.6%
Pontiac -23.6%
In North America, biggest non-growth brands (lol) were:
Saturn -9.3%
Chevrolet -16.6%
GMC -20%
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=2&docid=49854
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (12:17 pm)I could do without the grille, but I have to agree with so many of you that the priority has to be LJGTVWOTR. Grille or no grille, let’s have it.
#19 Cautious Fan:
Yeah, it we ever needed Tagamet, it must be now! I hope he’s OK.
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS!
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (12:22 pm)If Obama gets elect forget about the electric car…………..
He wants electricity prices super high….no one is going to buy an electric car if prices of electricity are high. Might as well stick with gasoline.
Better be prepared to fight Obama plans if you want this Volt to be a success.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (12:24 pm)The fact that there is a grill at all is very sad indeed. If you are rethinking the car, then actually rethink it. This is just sad and points to why GM has a recent history of failure. This “grill” is just a fake piece of plastic crap. While it won’t doom the car, it does say cheap. I have been thinking that it opened or something for the ICE, but no, just design idiocy. If Gm is thinking about positive force feedback for the starter but can’t even manage to jettison this faux part, then I don’t have hope that this car will ever see the road. A smooth front would be very fine, thank you.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (12:28 pm)Air car is back, I said on a post here a long time ago the ICE could be air powered and was LOL’d off the blog, but they could work it out.
We could be off oil right away
#27 THOM is right get it out now and work it out, JUST DO IT
NO PLUG NO AIR NO SALE NO WAY NOBAMA “JGTVWOTR”!!!
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (12:32 pm)AT LEAST MAKE AIR AN OPTION, I just want a work car
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (12:54 pm)Ford is first out of the gate with its ‘Rock-tober’ sales!
Ford post a -31.9% drop:
All Vehicles 128,561 181,754 -31.9%
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN0333154820081103?rpc=44
————————————————-
But wait you say, that doesn’t include Volvo (which Ford owns)…right you are! They are out too.
Volvo off a mere -53.9%
All Vehicles 3,717 7,761 -53.9%
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN0333192920081103?rpc=44
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (12:57 pm)Wow…they are quick now. Here is Toyota’s ‘Rock-tober’ numbers, off 23%:
All Vehicles
TY: 152,101
LY: 197,592
-23%
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7bD8F4AE81-2D2F-49DC-AEE2-36435E8E2732%7d&siteid=yhoof2
Side note: GM is usually last out with the numbers…or close to it. I’m going to ‘guesstimate’ at -37 to -40% (no rebates/no financing hurts…bad)
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (12:57 pm)RE #38, Freemon,
Let’s say Volt running on electric is Currently (sad pun) like gas at $0.80 per gallon (depending on your utility). Let’s say that carbon cap and trade causes electricity to rise 50%, then a Volt is still like gas at only $1.20.
However, the cap and trade system proposed will be phased in, and by the time it really bights gas could be up at $5.00. Oh, that’s without adding more taxes to gas, which has also been proposed, as the highway fund is under funded.
Moreover if Obama gets elected I think there will be more focus on energy issues. His has the more aggressive stance on energy. That may focus more to think about buying a Volt.
Obama has said that #1 issue is sorting out economic mess, #2 issue is energy.
McCain has said, #1 issue is capping all federal spending except military and veterans affairs, which means that energy issues, like tax credits, don’t get financed, beyond that he said that all other things he wanted to do were equal. So energy does not get the focus (tax cuts probably do).
If electricity prices go up, to fund renewables, better grid, or more nuclear (which needs better grid too with McCain’s proposal) then more will be encouraged to install solar or wind of their own. Money may be tighter, but that just makes it more important to save even if only in the long term, which makes the Volt a better proposition. Pay back for solar in my area with rebates and tax credits is 8 to 12 years, so if electricity prices go up the payback on solar becomes much more tempting.
So Freemon, I doubt that I’ve swung you round, but at least I’ve presented an alternative view.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (1:06 pm)#38 Freemon Sandlewould
If Obama gets elect forget about the electric car…………..
He wants electricity prices super high….no one is going to buy an electric car if prices of electricity are high. Might as well stick with gasoline.
Better be prepared to fight Obama plans if you want this Volt to be a success.
——————————-
I generally don’t wade into comments that have a political charge in it.
But the fact of the matter is, that you or I as individuals have the the capacity to produce electricity all on our own from renewable sources that are becoming cheaper all the time.
You or I can not produces gas.
That is the story, that is the reality…and it doesn’t matter who is the next president.
EDIT: What Mark said in #44 lol. Sorry, I dodn’t see your post…we practically said the same thing.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (1:13 pm)#38 Freemon Sandlewould
“[Obama] wants electricity prices super high…”
Do you have a reference, or are you just giving an opinion? I can’t find an Obama quote that says he wants electricity prices super high. I can’t find any thing that would leave me to believe either candidate wants electricity prices super high. So, I think you are spouting an opinion. Without a quote or a well-reasoned analysis, I’m afraid that your statement must go into my “unsubstantiated noise” folder.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (1:30 pm)Bob saying that the grill is unusual, that” it signifies you’ve got something different here.” is kind’ve ridiculous. You have to be a pretty close (and allready interested) observer to realize that it IS different in any way. Basically, it’s nicely camouflaged to look remarkably like many, many other vehicle’s grille’s. In other words, more plain vanilla. Another missed opportunity to make this vehicle stand out visually.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (1:49 pm)#38 Freemon Sandlewould
This is not a political thread but let me way in.
