Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Status of the 2-Mode Hybrid and Plug-in Hybrid Saturn VUE

January 8th, 2009 | Posted in: Hybrid, PHEV

An important vehicle going forward with GM’s plans towards energy diversification is the 2-Mode Hybrid Saturn VUE. This is the first instance of GM’s strong hybrid powertrain, so-called 2-mode because it has both low speed and high speed electric motors, being married to a crossover sized vehicle. It is already in production in their large trucks such as the Chevy Tahoe.

I have been told GM has plans to launch a new hybrid every four months, and have been told that a 2-mode hybrid sedan “is coming.”

The 2-Mode VUE exists in pre-production and has been test-driven on public roads. It is projected to get 28 mpg city/31 mpg hwy with a 262 hp motor and sell for less than $33,000. It was supposed to launch by the end of 2008, but a little thing called imminent collapse derailed that plan.

I checked in for an update with GM’s powertrain spokesperson Brian Corbett who noted “we’re looking to start production during Q1 but I don’t have a specific date(s) for when it will arrive at dealerships.”

I also asked Brian that since the Saturn brand’s future is in question, as per GM’s viability plan, whether the 2-Mode VUE powertrain could find its way into the suitably sized 2010 Equinox, which in non-hybrid form already gets 30 mpg on the highway. He said there was “no plans to put in the FWD 2-mode for now,” and “I can’t speculate on Saturn’s future and what would happen to the various advance tech programs that brand currently has planned, other than we do intend to be the auto industry’s technological leader and diversify from petroleum. ”

A forthcoming plug-in version of the VUE has also been slated to become the world’s first mass-produced plug-in hybrid using lithium-ion technology. Since the plug-in VUE program began about 6 months before the Volt, it could theoretically go on sale in mid-2010, with MPG ratings possibly in the 70s. I asked Brian for an update on that program.

He said that the “plug-in program is moving along,” and that “a couple of VUE plug-ins just were sent to our winter proving grounds in Canada for some winter weather testing.”

Finally he teased that we “might see (the plug-in VUE) in action” at the Detroit Auto Show this weekend. At first I wasn’t sure what he meant but the following I think has provided the answer:

Forbes has reported that there will be a indoor 700-foot long test track set up inside the Cobo Hall Convention Center where the Detroit Auto Show will be held. The track, called the “Michigan EcoXperience,” will be used to allow journalists to test drive electric vehicles supplied by GM, Ford, Mitsubishi, and Tesla up to 10 mph.

Test-driving the 2-mode plugin? Even at the 10 mph speed it should be interesting. And what’s this? A Ford EV?

Posted by: Lyle

75 Responses to “Status of the 2-Mode Hybrid and Plug-in Hybrid Saturn VUE”

Eric C. Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 7:15 am

Interesting. I’m looking forward to hearing of a battery announcement by GM. Still hoping that 2010 date for the Volt doesn’t get pushed back whatsoever!

Too bad the test track limits only to 10mph. That’ll be a disappointment for anyone testing out the Tesla. I’m sure they’ll set it up to electrically limit at 10mph. At least they can measure the 0-10 acceleration time

(Quote)
Bruce Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 7:39 am

Just bought a Saturn hybrid Vue-great car. Gets 32 on Highway and 25 in city. Loaded at $29K. Its safe, lots of room Just love it. NO noise at the traffic light. My next car will the plug-in Vue. Much better and safer than a little Prius and the local Toyota people quoted me $34K for the Prius and $28K for a sripped, gas RAV4. GO GM and keep Saturn alive.

(Quote)
RB Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 8:07 am

The critical question for 2-mode is the add-on to the price. How much?

(Quote)
Van Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 8:21 am

Thanks Eric C @1, started by day with a laugh, 0 to 10 acceleration.

Yes Bruce @2, the Saturn hybrid Vue is a great vehicle. But I think
it is a myth that it is safer than the Prius. Vehicles that weigh 2900 lbs or more are quite safe, and vehicles that weigh more than 3600 like the Camry Hybrid, are as safe any vehicle. Little cars, weighing less than 2900 get knocked around in collisions with the heavier vehicles, but that effect is minimized once you get over 2900 lbs with 5 star rated vehicles.

So long as the car buying public thinks buying a heavy vehicle provides significant safety enhancement, we will continue to guzzle gas unnecessarily. Or so it seems to me.

(Quote)
Lunoir Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 8:35 am

This mean we may (will) get live photos/comments of that VUE and many other “eco” cars offerred by US manufacturers. And also it will prove that they won’t be only “frame on a golf cart don’t touch this is only to look cute cars”

NPNS!

(Quote)
J Man Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 8:41 am

I don’t understand why the Vue Hybrid needs such a big engine. The 262 hp motor would either be the aluminum 3.6l V6 or the iron 3.9l V6 motor, but my guess is the 3.6l V6. This is the same motor that they use in the CTS, Traverse and others with a 26 mpg average highway. In the 2 mode 28/31 mpg are a definate improvement for this motor but if they were to go with something smaller like the 3.5l V6 or even with the 2.2l I4 they would be able to raise the mpg on the 2 mode as high as 40 mpg.

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 8:46 am

He said that the “plug-in program is moving along,” and that “a couple of VUE plug-ins just were sent to our winter proving grounds in Canada for some winter weather testing.”

===================

Nice. I have not seen them yet. I’ll post pics when I see it at my local ‘GM future production cars’ gas station, lol.

(Going to be a lot tuffer to get those shots, as I’m fairly confident the Camaro SS and new SRX aren’t getting 70MPG…and are refilling slightly more).

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 9:03 am

I’m pretty sure that the quote just dropped a zero – 0 to 100 in 700 feet (and a lot of hysterical screamig at the end of the track). Just kidding, but a pretty neat mind picture.
Statik, did you see DonC’s link to an Edmond’s article about a SPRING release of the Volt? Independence Day here we come! OK, I’ll take my morning meds and move away from the giddiness and edge toward reality….
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS

(Quote)
JB Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 9:27 am

Great News! Now only if they could get the plug-in Vue and Volt out early and at a affordable price.

(Quote)
Zach Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 9:30 am

J Man, #6:

If GM put an I4 into a crossover, I don’t think it’ll meet the performance requirements of many Americans.

Engine options could be nice. Personally, I would take the one with more performance.

(Quote)
The Grump Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 9:37 am

Sorry, no sale.

30 MPG with the extra cost of a hybrid drivetrain? I guess, if you have to have an SUV….

First priority – My next car WILL get over 40 MPG highway, or no sale.

Second priority – How fast can I travel before the ICE (if any) kicks in? The more time I use the battery, the less time I use gas. Using less gas makes me happy.

Third priority – Comfort. Driving green should not mean having your kidneys hit your lungs on every bump in the road, low-resistance tires or not.

My 2 cents.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 9:39 am

_____________________________________________________
Electric Car Drag Racing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAYrsEOxqYc

_____________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = American Energy Indepence!
_____________________________________________________

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 9:39 am

#8 Tag

I’m pretty sure that the quote just dropped a zero – 0 to 100 in 700 feet (and a lot of hysterical screamig at the end of the track). Just kidding, but a pretty neat mind picture.
Statik, did you see DonC’s link to an Edmond’s article about a SPRING release of the Volt? Independence Day here we come! OK, I’ll take my morning meds and move away from the giddiness and edge toward reality…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/109319-gm-s-volt-introduction-may-be-moved-up
===================================
===================================

Woohoo! Volt’s for everyone in 15 months?!? 10K in rebates?!? Going global quickly?!? And Reed (the author) also expects“it to sell at high volumes worldwide.”

I’m a believer now!

Current state of Hamtramck Volt assembly (just add a lot of old junk):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2100/2032462856_9eeb954e3b.jpg?v=0

And the battery plant, next door:
http://www.bshort.org/images/D70_new/Farm%20Park%20-%20Empty%20Field.jpg

…in other related news, the Volt and battery will be now produced through osmosis

(Quote)
Nelson Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 9:52 am

It’s going to get tough not falling prey to buying incentives like the below e-mail I received today.

Loyalty works both ways.
To show how much we appreciate your continued business, we’re offering this special purchase opportunity — exclusively to our best customers:

Up to $3,000 Owner Loyalty Bonus Cash1 on almost every new GM vehicle now through February 2, 2009. You can combine your Owner Loyalty Bonus Cash with your GM Supplier Discount and most current incentives, including special GMAC financing on select vehicles. So, if you or someone in your household owns or leases a 1999 or newer model year GM vehicle, now’s the perfect time to buy.

See the attached flyer to learn some surprising facts about today’s GM vehicles and for a full listing of the many models that are eligible for this offer.

To learn more, log on to gmsupplierdiscount.com.

NPNS!
If they include the Plug-In VUE in a promotion like the above they wont be able to make enough.
NPNS!

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 9:57 am

I read a recent article hammering GM for putting mild and 2 mode hybrid drivetrains in SUV’s, because those sales weren’t “significant”. I think GM did the right thing, because now they have several options out there, from standard to E-REV, so that the consumer can figure out what they want based on their circumstances.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 10:17 am

Well, we can always hope GM can get their act together with the Saturn Vue plug-in and their two-mode hybrid plans. I hope they will bring out the Impala with a good hybrid system. That might be the sedan as mentioned in the post.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 10:21 am

I see the Plug-in Vue as a bad thing.

With only 10 miles of electric range, the plug just becomes a hassle. In order to be viable, I beleive plug-in vehicles need to eliminate most trips to the gas station. This requires an electric range of around 40 miles or more. If a significant number of early plug-in vehicles come out with a small electric range (8-15 miles), then many people would probably dismiss all plug-ins, figuring that plugging in is more hassle than it’s worth.

So I think plug-in vehicles with small amounts of electric range will actually hurt the overall goal of more cars driving electric.

2-mode strong hybrid vehicles (a.k.a full hybrids) are a whole different story. Since there’s no plug, there’s no added hassle. We need more full hybrids on the road.

FlexFuel is also a big deal. It costs less than $100 to make a car FlexFuel. It mostly comes down to what type of plastic is used in the fuel lines, and a bit more software. Obama has promised a federal mandate that all new cars are FlexFuel by 2012.

There’s a lot of misinformation about ethanol:

Ethanol Myth #1: It takes around 1 gallon of oil to produce 1 gallon of Ethanol.
Reality: This is only for Corn Ethanol. Other sources of Ethanol use little of no fossil fuels.

Ethanol Myth #2: Ethanol will never be cost effective without subsidies.
Reality: Raw Ethanol can be produced for around $1/gallon without subsidies. After adding costs for refining, distribution, and markup, Ethanol can be profitable at around $2.50 / gallon. This corresponds to oil prices at around $65/barrel.

Ethanol Myth #3: Ethanol will affect our food supply.
Reality: Again, only true for Corn Ethanol. Energy crops can grow in areas that are not viable for raising food crops. Ethanol can also be made from Crop Residue, Municipal Waste, and Forest/Mill biomass.
http://www.coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp

Ethanol Myth #4: Energy Crops can’t be viable long-term without fertilizer.
Reality: After Ethanol is extracted from energy crops, there is a lot of leftover biomass. This leftover substance is perfect for soil remediation.

Ethanol Myth #5: Gas stations aren’t selling E85 now, so why would they in the future?
Reality: Today, only a very small percentage of cars can run on E85, so most gas station owners can’t afford to dedicate a pump to E85. A federal mandate that all new cars are FlexFuel would change that in a hurry.

Ethanol Myth #6: We can’t make enough Ethanol to replace gasoline, so Ethanol is not viable.
Reality: The first part may be true. We may never be able to make enough Ethanol to completely replace gasoline. But why would that make Ethanol not viable? If we can replace 35% of our gasoline with Ethanol, and 80% of our gasoline with EREVs, that adds up to 115%, more than enough to completely replace gasoline.