It doesn’t matter who wins the white house as long as they have to deal with the corrupt and inept congress.
Oh, and I never heard that Obama wants to raise electricity prices. But I can produce my own electricity. I can’t produce my own gasoline.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (1:59 pm)Well, here it is, GM’s ‘Rock-tober’ sales:
(missed my guess by 5%)
-45.1%
Sales fell from 307,408 to 168,718
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7bB3B3BAAA-9484-49FE-BC56-004FC59BA9F6%7d&siteid=yhoof2
/I’d like to see Wags spin that
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (2:01 pm)Thomb #46:
I usually stay out of political discussions as well, but since tomorrow is election day, and you asked for some supporting documentation from #38, why not join in the fun???
Senator Obama has said that he would bankrupt any company trying to build a new coal fired power plant. Since over 50% of our power is generated by coal, you could easily interpret that to mean that he would let electric rates rise rather than let this country use an available fuel source. I’ll bet that will make the coal industry in OH, PA, and WV just thrilled to have him as the next President….
Here is the link:
http://newsbusters.org/node/25829?q=blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (2:09 pm)#49 Statik (Me)
Oops, sorry that wasn’t the adjusted number for GM (more selling days this year).
-47.1%
All Vehicles 168,719 307,408 -47.1%
Domestic Car 68,102 103,406 -36.6%
Domestic Truck 94,937 195,354 -53.2%
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0334069420081103?rpc=44
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (2:11 pm)The downside to a solid “grill” is that it will be even more susceptible to dings and cracks and rock strikes. I have a 30 mile commute each way on local parkways (55mph). My current grill which is fairly thin is dinged all to hell. I cant imagine what this thing will look like.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (2:42 pm)50 Jim I
I don’t mind talking politics, as long as we are not yelling politics.
Thanks for the link. I read the article. It actually says,
————-
“Let me sort of describe my overall policy.
What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted”
———-
The article does not say, “Senator Obama has said that he would bankrupt any company trying to build a new coal fired power plant.”
That was an extrapolation. If a new coal fired power plant can profitably operate under a GHG cap and trade policy, it will not go bankrupt. The cap and trade policy is intended to shift us towards low GHG energy sources. That seems like a good goal to me (I buy into the man-caused climate change theory). I suppose we could argue about the practicality of moving towards greener energy. But, let’s keep our facts straight when we argue.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (3:00 pm)#53 ThomDbhomb —
However one interprets the statement, it points to considerably more expensive electricity, which will diminish the appeal of electric cars.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (3:04 pm)Obama did not say he will bankrupt them. The system he is proposing will lead to their demise.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/11/02/politics/fromtheroad/entry4564043.shtml
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” Obama said. “It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
Obama, in general, will lead to higher electicity charges. Coal produces about 50% of our electricity. Putting this under some cap and trade scheme will raise costs.
Obamas clean renewable energy sources cost more money. If you want to be “green” and not emit CO2, then you need to pay.
The most sensible, reliable, and practical option for our energy needs is nuclear. Obama, Harry Reid, and Speaker Pelosi are anti-nukes. Harry Reid had one of his advisors installed on the nuclear regulatory commission. The way they attack nuclear is with legislation and litigation making it too expensive and risky for investors. Blocking the reprocessing and transportation/storage of fuels is another method. Check out Harry Reids opinions on Yucca mountain.
On the issue of energy, Obamas plans will lead to higher costs and brown outs but we may produce less C02.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (3:04 pm)WSJ online says
“General Motors Corp. reported a 45% decline in U.S. vehicles sales in what the auto maker said was likely “the worst industry sales month in the post-WWII era” adjusted for population growth.
Ford Motor Co. reported a 30% decline, while Japan’s Toyota Motor Corp. saw its sales fall 23%. Chrysler LLC is set to report its results later in the day.”
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (3:18 pm)dc #52
“The downside to a solid “grill” is that it will be even more susceptible to dings and cracks and rock strikes”
*** *** ***
The louvers should be a replaceable part. Really though it’s no different from any other front facade that is perpendicular, mine looks pretty good after 9 years of driving.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (3:19 pm)Statik, RB et al (concerning the carmakers’ sales numbers):
As I said to the lobsters in their tank at the seafood restaurant:
“Don’t worry guys, it’s almost over.”
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (3:23 pm)Rashiid Amul #48
“I can’t produce my own gasoline.”
*** *** ***
If you get a Volt or a Flex fuel car you might be able to produce your own ethanol, but I’m not sure you’d want to.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (3:28 pm)#56 RB
WSJ online says
“General Motors Corp. reported a 45% decline in U.S. vehicles sales in what the auto maker said was likely “the worst industry sales month in the post-WWII era” adjusted for population growth.