Bottom line: The Volt runs on electricity, gasoline, or E85. Wee need more cars like this.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 10:36 am

Ethanol sounds good, but any federal mandate for gasoline to be E05, E10 or whatever needs to take into account whether we can produce enough Ethanol to actually add it to our gasoline supply. We have local suppliers offering an E10 Ethanol/Gasoline blend, but they are having trouble getting enough Ethanol to maintain a steady supply of the blended fuel. So, one week they are selling E10 and the next week they are selling 100% gasoline. We need to develop our domestic supply before mandates are passed.

As far as corn based Ethanol, I am not in agreement that greatly reduces food supply. Most of the corn used for Ethanol is grown for either Ethanol or for animal food. The by-product or what is left of the corn is still used for animal feed. The part of the corn removed from animal food to make Ethanol is not needed for animal food. That is the way it has been explained to me in a number of articles I have read. We have a large Ethanol plant that just went on line late last year and they ship out the corn stock to animal food producers after extracting the Ethanol product from the corn.

So, just who is right about corn based Ethanol? I don’t really know. I am certainly not an expert. I also hear that Ethanol reduces mileage and efficiency of the vehicles more and more as the percentage of Ethanol to Gasoline increased. So, based on that, E10 would be a better fuel for mileage than, say, E85. Again, I don’t know all the facts. Does anyone here know about this?

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 10:43 am

Statik@13 said in part:
“Woohoo! Volt’s for everyone in 15 months?!? 10K in rebates?!? Going global quickly?!? And Reed (the author) also expects“it to sell at high volumes worldwide.”
I’m a believer now!
Current state of Hamtramck Volt assembly (just add a lot of old junk):
http://farm3.static.flickr.co/2100/2032462856_9eeb954e3b.jpg?v=0
And the battery plant, next door:
http://www.bshort.org/images/D70_new/Farm%20Park%20-%20Empty%20Field.jpg
…in other related news, the Volt and battery will be now produced through osmosis (italics added by Moi for emphasis)

Boy, you had me REALLY excited with that glowing initial information, but the osmosis might pose a problem, since it is dependent on the permeability of the membrane. I’d hate to see that slow down my Independence Day release prediction (g).
(I wonder what the US factories looked like right after Pearl Harbor and before they began spitting out tanks and planes…. Not to get TOO over-dramatic, but I’m afraid that the analogy is getting closer and closer to the truth. We darn well better get on an economic war plan footing – and soon (and, no, I don’t want isolationism). Rumor has it that Washington is in danger of running out of green ink.
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR NPNS

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 10:45 am

Drink the ethanol kool-aid only in moderation

(Quote)
Nick D Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 10:48 am

I have never filled up a car in iowa without E10 – In addition I drove an S10 for 2 years on E85 only.

My gas mileage on E10 averaged 18MPG City 20 Hwy
My Gas Mileage on E85 averaged 16MPG City 19Hwy

For paying only $1.79 a gallon for e85 when gas was about $2.50 a gallon, the decreased fuel economy was more than offset by cost savings.

Additionally a vehicle that is Optimized for ethanol (not todays flex fuel vehicles – but like the E100 cars in Brazil) will actually have increased performance and increased fuel economy as opposed to Petrol

And Lastly my S10 ran smoother and much better overall on the E85 than it did on Gasoline.

Ethanol Myths.

#18 is correct – Ethanol Byproduct is animal feed – high fuel costs increase cost of food – they have to pay for gas to move the food all over the world – thats what your paying for.

Ethanol Myth #1: It takes around 1 gallon of oil to produce 1 gallon of Ethanol.
Reality: This is only for Corn Ethanol. Other sources of Ethanol use little of no fossil fuels.
Real Reality – This Data that still gets quoted by Corn Ethanol opponents is based on a Study done in 2000 – currently 1 gallon of Oil can produce over 3 gallons of corn ethanol.

Ethanol Myth #4: Energy Crops can’t be viable long-term without fertilizer.
Reality: Once we transition to cellulistic ethanol different feedstocks like switchgrass can be used. Switchgrass requires very little water to grow, does not need pesticides or hericides, or fertilizers.

Ethanol Myth #5: Gas stations aren’t selling E85 now, so why would they in the future?
Reality: Depends on Location. I cant turn a corner in Des Moines and find a gas station not Selling E85. I frequently see lines at the E85 pumps as well. Right now its a regional fuel and many midwesterners use it regularly. This country is bigger than just the Costal regions

(Quote)
Gary Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:15 am

To change the subject a wee bit, you can see some possible Volt paint colours (canadian spelling) 20 seconds into this video:

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/08/video-welburn-teases-naias-bound-production-chevy-beat-on-today/#continued

The colours definitely look “electric”.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:16 am

#18 N Riley Says: “So, just who is right about corn based Ethanol? I don’t really know. I am certainly not an expert. I also hear that Ethanol reduces mileage and efficiency of the vehicles more and more as the percentage of Ethanol to Gasoline increased. So, based on that, E10 would be a better fuel for mileage than, say, E85. Again, I don’t know all the facts. Does anyone here know about this?”
————————————————————————————–
I agree that federal mandates on fuel supply are a bad idea. We need mandates for FlexFuel cars, not on the fuel. Once people have a real choice, the market will take care of supply.

Corn ethanol is currently 4% of our gasoline supply. Scaling it up to 35% would have many issues. Corn is not the way to go.

Energy crops like switch grass require little fertilizer. What’s leftover after the ethanol is extracted is perfect for soil remediation. No fossil fuels necessary to grow.

As for efficiency, keep in mind that most of today’s engines are optimized to run on gasoline, so ethanol is usually less efficient. I’ve heard that engines which are optimized to run on ethanol are actually more efficient (better MPG).

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:17 am

It is hard to find gas in Atlanta and the surrounding area which doesn’t have the pump-label: “may contain up to 10% ethanol.” There is no State mandate here that I’m aware of.

Back in the first energy crisis, we called E10 “gasohol.” A lot of critics at the time pointed out that ethanol has a propensity to absorb moisture (more so than straight gasoline), which would be damaging to the fuel system. Anybody heard this argument lately?

By the way, I heard someone on the radio say that gas could return to $3 a gallon by the end of Spring.

On topic: I’m a Saturn fan. I would be very sad to see the brand go away. It has been GM’s only consistent attempt to improve their notorious “markups and shenanigans” dealer experience.

In a mildly related story, former Chevy dealer Bill Heard (”Mr. Big Volume”) just had his multi-million dollar mansion sold at auction. GM take note.

I did find the idea of a plug-in Vue interesting when it was announced; but 5 – 10 seemed like too few miles to be really exciting. When I heard about a 40-mile range, I said “Wow,” and eventually came looking for something like gm-volt.com to learn more: about the Volt.

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:18 am

Just other random things:

MSNBC is now web hosting today’s Wagoner/Gettelfinger interview from the today show, kinda interesting. Noteable: Are you willing to open the current contract? Gettelfinger: No
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/28558170#28556075

Then if you keep watching, there is a video on the Volt.
Volt jump: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/28558170#28556393

Also have a clip on the first look at the Buick LaCrosse (EDIT: also in Gary’s post after the jump)…and a look at the front end of the Beat, which will both be at the NAIAS…a little Camaro SS is shown (although they don’t mention that it as a SS):
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/28558170#28557109

(Quote)
KUD Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:20 am

So after all these discussions I guess I want an E100 Volt

=D~~

(Quote)
nataraj Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:30 am

#20

Drink the ethanol kool-aid only in moderation

———-

Absolutely. Burning food is a very bad way of fueling cars. It is downright unethical given the hunger and poverty it promotes.

(Quote)
rob Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:39 am

#10
I4 performance has come a long way in the past few years. GM already sells one that makes 260hp in the Solstice GXP. And the hybrid system would hide the turbo lag..

(Quote)
charlie h Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:57 am

#17, Dave G, Your myths 1 through 3 are still, really, myths. So far, no one has a commercial, on-going, viable ethanol producing process that doesn’t use corn and delivers for cheap. It is true that many people are working on it but, so far, nobody’s making money at it (which is the real criterion for success).

Myth 2, in particular, your “reality” is misleading… An ethanol production process will always require energy. Now, what we’re looking for is the productio of a quantity of ethanol with a btu content MUCH higher than the sum of the energy inputs. You can skate around this, a bit, by using solar power, for example, as one of your thermal inputs (which we would consider to be converting solar power to a high-potency, portable liquid fuel – a useful process) but the reality is, ethanol processing requires energy.

We’re looking for a process with an energy budget and combination of energy inputs that makes sense.

Then there’s the infrastructure and the fact that E-85 capable mutlti-fuel engines are wasting a significant fraction of the energy in ethanol (ethanol should be used at something like 16:1 compression to extract the most work; regular grade gas can’t tolerate more than something like 10:1 compression).

It seems to me that making ethanol on the farm and using it locally for equipment power (with purpose-built ethanol engines), heating or cooling, sidesteps some of these issues. There was a segment on NPR’s Science Friday, a couple months ago, that sketched some similar ideas.

As for myth 6, well, I agree with you, there. A mix of energy sources and uses is a good thing. If ethanol can claim a share of the mix, that’s all to the good. It needn’t do it all.

—

#6, J Man, I also don’t understand why GM insists on putting a V6 in there. However, Toyota did the same thing with the Highlander (which was also a disappointment). If GM redevelops the engine with the Atkinson cycle modifications and VCM, it might not be such a bad choice for fuel economy. But an I4 would probably be lighter and more compact, which would have other benefits.

(Quote)
KUD Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:07 pm

Driving the volt

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26835538/site/14081545?__source=yahoo|headline|quote|text|&par=yahoo

(Quote)
Vector256 Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

#27 naturaj says “Absolutely. Burning food is a very bad way of fueling cars. It is downright unethical given the hunger and poverty it promotes.”
——————————————————-
I hope you can take comfort in your “ethics”, as you slowly starve to death – having given all of your food to those who have less food than you.

Doing anything less that than, after the statement you made above, would mean that you are a hypocrite.
——————————————————-
Beware those who tell you “Do as I say, not as I do”. It’s your money – no one elses. Spend it how you want. It’s called freedom, and it irritates the hell out of people who want to tell other people how to live. Freedom means being free to make a “bad” choice (as defined by others), be it a Humvee, a super-size at McDonald’s, or using corn ethanol. Cherish freedom – once you give a freedom up, it’s gone forever.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

#25 statik (and Tag)

Thanks for the links. Tag mentioned the Today show yesterday but it’s difficult for me because mornings are always hectic. Plus you saved me a lot of watching!

I wouldn’t sell the commentator predicting an early release of the Volt short. Note he was the first person I saw who mentioned that A123 was still in the race for the Volt battery pack — everyone else was saying it was Compact Power. The A123 possibility now seems much higher. So I’m giving his so cred.

As for the roll out timing, in case you both missed this, during the congressional hearings Representative Markey (aka Congressman Stupid) said that GM had represented that they would produce 10K units during 2010 and another 40K to 60K uring 2011. (This was during the hearing on the retooling loans for fuel efficient vehicles). Since going back on a representation to congress would not be a good thing at the moment I think these will be the numbers. That’s not bad.

As for the $10K in rebates, that doesn’t seem like an unrealistic estimate. Pollution is a good reason for state and local governments to provide an incentive, but, more importantly, net revenue provides the electric utilities with great reasons for kicking in a rebate.

Utilities have overcapacity for about 99.9% of the time, and they can’t store the electricity they don’t sell. This means that every kWh they sell to charge an electric car goes right to the bottom line as net revenue. Given current rates in CA it would take the utilities about 3.5 years to recover a $2500 rebate on a Volt, assuming that it was driven 10K miles a year in EV mode. After that it would be a very large return — $800 per household in their serving areas would be huge for an industry which is looking a decreasing demand.

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

Ethanol Myth #1: It takes around 1 gallon of oil to produce 1 gallon of Ethanol.
Reality: This is only for Corn Ethanol. Other sources of Ethanol use little of no fossil fuels.
DaveG #17

Ethanol Myth #2: Ethanol will never be cost effective without subsidies.
Reality: Raw Ethanol can be produced for around $1/gallon without subsidies. After adding costs for refining, distribution, and markup, Ethanol can be profitable at around $2.50 / gallon. This corresponds to oil prices at around $65/barrel.