Ford Motor Co. reported a 30% decline, while Japan’s Toyota Motor Corp. saw its sales fall 23%. Chrysler LLC is set to report its results later in the day.”
————————————
Hey, start ready my posts…hehe, just kidding.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (3:36 pm)Carbon cap and trade…
It is entirely possible that carbon cap and trade will not just apply to the electricity industry. If it is truly a carbon cap and trade system it will apply to the refining industry, and potentially the raw material too (oil). Thus it will likely raise gas prices in the long term more than electricity prices per unit of useful energy extracted.
I am all for “polluter pays”, although I would rather not have any pollution, I’ll be pragmatic and settle for “polluter pays”. If you want to dump trash in my yard, you should pay! So how come you can dump crap into the air that I breath and into the water that I drink without paying?
Quite simply an energy policy that applies the principle of “polluter pays” will raise costs of electricity, but it will also raise price of gas too. Price of renewables will come down relative to the fossil fuels. The amount of electricity that refiners use alone is huge, and they will pass that on to the consumer.
Polluter pays, just seems fair. If you are capitalist it puts a price on pollution, if you are socialist it is for the good of society.
Applying the same principle of “polluter pays”, to nuclear:
Risk is the big factor (although money is big issue too). The risk/price must be born by the users and that means it is okay just as long as the reactors and waste storage are placed in the back yard of the users. That would mean reactors and waste storage in Manhattan, Washington DC, and Los Angeles.
Even if you are okay with reactors in Washington DC, etc. one of the moral problems I see with nuclear is that applying the principle of “polluter pays”, since the storage risk is for 10,000 years, it is not just this generation that pays, but our children and grand children must pay for storage / containment. Indeed about great*300 grand children will have to look after the waste. Sure we’ve had nuclear power for 50 years, and major accidents in each of UK, Ukraine, USA, and close calls in France. Even that only gives us a life cycle experience of 50/10000 (i.e. 0.5%).
Applying the principle of “polluter pays” to the Volt, will make it a huge success!
So bring on high electricity prices (and high fuel prices, and some help for the poor to offset).
BTW I used to work in nuclear industry.
My Volt will be solar powered!
Even better – Volt v2 will likely be V2G capable, and thus able to do load-leveling, making renewables even more practical.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (3:36 pm)You can produce your own fuel with E-fuel’s Micro Fueler
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=backyard-ethanol-brewers
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (3:42 pm)I think GM would have been better served with the Volt to design a front end that did not have a grill as such. The older Transam used in the TV program Knight Rider look much better than the current Mustang Knight Rider car. It had not “grill”. The Volt should not have an upper grill above the bumper. JMO.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (3:54 pm)I am sorry but this crap about “polluters pay” is absolutely wrong. It is not the polluter that pays the bills. It is you and me. All of the increased cost of doing business is passed on the the citizen. It shows up in everything you purchase.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (3:59 pm)The money will always swirl around (hopefully). Legislature just makes it move more towards some things than others.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (4:04 pm)#64 N Riley
We all pay if the climate changes. Our energy policy needs some tweaking.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (4:12 pm)RE #64
You are right, in the respect that consumer ends up paying.
The consumer pays for that fraction of the pollution that he/she has indirectly caused to occur.
So use less electricity, and you pay less.
Use less oil and you pay less.
YOU have a choice to insulate your house and pay less for heating.
YOU also likely have the choice to generate your own power.
If you reduce the pollution that you cause indirectly you pay less.
One of the big problems with “polluter pays” is that it requires that the consumer have a choice of a less polluting option. Solar power is becoming a viable choice for more people, as is geothermal, and micro combined heat and power (CHP). Not everyone has a choice, but the more choices available the better.
With distributed renewable energy you have the choice!
I’ve installed solar power, so I won’t have to pay for the pollution that I do not cause indirectly by electricity usage. I won’t have to pay for the oil that my Volt does not use. That’s my choice. I will pay the interest on the capital expenditure, and I will avoid paying the cost of pollution by not causing pollution directly or indirectly where I can.
The same choices are also to some extent forced further up the chain to industry too.
The problem arises where you do not have a choice.
Sure there are some (backward) states that still do not have net metering for solar power, so bare that in mind when you vote.
That’s what elections are for, and that’s the choice that renewables gives to you.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (4:21 pm)#64 N Riley:
You pay for it anyway. If the cost of pollution is “internalized” into the product it shows up in the price. At least you can make an intelligent decision as to whether it’s worth it or not.
In our society, the cost of pollution is largely “externalized” on to the population. A good example is the so-called “goods movement” industry in our area. The price of “goods” imported from China, et al, is subsidized by the public with its health as a result of the massive diesel pollution from ships, “harbor craft”, terminal equipment, locomotives and trucks. This accounts for literally thousands of premature deaths in California each year, and additional thousands of cases of cancer, heart attack, stroke, asthma, COPD, low birth weight, still birth, and on and on and on. The cost to society is measured in the BILLIONS of dollars a year, paid for by the public. The tens of thousands of diesel trucks on our highways contribute massively to our famous SoCal gridlock, and help to beat the highways to death. Paid for by the public. The industrial blight, as the bay is filled in for parking lots, is borne by the public in the form of diminished property values.
Who knows, if all of these billions of dollars of “externalized” costs were factored into the price of cheap imported manufactured “goods”, it might be possible to manufacture something in the US again (cars?), and stop exporting jobs.
The same philosphy holds true for all of the other sources of pollution pointed out by Mark Bartosik at #61. The public pays, one way or the other. The markets are massively distorted by these “externalized” costs.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (4:28 pm)#67 Mark Bartosik
#68 noel park
Thanks. I am not as articulate about this topic as you guys.
I like this site when I learn things. I appreciate discussions when people aren’t yelling at each other. Viewpoints supported by rational thought will get us farther than blind partisanship..
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (4:37 pm)Shoot. Where the heck am I going to mount the antenna for my remote radar detector? I’ve always mounted it behind the grille, aimed through an opening slot. The only exception is the Eclipse, which didn’t have a grill. Hmmm, that one I mounted it under the license plate holder which sticks out on an independent frame from under the “slot” which is the air dam opening (in lieu of grill). I wonder if the \Volt will do something similar since it doesn’t have a natural spot for a license plate, either.
One of these days, Lyle, you should ask them if they’ve thought of a clever way to connect that front license plate.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (4:44 pm)#66 ThombDbhomb
“We all pay if the climate changes. Our energy policy needs some tweaking.”
I don’t know for sure how much influence man has on the climate, but I do know that the earth has gone through many climate changes during its existence. Man was not influencing any of the previous climate changes. I am sure we do add some small percentage points to the climate change environment, but not nearly the percentage done by nature itself. But we do quite a bit of polluting of the environment and I would like it to be as little as possible. I want to leave a “clean” world for my grandkids. I just don’t agree with all of the environmental wackos spouting all the trash that they do. Sure we pollute. Sure we need to do better. Let’s clean up the air and the water, but not the way some people want us to do it. They want all industry to be stopped. We should all go live in caves, I guess. Let’s get real, folks. It ain’t gonna happen. I ain’t gonna be forced to live in a cave unless I decide I want to.
But, I like the Volt and I want to see more electrical cars on the road.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (4:45 pm)The new Automobile magazine arrived today with the Volt on the cover, and a long story about same. Almost the exact same photo as above, LOL. It is part of an extensive series of articles on the future of the automobile. The lead story, actually.
I didn’t see anything that GM-Volt.com bloggers haven’t already seen 100 times, but it is nicely done with beautiful illustrations. Any ink is good ink, right?
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (4:48 pm)#68 Noel Park
I agree, but not when it is said to “let the polluters pay”. The polluter does not pay. We, the consumer does the paying. We pay through higher prices and higher health cost. The polluter keeps on polluting and when they are forced to “clean up their act”, they past that cost on to us poor, sorry, down trodden consumers.
Its like taxes to corporations and businesses. They don’t pay taxes. They past that cost on to the consumer.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (4:50 pm)#72 Noel Park
Yes, any ink is good ink. I just wish we could see some different colors and not the same old tired picture of the Volt. I get tired seeing the same shot everywhere. I wish GM would publish some good quality pictures in many colors so we could see the grill and how it will look in those colors.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (5:09 pm)I love the grill so much, I intend to look after it by hiding it under my (compulsory in NZ) front license plate. Can’t see where else to put it without affecting aero. lol.
#50 Jim I. I understood that article was a plant and not true. Try again.
So what did Obama really say?
Well, I’ve actually talked about this. And I haven’t been hiding the ball on this. I think we have to rebuild our infrastructure.
Look at what China’s doing right now. Their trains are faster than us, their ports are better than us. They are preparing for a very competitive 21st century economy, and we’re not.
One of the most frustrating things over the last eight years has been the ability of George Bush to pile up debt and huge deficits and not have anything to show for it, right? So, if you’re going to run deficit spending, then it better be in rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our sewer lines, our water systems, laying broadband lines.
One of I think the most important infrastructure projects that we need is a whole new electricity grid. Because if we’re going to be serious about renewable energy, I want to be able to get wind power from North Dakota to population centers like Chicago. And we’re going to have to have a smart grid if we want to use plug-in hybrids, then we want to be able to have ordinary consumers sell back the electricity that’s generated from those car batteries, back into the grid. That can create 5 million new jobs just in new energy.
But, it’s huge projects that, generally speaking, you’re not going to have private enterprise want to take all those risks. And we’re going to have to be involved in that process.
Source:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27474011/
/Emphasis mine
As others have said, if you don’t like the price generate your own power.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (5:16 pm)Polluter pays, consumer pays, right, especially when we buy from places like China and India.
We expect our manufacturing to be clean and then buy foreign due to price.