————————————————————————–
Dave, I think you need to switch the labels for reality and myth. The fact is, there are known processes to mass produce ethanol from corn and sugar cane. Unfortunately for all of us, corn ethanol is unduly expensive, drives up food costs, and cannot be produced in sufficient quantity without wrecking the economy. Sugar cane cannot be grown in North America. It is grown in Latin America in former rainforests which have been burned and cleared. It is not a viable candidate for affordable, abundant family transportation in North America.

There is no known process to mass produce ethanol from cellulose. It has been demonstrated in the lab, but current processes are not scalable. There would have to be a technical breakthrough which is unforseen and unforseable, to mass produce ethanol from cellulose.

I would invite you to prove me wrong by providing a source for your $1 a gallon figure. But it would need to be backed up by actual evidence, not just the statement that we can do it, and that some shadowy third party has “certified” it.

Cellulose ethanol may provide a viable fuel in the future. So might nuclear fusion, time travel, or wishing.

I agree with funding ongoing research, but it is very harmful to propose E85 as viable, when we need to focus on technologies which have been proven to work, and to scale–electrification of the automobile and nuclear power.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

hi GM,

Give a Volt mule to Lyle for a week and let him perform his daily driving routine. We have nearly 50,000 very interested potential buyers here at gm volt dot com. And about 5 times this number in the wait-and-see mode.

BTW: The man is a doctor, please stick some wheel covers on those 17’s.

NTDFLNS

No Test Drive For Lyle, No Sale (hee hee)

=D~

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

Back in the first energy crisis, we called E10 “gasohol.” A lot of critics at the time pointed out that ethanol has a propensity to absorb moisture (more so than straight gasoline), which would be damaging to the fuel system. Anybody heard this argument lately?

——————————————————————————-
Ethanol does have the propensity to absorb moisture. But there is plenty of evidience to show a properly designed flex fuel car can run on E85 without problems. You will never get E-100 because you need to mix some gasoline in the fuel if you want to avoid problems.

Beside the cost issues, which I posted about above, ethanol has other problems as a fuel:

1. Its energy density is 60% that of gasoline, so with the same size fuel tank, you have a shorter range between fill-ups.
2. Because of the low energy density, ethanol at $2.50 per gallon (which has never been shown to be feasible excluding subsidies) is equivilent to gas at $4.20 per gallon.
3. Because of the water absorbion issue, it will never be tranported by pipeline. It will have to be transported by over the road or rail tanker, adding even more to the cost, and the full cycle emission footprint.
4. For that subset of posters who still drinks the MMGW cool-aid, ethanol is mostly carbon, and when you burn it in a car, you get mostly carbon dioxide.

(Quote)
Amazed Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:38 pm

I like the 2 mode system and was excited when they introduced it into their full sized pickups (since that’s what I currently drive). So yes, you get much improved mileage, but up here in Canada when I priced one out it worked out to $18 000 more than an identically equipped ICE only pickup. I’m not willing to pay that much of a premium to use less fuel. So hopefully they can make it more affordable on the VUE.

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

Utilities have overcapacity for about 99.9% of the time, and they can’t store the electricity they don’t sell. This means that every kWh they sell to charge an electric car goes right to the bottom line as net revenue. Given current rates in CA it would take the utilities about 3.5 years to recover a $2500 rebate on a Volt, assuming that it was driven 10K miles a year in EV mode. After that it would be a very large return — $800 per household in their serving areas would be huge for an industry which is looking a decreasing demand.

——————————————————————————
This is an incorrect analysis. A very significant portion of the cost of generating electricity is the fuel burned. Higher generating loads at night will burn more fuel, so the power is not free, except in the case of nuclear power. It is rarely windy enough at night to generate power, so windmills are not a factor. In addition, running generators at load 24×7 increases maintenance costs.

In addition, the typical cost for power for a Volt has been shown to be 2 cents a mile. At 10,000 miles a year, this is $200 per year more revenue for the power company, out of which they need to pay for fuel and other variable costs. So if the gross margin is $100 per year, it would take 25 years to pay back a $2500 subsidy. And that is ignoring the time value of money. If you assume a 5% cost of funds, you can do the math yourself–probably about a 50 year payback.

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

Dave K. =D~ Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
hi GM,

Give a Volt mule to Lyle for a week and let him perform his daily driving routine. We have nearly 50,000 very interested potential buyers here at gm volt dot com. And about 5 times this number in the wait-and-see mode.
————————————————————————
How many of them have money?

(Quote)
Nick D Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

#34
Tom Harwick Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

3. Because of the water absorbion issue, it will never be tranported by pipeline. It will have to be transported by over the road or rail tanker, adding even more to the cost, and the full cycle emission footprint.

False – There is an ethanol capable pipeline being built right now that will pipe Ethanol from the Midwest to the East Coast!

Google It

(Quote)
galileo Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

Stop Global Warming buy Local (american cars)

(Quote)
omnimoeish Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

Dude, this is sick. I love how GM is vying to be the technological leader in the auto industry. I remember a quote a year ago from Bob Lutz I believe that said that GM was in the business to make cars, not to invent new technology. This is a huge change of tune. The 2010 Equinox Direct Injected engine is going to be awesome and imagine what kind of fuel efficiency would be produced in a plug in strong hybrid direct injected engine in a car the size of the Malibu. I’m sure we will see it soon in Cadillac or something.

(Quote)
KUD Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

Ethanol pipeline

http://www.247wallst.com/2008/12/kinder-morgan-s.html

(Quote)
DonC Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

#36 Tom Harwick says “This is an incorrect analysis. A very significant portion of the cost of generating electricity is the fuel burned.”

It’s interesting how widespread this mis-perception is. In practice you can’t easily take many plants off-line and, as you mention, some generation like hydro, wind, and nuclear is a 24/7 affair. Additionally, forward contracts and so forth mean that power will be delivered to the utility whether it is needed or not.