If we want to have fair trade and cleaner air we need to put an import duty on goods from countries that equate to the cost our manufactures pay trying to conform to E P A standards.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (5:18 pm)Guys- read all you want into the October sales numbers but…
Although US sales of GM product dropped 45% from last years October sales, they still sold more product than anyone else- including Toyota and actually GAINED market share!
(28.2% share in October and 31.2% YTD)
So it’s BAD EVERYWHERE right now.
(not all that surpizing given the current state of affairs)
While perhaps noble, “NPNS” is a bit too idealistic for me right now
So I’m out! (guess I’m not the master of my domain after all lol)
I ordered a Vue 2-mode hybrid to get me by for now. When the Volt comes out in 2 years I’ll have 2 kids driving by then so I’ll help them to purchase at least 1 perhaps 2 Volts
NPNS for 2010!
LOL
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (5:24 pm)RE #73 N Riley
Let’s say “We” vote for politicians that support clean power.
Let’s say that “They” (the polluters) are forced to clean up their act, and on average incur a cost of $0.10 per KWh to clean up the grid.
“They” (the polluters) will pass on the cost to “Us” the consumers, plus the cost of financing and profit margin, so let’s say $0.12 per KWh.
So then “We” have a choice. “We” can avoid paying more by using less.
“We” can avoid paying more by making our own power.
“We” can avoid paying for pollution by buying renewable energy, but we pay more for the extra capital cost.
“You” do have choices, for example….
By insulating and air sealing your home and fitting good windows it is easily possible to reduce heating load by 50% or more. By good new home construction you can get even bigger savings for less differential cost. If “You” do this then “They” will have to create less clean power at less cost.
In the end you do not get something for nothing. Unfortunately the system we have now does give a free ride to polluters.
If you want to get a free ride by dumping mercury in the oceans, S02 in the air (acid rain), particulates and NO2 and smog into my lungs, or damaging my DNA, then maybe I should be allowed to sue you for the harm you have done to me. The trouble is currently polluters cannot be sued for doing this if they do so within legalized limits.
You absolutely do not have the right to kill me, neither do you have the right to statistically reduce my life expectancy by even 1 day. However, pollution causes statistically life expectancies to be reduced. On the one hand if we say absolutely zero pollution now we are forced into the stone age (and reduce life expectancy), on the other hand if we say absolutely no cost (maximum pollution) we kill each other and our children with pollution. We accept some statistical risks. I have not seen anyone trying to force us into the stone age, just to move our priorities towards polluting less and reducing the statistical risk.
I don’t want to force anyone to live in a cave!
Indeed you are welcome to visit my house and see how I live without paying for a single KWh (www.netzeroenergy.org, 200 people came round to see last month).
I have a 32″ screen TV, and no cave wall paintings!
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (5:27 pm)Thought this was a interesting quote along with the sales release:
“It’s really an unsustainably weak level for all manufacturers,” said Mike DiGiovanni, GM’s executive director of global market and industry analysis. “This is clearly a severe, severe recession for the U.S. automotive industry and something we really can’t sustain.”
——
Suspiciously, GM’s quarterly earnings release has totally disappeared (normally out today). No word on the date or time either.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (5:30 pm)I get a kick out of the anti-Obama posts… McCain (or a new nickname I have for him is “NoCain Do”) had also been a pro-environment politician having long ago saw the science (and I like to believe common sense) that man made CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming, that that global warming is going to cost us and the world more economically in the long run than what it would cost to fix it now….
… that was before McCain decided he really wanted to win the Republican nomination and post-nomination that he needed to unify the Republican base… now McCain wants to feed our fossil fuel additions “drill baby drill” (he was opposed prior to this summer).
I’m always been pro-nuclear as well, and Obama is not against nuclear, he’s just not as pro as McCain nor as pro as I would like, but one thing folks have to realize is 1st how long it takes to go from a proposal to an operational nuclear power plant. Part of that is regulatory, but I don’t think even with any kind of fast track program we could see a new (not already approved) nuclear plant become operational in the next Presidents term. 2nd… the cost to built a new nuclear plant is not cheap… just like any new power plant, the cost of metals (copper and steel) and concrete, etc has been going through the roof (one benefit of a worldwide recession is we are seeing some of those costs coming down, as well as labor costs)… and for nuclear, the cost of fuel has also shot up like a rocket, uranium, like fossil fuels, is a limited non-renewable resource. As has been mentioned, it can be recyclable though so maybe that could help reduce the cost some (though recycling spent fuel rods itself is not cheap).
The problem with coal is that there is as of today no such thing as “clean coal”. The first coal fired power plant that was supposed to be a test plant for “carbon capture” and I think was funded by the government last I had heard has been canceled.
The real future of affordable power generation is wind (see Picken’s Plan), solar thermal, and geothermal, all of which this country is rich in. Photovoltaic as others has been mentioned is also the most viable for home power generation in the next 10 years. These are the ones if we really want our country to be energy independent for not just the next 30 years, but forever into the future. Drilling for more oil (we only have 3% of the worlds reserves but use 25% of the worlds oil production) and coal (good for maybe 200 years but w/out carbon capture costing the rest of the economy with the damage done by global warming) are all solutions that just delay the inevitable.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (5:35 pm)I remember the first Corvette Stingray with the silly two piece rear window. It went away. And so will the fake grille on the Volt. At GM style wins over function every time.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (5:36 pm)How on earth did a topic on grills become a pollution referendum?
Back to the point of the topic, if the ‘grill’ is just a plastic piece, it will most definitely be a part that the secondary market will find a way to modify. I could easily see add ons later that have a tiny solar panel on the front that charges a small battery separate from the car. This will power a set of colored accent LED’s at night. Or there will be grills with your name on it, whatever you want.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (5:40 pm)#76 old man:
Amen.
In his current bestseller, “Hot, Flat and Crowded”, Thomas L. Friedman makes the point, made here before, that, on many days, 25% of the air pollution in California comes from China. So we export our dirty manufacturing to countries which do not control air pollution because it’s cheaper. Then the winds blow it back to us anyway. Sort of gives new meaning to “What goes around comes around”.
As I’m sure you all know, Elon Musk, of Tesla fame, also owns a company called Space Ex. It is developing low(er) cost commercial rocket boosters to put payloads into orbit. He recently gave an interview in which he was asked why he had started that particular business. I can’t quote him exactly, but in essence he said that he wanted to develop feasible rocket capacity so the we could leave for another planet when we finally render this one uninhabitable. Of course Neil Young was singing much the same thing what, over 30 years ago?
If and when global warming turns into an existential emergency for mankind, forget all of the other expendable (we hope) species, then we will spring to life and try to do something about it. I only hope that we aren’t too late. And/or that Mr. Musk builds some real big rockets.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (5:41 pm)On the grill,
I like it, I think that I might also like it with no grill. The only thing that I wouldn’t want is a traditional grill (I don’t have a radar detector to hide in there). I do hope that this grill is metal alloy rather than plastic, because it will look ugly if it chips.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (5:50 pm)NZDavid #75:
The article was not a plant. Here is a link to the entire interview.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL&o=0
IMHO, the problem is that you can not change the way the world produces energy in a few years, when the alternatives and other required technology are not yet available in the quantities necessary. If any of these proposals are put into place immediately, and the price of electricity doubles or triples, which causes tens of millions of us to decide it is time to go solar, do you really believe there will be enough solar panels available? It takes time to ramp up these technologies. Just like it will take time to ramp up high productions volumes of the Volt. But no one talks about what we are supposed to do in the mean time. Live in the dark? Turn off the furnace? Shut down my business? Those would all conserve energy, but it sure is not how I want to live……
Also, if these carbon cap programs are not done worldwide, the only thing that will be accomplished will be to destroy the economy of this nation. Here is some more reading on this topic:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/08/AR2007040800758_pf.html
Everyone wants a simple answer, and wants the problems fixed now. There just isn’t one, and it will take a long time to fix.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (5:53 pm)While the grille on the Volt may be non-functional for the most part, and however aerodynmically important it is to close off those pesky cD robbing openings- to eliminate it completely would be roo risky from a styling perspective IMO.
Cars have grilles
Personally I like the “style” of this grille, it’s distictively “Chevy” looking and dont give a rat’s ass what it’s made of.
JMO
WOT
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (6:02 pm)Some of the Gen IV nuclear plants are close cycle and some actually consume the existing waste from other plants. Some of the designs are inherently safe.
I was completely against nuclear at one time, but I think they should be options that are part of the discussion.
http://www.ne.doe.gov/GenIV/neGenIV1.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf77.html
I agree the total cost of something should be taken into consideration, including polution costs like health care and such.
Some of the new schemes of growing alge from the exhaust of power plants might be able to clean up a coal plant.
The key is to recognise and accept the reality of the costs, then motivate folks to solve the problems, which will have a payback because it will now be worth something to solve the problem.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (6:12 pm)RE #85, Jim
You have a good point. It is hard for alternative energy providers to ramp up.
But it that depends on how we do it:
In World War II it didn’t take so long for GM and others to stop making cars and make jeeps, tanks, and planes. If we leave it to purely market forces we are forced to go through a gradual ramp up.
This is why I see the market forces way of subsidizing renewables to be a problem. I think that it is more effective to have governments to either get into the business themselves or to set clear well defined goals long into the future which are not subject to party political whims.
A couple of years ago there was a shortage of refined silicon for solar. Now there is a long wait for wind turbines.
If government says that on date X in the future we will start to purchase X amount of X type renewable energy production equipment and we will continue for X years industry will ramp up to make it available at a good price.
The trouble is for the past 30 years we have changed policy every few years. Some years completely eliminating government purchasing (through subsidies). So who will invest given an uncertain future, just look at what happened to the renewable energy tax credit (it was going to expire 31 Dec, and only got renewed at the last moment – in the bail out bill).
Give industry a guaranteed long term market / mandate and they will fulfill demand efficiently, because there is no risk of the market disappearing. If government is going to give unclear signals so there is too much risk to investment the pace will be slow (and that’s what we’ve had until now).