If you doubt this, just check out the CA real time system status reports. If you follow it over time you’ll find that, except for a few hours for a few weeks in the summer, there is always substantial over capacity.

http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html

A corollary to mis-perception about existing excess capacity is the idea that the grid can’t support many electrical vehicles, a view thoroughly debunked by the Department of Energy’s report that indicates the current grid can support 180 million EVs. That’s a lot of EVs. In fact, if you run the numbers, you’ll see that if only 80% of that can be supported with excess capacity, which is a conservative guess, that’s $115B of net revenue for the electric utilities — a very big number.

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 1:41 pm

#38 Tom Harwick said:

How many of them have money?
===========================

+1
Now thats a million dollar question.

Barring all other factors, like the 1 person on the wait list from Azerbaijan, who I figure probably won’t be seeing any shiny new Volts driving around any time soon, and GM’s own regional rollout…how many people can muster the scratch?

Assuming a global rollout, all 46,000 people probably translates to 5,000, in the ‘old economy’…maybe 5% in the ‘new world’ ? 2,500ish?

Breaking it down by GM’s own regional rollout, we have 5,066 eligible applicants (Cal – 2,844, New York-925, DC-53 and maybe florida 1,244). The bulk of those, coming from the two states that are taking the largest hit to consumer equity on the houses.

That 5,066 probably translates to about 250.

I’m not saying they can’t sell out the 2,000 or so they built in 2011 (yeah I said it, lol)…but if this economy continues to deteriorate at anything like the pace of 2008 and gas stays around $1.50/g, there is no way they will be able to sell many more than 15-20K of these @ $40,000/pop (especially after the rebate is eaten up).

People are getting obliterated here (I’m not talking about ‘average Joes’ either…but the high dollar consumers, people who are the Volt’s target audience).

40K for a new car in 2007 looks like 80K today to a lot of people. I’m not saying that to put the Volt down specifically, it is a crippling reality for all EV makers…which bums me out. I think are starting to see, (and will see a lot more of), companys backing down from their date commitments to produce these cars.

Right now, with a terrible economy, cheap gas and US gov’t sponsored low interest/easy credit on cars, it would seem the ’sweet spot’ is the highly efficient mid-size sedan that gets 30+MPG and is somewhere between 15-22K

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

#32 Tom Harwick

When I was growing up in during the 950s and early 1960s, there was plenty of sugar cane grown in Mississippi and Louisiana. I believe the primary reasons it was not produced later on was because it was cheaper to import sugar cane based products and the farm land was beginning to be used more and more to grow soybeans and other row crops. These newer row crops were much easier to grow, were easier to harvest and had a good market. So, yes, sugar cane can be grown in many parts of the Southern United States from North Carolina all the way to California. It isn’t that much different than growing corn and could be grown in many areas outside of the Southern U. S. But I can’t remember the length of the growing season outside the South or warm climates.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

#30 Vector256

I’m with ya, man! Ethics, schmethics. Screw everybody else. I want to be free to do anything I want. Survival of the fittest! Why can’t people be as smart as us? The world would be such a better place.

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

#37 Tom Harwick said:

This is an incorrect analysis. A very significant portion of the cost of generating electricity is the fuel burned. Higher generating loads at night will burn more fuel, so the power is not free, except in the case of nuclear power. It is rarely windy enough at night to generate power, so windmills are not a factor. In addition, running generators at load 24×7 increases maintenance costs.

In addition, the typical cost for power for a Volt has been shown to be 2 cents a mile. At 10,000 miles a year, this is $200 per year more revenue for the power company, out of which they need to pay for fuel and other variable costs. So if the gross margin is $100 per year, it would take 25 years to pay back a $2500 subsidy. And that is ignoring the time value of money. If you assume a 5% cost of funds, you can do the math yourself–probably about a 50 year payback.
===========================

EDIT: I see DonC’s post as well…I basically say the same thing, lol. What he said, hehe.

There is tons of excess capacity in the system…even in states like California.

For us in Canada, (specifically Ontario) it is even more exaggerated, because of the monster amount of nuclear energy we produce (comparitively speaking) and hydro/wind power. We could be charging 5 million cars overnight and not even cause a blip to the system.

Ironically, all this power is just wasted now. EVs fit the sweet spot perfectly for this industry. On top of that…overnight charging is a revenue stream for the utilities, which ultimately leads to cheaper electricity for all of us…and of course (and more importantly), less gas.

Here is a breakdown of current power generation (I know its wiki, but I’m not hunting down the current numbers):

Nuvlear: 41%
Renewables/hydro: 23%
Coal: 19%
Gas and Co-generation: 15%
Conservation: 2%

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Ontario_electricity_supply_2005.png

The nice thing about (and sometimes bad, lol) the grid is its interconnectivity. Meaning, if you run out of capacity in Ohio, it just comes from us in Ontario….there is no danger of ever having to fire up extra coal plants for capacity at 2AM.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

hi Tom Harwick 337,

“How many of them have money?”

________________________

A better question is…how much is a bow tie worth? Would you rather drive a cheaply built, plain Jane car that has a baseball size red dot on the point of the hood? Or spend a little more for the Chevrolet bow tie badge and the years of American know-how and testing it represents? If I bought red, I couldn’t live with myself.

You only live once.
Buy what you really want.
Drive what you really want.

=D~

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

@Dave K 33
“BTW: The man is a doctor, please stick some wheel covers on those 17’s.”

Nah, keepem off. The Ghetto look is cool….
Wasssup boyeee!!

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

Has this site gotten slow in the last few minutes or is it just me? I don’t seem to have problems with other sites.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

@N Riley 49

lol…
I thought it was me.
Must be just busy slow.

(Quote)
Len Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 3:08 pm

It is terribly slow.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 3:19 pm

With all the talk of the downsides of ethanol – especially transporting it, infrastructure, etc, has anyone read the MIT research that is building ethanol which has longer and longer carbon chains? The “improved” type requires no special adjustments to the vehicles, the pipelines, or the gas station pumps. I believe that they are already trying to scale up to commercial quantities.
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS

(Quote)
Sasparilla Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 3:34 pm

Well the mileage for the 2 mode View is about the same as the Ford Escape Hybrid, I guess that’s not too bad considering. Obviously GM could have done better on the mileage with a much smaller / lighter V4 in there (and they could do that because that electic motor provides power at the same time – that’s why Ford does it with a V4). But that asside, as long as they make them in sufficient numbers, they should sell quite a few, even at $33k, as Ford is their only competition here (for this size / mileage SUV) and only makes 25,000 Escape Hybrids a year (below demand).

IMHO, it’ll be game over though if Honda brings out a CR-V Hybrid or Toyota Rav4 Hybrid at some point (weird why their leaving this market to the US manufacturers). Have to shake my head at this though, getting ready to replace a 2000 CR-V that averages around 30mpg and didn’t need a 2 mode Hybrid to do it. Makes it hard to see spending $33k for something in the same class that only does as good as that $20k car from 2000.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 3:40 pm

With only 10 miles of electric range, the plug just becomes a hassle.
__________________________

That doesn’t make any sense.

You’ll still be plugging the vehicle in every night anyway.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

#52 Tag

With the appointment of Stephen Chu to head the Department of Energy I think we’ll see a lot of very interesting developments in the development of bio-fuels. Bio fuel for transportation is his passion, and he was more or less hired to indulge it.

We really haven’t spent much time researching the alternatives. Like in most cases, you don’t find much unless you are actively looking for it.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

Getting 10 miles per charge would get me to work one way. That would cut my fuel bill by 50%. Problem is what is the extra cost to purchase the two-mode hybrid? GM really needs to get the cost down to where they could swap out the V6 engine with a small 4 cylinder with fuel injection and a two-mode hybrid drive for about the cost savings of replacing the V6. If you are going to need the hp of a V6 for a small cross-over vehicle, then they need to find a way to get the cost down. Maybe it will come down a good bit with more of them produced. I hope so. I would still like to see GM develop a full hybrid like the Prius for us in their small compact cars.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 4:12 pm

#55 DonC

You may be correct about Mr. Chu. But research is a long drawn out process that generally does not show much results for the first 8 to 10 years. By then Mr. Chu and the Obama administration would be history. We know private enterprise can move faster than government agencies when they are doing it on their own. If the government is funding the research at the private enterprise company, it seems like results are very slow coming also. It might that slowness could be attributed to the grant money coming in each year you can stretch out the research.

MY view is that we need a good grass-roots research program by the auto companies and battery companies. If the government gets into the funding, so be it, but let it be a one-time funding so that they know there are no more checks coming later on and they need to get the dust shook out of their collective pants and get some solutions on the manufacturing floor for production. IMO.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 4:19 pm

I am more in favor of low interest loans to be repaid over a long period of time after a research period has been reached. This way we are just giving the money to private enterprise to be squandered away on their research project. The research should have set goals to accomplish with multiple points through the project where progress should be measured and approved.

I am not in favor of just handing over research results or patents to foreign governments or foreign companies (even those with plants in the U.S.) If they want access to it, great. They should have to pay for it and only then get it three to five years after a U.S. company has use of it. If no U.S. company is interested, then the use of it should be immediate after payment.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

I am beginning to think everyone else has gone to sleep and I am the only one still on the site. Well?

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 4:21 pm

Video from NBC on the Volt. The mention the target price of $40,000.00. Of course it probably pure speculation.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/01/08/video-nbc-grabs-the-first-media-drive-of-a-volt-mule/

Just build my Volt dangit!

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 4:30 pm

Tagamet (#52):

Do you mean Butanol?

http://i10.tinypic.com/4i6kowi.jpg

There are a lot of things being worked on which could end up being additives in some kind of bio fuel.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 4:48 pm

#61 Jackson

Thanks for the link. Butanol looks like a close fit to gasoline in all the categories. Makes me wonder if this is what Tag meant, also.

Edited: here is a link about Butanol:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Butanol

(Quote)
Adrian Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

262hp and a hybrid? Excellent. Power with MPG.

The Equinox gets 30MPG with a 4 banger. Since I have a 2004 Vue with I4, I can say that a vehicle like the Vue will need the horses at some point (like driving in mountain-like terrian or trying access an expressway in Chicago…).

(Quote)
Jeffhre Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Statik #47

In California we get a lot of our nightime juice, from hydro, a bit from wind and quite a bit from the never go down at night to avoid stress cracks in miles of concrete and steel big boys, nuclear and coal. The folks in Utah don’t mind sending us their coal generated power at all. What did DonC mean by “an industry which is looking a decreasing demand”?

This is one California kid that isn’t worried about your analysis of remaining buyers at all. NPNS

(Quote)
Jeffhre Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

charlie h

Doesn’t selling gasoline require a little energy here and there?

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 11:37 pm

Ethanol Myth #7: There is no known process to mass produce ethanol from cellulose.
Reality: Not true. Cellulosic gasification works today, produces raw ethanol for under $1/gallon, and is being scaled up as we speak:
http://www.coskata.com/AboutFAQ.asp

The problem is on the demand side. Once demand ramps up, supply will follow. When all new cars sold in the U.S. are FlexFuel, things will happen very quickly. Besides, people like having more choices, which is what FlexFuel cars give you. The Volt has the ultimate choice of fuels: electricity, gasoline, or E85.

(Quote)
J Man Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 9:19 am

#10

If you add a supercharger or a turbo to a 4 cyl that would help with a lack of power. If the reduced the weight of newer cars, that would help as well.

#29

If I remember right the Highlander is a full framed SUV not a crossover. If that is the case there is a lot of weight for a small engine to pull around. Basically the same reason the do not put the 4.3 V6 in a Tahoe or Suburban. I think we as Americans have put ourselves in a situation where we expect more on new cars but at the same time we complain about the price if the cars when these items are added. These items also add weight to a car.