An example of a guaranteed plan, is the German solar energy plan. They pay about $0.50 premium per solar KWh, but it declines by 5% per year for 20 years. No surprise the German market is the largest in the world!
How about this…. (moving topic back to GM)
If Uncle Sam bails out GM, all those plants that were going to close are transformed from making SUVs (that few want) to making wind turbines.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (6:16 pm)#71 N Riley
I agree, I want to leave a “clean” world for my grandkids. I also don’t want policy informed by any type of wacko. Let’s let reason and common sense guide us.
#82 Grant
“How on earth did a topic on grills become a pollution referendum?”
#38 Freemon Sandlewould took us in that direction with his/her “[Obama] wants electricity prices super high…” If we are going off-topic, I’m glad we went from that seemingly wacko declaration to a more informed discussion of the tangent. Besides, climate change is “grilling” the planet.
#85 Jim I
I want a simple answer. If one isn’t available, then I want the hard answer. Either way, let’s work on the problem.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (6:27 pm)Nuclear is the only practical option for our base load needs in the future. Sorry guys, but wind, solar, and waves are not going to cut it. They should all be a respectable fraction of our energy options but they cannot do it all. I attend energy conferences frequently and interact with people all over the world on this issue who actually know what they are talking about. The bottom line is that nuclear is the best available solution and is far less dangerous than coal.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (6:27 pm)I would rather see GM make a variety of efficient vehicles. Some could be all electric at an affordable price. If it is a national security issue, and we certainly pay plenty for weapons systems and black projects, how about we try to get an efficient vehicle in every garage. Sort of like a chicken in every pot. As far a government guarentees, where would Lockheed and Grumman be without the government purchasing power.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (6:30 pm)I like chicken soup. And chicken cooked on a grill for that matter.
=D~
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (7:01 pm)Official word on Q3…finally.
GM Schedules Release of Third-Quarter 2008 Financial Results
“DETROIT, Nov. 3 /CNW/ – General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM – News) plans to release its third-quarter 2008 financial results on Friday, November 7, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. ET via PR Newswire and GM Media Online ( http://media.gm.com ).
In addition, GM Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Ray G. Young will host a conference call at 12:15 p.m. ET. The call will include a review of the company’s third quarter financial results, an updated liquidity analysis and review of its liquidity improvement initiatives, and a question-and-answer session with financial analysts and media. The call is expected to last approximately 90 minutes”
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/081103/mi_gm_3q_conf_call.html?.v=1
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (7:07 pm)#60 statik
I agree that you had already reported it all, and I knew that; just thought I’d add the WSJ confirmation so that we could appreciate your good work
Actually, it’s really true.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (7:24 pm)#94 RB
#60 statik
I agree that you had already reported it all, and I knew that; just thought I’d add the WSJ confirmation so that we could appreciate your good work
Actually, it’s really true.
———————————————-
I was just giving you a hard time…lol.
Weird factoid of all these sales numbers. Almost every vehicle preformed according to class and trend for most major automakers….except for one.
Viper for Chrysler up 142% (87 over 36) for the month…which continues the year’s trend up 150% (959 units in 2008 compared to 384 in 2007), go figure.
Link to all of Chryslers individual data (the company was off 35%)
http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/11-03-2008/0004917482&EDATE=MON+Nov+03+2008,+03:26+PM
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (7:30 pm)#95 statik “Viper for Chrysler up 142% (87 over 36) for the month”
=============================
87 People want to be sure to get one before Chrysler folds.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (7:31 pm)Paid $2.14/gal today for gas.
This could be the death of the Volt, if the prices maintain at or near this level for an extended period.
I would like to say I am beyond this, and would buy a Volt to save America, but when I walk in to a car dealership, and plunk down my hard earned cash (not that I was seriously considering dropping $35k for any car, but if were to..), I fear my sensible side will prevail. Sorry
Oh, and those oil sands in Canada are no longer economically viable at $60/barrel oil. I guess those hosers up dare’ will not be getting an tax rebates for Christmas.
Oh yeah, now E85 is the same price a regular gas. So, all the money spent on those corn-to-gas converters will probably start showing some rust.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (7:34 pm)#85 Jim I
“The article was not a plant.”
Apparently, the article was a plant:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=32228
Obama in context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn_CeeTDm8U
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (7:38 pm)Off topic: Tesla Gets Another $40 Million Lifeline
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/11/03/tesla-gets-another-40-million-lifeline/
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (7:39 pm)Statik
“Viper for Chrysler up 142% (87 over 36) for the month..”
=========================
I think that would be 241.666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666%
Or a nice round number of 242%
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (7:46 pm)RE #90 NuclearBoy
There is another risk with nuclear…
Fuel is getting expensive and is non-renewable, but can be recycled / reprocessed. I’ve visited reprocessing facilities and spoken with many people who worked there (I lived very close to such a facility in UK).
However, reprocessing generates Pu as well as fresh U.
Thus a reprocessing plant is only different by intent from a bomb making plant.
Is it okay for the USA/UK/France to do reprocessing, but not for Iran (insert many other states here)? Going the nuclear route could have the unintended blow back that smart ideas like arming the Mujaheddin against the USSR had. Alternatively, rather than spending a fortune protecting oil routes we could spend a fortune trying to deal with nuclear proliferation.
On the other hand if prioritize renewnables, we will push down the costs, and I don’t see anyone arguing about Iran having wind turbines.
Geothermal is also a great base load provider, that’s what we should be drilling for. While tidal is not dispatchable it is highly predictable.
So I say seriously try all renewables first, and only when the true effort of a “moon shot” or “Manhattan project” has been done and failed, do the nuclear. I’m not sure this means I’m against nuclear power, I just want to see real effort elsewhere first.
Nuclear power only came out of the Manhattan project (although not the aim of the project), but nearly 70 years later we have not put the same effort into renewables.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (8:02 pm)The grill looks nice. Besides, I don’t think GM should try anything too dramatic and gamble on something that the public would not like. Stick with the norms for now.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (8:08 pm)#100 JEC
Statik says, “Viper for Chrysler up 142% (87 over 36) for the month..”
JEC says, “I think that would be 241.666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666%
Or a nice round number of 242%
———————————
All car industry calculations are on Volume % change. I guess I should have mentioned that was the numerical system I was quoting….my bad.
36 compared to 36 is 0% volume change. 72 over 36 is 100%, etc.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (9:16 pm)Mark Bartosik
I agree with you on the importance of attaching the true cost of a good to it’s use. In reality, it’s almost impossible to value externalities like carbon emissions properly. I suspect politicians would take the $/kwh of solar minus the $/kwh of coal, and say that is the cost of carbon emission. Because ultimately, politicians don’t care about being green. They care about making you THINK they are. The difference is subtle, but significant.
Think about what the European example. They have the cap & trade system. Very efficient right. But guess who makes the money, the European gov’ts. But who bears the cost of global warming? Fiji, maybe polynesia. So why don’t the Europeans, in true economic fairness, transfer the money to them? Because the goal isn’t to make it right, it’s to make the appearance of it.
A very good podcast on environmental value of recycling and other “environmental activities”
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/07/munger_on_recyc.html
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (9:19 pm)psklenar #1
I like the look of it as well and I have to agree with Ziv #5 that these things grow on a person, Confidence, trust and comfort grow from familiarity. That’s why we like to look in the mirror.
When you go out to drive in bad weather and you see that grill smiling at you, all is right with the world. Now we just have to get used of smooth running, quiet and efficient power plants.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (9:22 pm)The second largest ethanol producer is going bankrupt.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/04/verasun_is_veradone/
UNCLE SAM, UNCLE SAM. PLEASE SAVE US FROM OURSELVES.
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (9:25 pm)Please vote John McCain tomorrow because he is less likely to hand our free money to Detroit Loser Three. Of course, if you are willing to share your wealth with lazy&stupid UAW members, you are welcome to support Mr. Hussein Nobama!
Thank you and good night!
(Quote)
Nov 3rd, 2008 (9:32 pm)Cautious Fan #104
Interesting argument, but it’s long been suspected that the savanna droughts in Africa that created a lot of starvation were borne of European pollution. The polluted winds from Europe are causing havoc in Africa just like the polluted winds from LA are changing the climate in the Grand Canyon and polluted winds from China and India are depositing heavy metal contaminants in western North America and changing the acidity level of the Pacific Ocean and may be responsible for the Arctic ice melts.
(Quote)
Nov 4th, 2008 (12:38 am)hi Nobama #107,
I don’t agree with the base remarks aimed at the auto workers.
This has been a long and sometimes unsavory election cycle. I am willing to do my best with whichever side takes over the helm in January 2009.
I send my best wishes to the auto workers. It may very well turn out that these people will be much more involved in the renewed national push toward a clean energy future. And I believe that we as a nation are more willing than ever to look at each other as brothers and sisters.
The USA and the rest of the world will be in better shape by late 2009. And 2010 will be one of the best years in memory.
=D~
(Quote)
Nov 4th, 2008 (1:16 am)Just a thought about the Volt coming to an end when gas prices get real low, if you watch the DOW when it goes up so will oil prices and if you think the economy is going to stay in the tank for a long time,well it might but it will go up someday and the oil price will go up with it, so don’t worry gas will be going up again just a matter of time
NO PLUG, NO SALE, NO WAY, NOBAMA, LJGTVWOTR
(Quote)
Nov 4th, 2008 (1:38 am)Electric Pacer
http://www.amcpacer.com/stories/electric-pacer.asp
(Quote)
Nov 4th, 2008 (2:07 am)ziv@#5
Try Solardirect.com, it may have what your looking for. You might also try 21-century-goods.com, they’ve got a number of solar products that could be of interest or help.
Lyle, if you wouldn’t mind seeing that ziv gets this I’d appriciate it.
Thanks, Tim
(Quote)
Nov 4th, 2008 (1:41 pm)very discouraging, seeing that word “simulated”
Mental energy and physical materials expended on “simulated” are mental energy and physical materials that are NOT expended on “real”
Is the world a real world or a simulated world? I’m guessing “real”
(Quote)