____________________________________________________

My hobby is building hot rods. Most guys I know are taking old engines and matching them with newer transmissions and the right rear end gearing to get better gas milage than a lot of newer cars. I have a Corvair that gets 26 mpg with a 4 spd, if I was able to put a 5 spd behind it I would get 30 or so with that extra gear. My ‘50 Chevy Sedan with a 454 Th350 and 4.42 gears gets better milage than my ‘04 Chevy truck with the Duramax, Allison 6 spd and 4.11 gears. If some guy using an old car with no aerodynamics gan do it why can’t the OEMs do it?

(Quote)
Darius Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 11:29 am

Here is no anybody from ethanol production facility. But everybody can tell that 1# Dave G statement is not real. There is no oil usage for ethanol production. I was involved in water purification after ethanol production process. I can tell you that major part of energy is used for animal feed drying and final water (condensate) purification. There are ideas of distributed ethanol production in order to use directly wet distillery wash (sludge) for animal feed since it is necessary to consume within 1 day in order not to sour.
Heat and electricity for distillation process would be produced from cattle manure by methanization process (biogas). So it would be most efficient process.

Another way of animal feed separation and final water purification – microfiltering. But still you need energy for drying animal feed. So there are some developments in this area.

I was always suppressed by speculation of advantage of cellulosic ethanol over grain ethanol. To grow cellulosic it is necessary to use the same land. Cellulose or biomass is better incinerating locally for heat and electricity production. In order to increase world food supply most efficient way to become all of us vegetarians since you need lot of food for poor cow or pig and you get very little meet.

Finally the personal road transportation shall gradually become electrical. Various ethanol blends will be used for other transport.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

#69 Darius,

For corn ethanol, fossil fuels are used primary to grow the corn, not extract the ethanol from it.

Cellulosic ethanol is made from Crop Residue, Energy Crops, Municipal Waste, and Forest/Mill waste. Energy crops grow in places where food crops wont, so it’s probably not the same land used to grow food. It’s a myth that cellulosic ethanol will affect food production.

Liquid fuels have the highest energy density, way higher than any battery, including EEStor. Liquid fueling stations are everywhere. In the future, the majority of personal road travel will be electric, but longer distance travel will remain on liquid fuels. So I see the combination EREVs and Ethanol as the solution for the foreseeable future.

(Quote)
stas peterson Says:
January 9th, 2009 at 9:53 pm

#43, Don C,

I agree with you about Congresseman Stupid. Mr. Markey was in the wrong line when they were passing out brains.

But your comments about powerplants are completely offbase. Mr. Hardwicke is correct. Yes it is true that many powerplants are run 24×7, but that does NOT mean that they are working hard all the time.

Consider this, suppose you had your car hooked to a heavily loaded trailer and were pulling it up a steep mountain road. Do you think you would be using the same amount of fuel, as if you were at a stop light and had shifted into Neutral and were just idling the engine? Of course not!

Yet the engine is running in both situations. Such is the case with a power plant too. Some plants are always on-line to to “load-follow” and to produce electricity as and when the demand is created by customers. Others are idleing at “no-load”, just as your car at the stop light when shifted into neutral. Your car pulling that loaded trailer is “load-following”, and works harder as the road grows steeper, and works less hard, and consumes less fuel, as the grade gets less steep. Your engine is “load-following” just like a powerplant.

No excess electricity is ever generated. Think about it, if the power plants cannot produce enough momentarily, the lights dim; if that condition persists you have a “brownout”. If they produce too much, the lights would be at over voltage, and grow too bright and burn out. Power plants “Load-follow”. Period.

Having the capability to generate 300 HP in your auto engine, does not mean that your auto makes 300HP all the time. Usually the demand is much less. Similarly you have paid for the car and you don’t use it all day and all night, but you could. The power companies are in the same boat. If you did run your car day and night it would wear out faster but suppose you had bought it and used it as a taxi. You would make a lot more fares if you ran it as much as you could. Power companies are in the exact same position. They can run all their equipment heavily and generate enough power to recharge most of the nations electric autos. But they would need to build new power plants as the old ones wore out sooner.

Thankfully, adults are in charge unlike the Markeys and Odumma’s of the world and they are already preparing to do exactly that. They need to prudently plan ten years ahead, and they are. The decisions to build, have been made.

Now all we have to do is make sure the mentally challenged like Odumma’s choice for EPA, Ms. Browner, possibly the only person stupider than Markey; or John Holgren his choice for Science Advisor don’t screw it up. Since Mr. Holgren lost his famous wager with Julian Simon revealing his utter lack of foresight and common sense; and his prediction that the population of the USA would now be only 22 million starving peasants eaking out a bare existence, was hopelessly screwball; the hope is only that. These two are hardly other than dimbulbs at best.

(Quote)
Lisa Watkins Says:
January 11th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

I have a 2002 ford focus station wagon that gets 27MPG city why would I want to throw away more that 30000.00 to get 28 MPG?? I want more that 50 MPG or forget it.

(Quote)
Darius Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 11:42 am

#70 Dave G.

It is surprising for me that major part of energy is used to grow corn. On other hand you have to grow corn anyway because you have to feed cows and pigs. And you don’t loose any food when extracting ethanol. In fact you can totally avoid this energy usage in your calculations.

On other hand you have to use lot of energy to grow cellulose (trees) especially when cutting and transporting from remote places. Evaluation and comparison of those figures very problematic.

P.S. Sorry for being too hesitant.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 12th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

#73 Darius

Corn ethanol only accounts for 4% of our gasoline supply. To help end our addition to foreign oil, we’ll need 25-35% of our gasoline converted to ethanol. Corn simply can’t scale that high.

Have you clicked on this link yet?
http://www.coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp

(Quote)
asydayByday Says:
April 15th, 2009 at 1:48 pm

As that time at me has not risen also I has started to panic,
there are no well you представте only еслиб has not risen
at you, thank God that the wife has advised this preparation,
whether I have bought 10 packs at once for a year \I advise
also to you it to buy and that a little that everyone can happen
Here I am direct and have bought from them appreciate after all more cheaply
http://www.viddler.com/explore/laminator
Be happy
post.s. thi not funny spam, this is life..

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory November 18, 2009
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory: _Link_ (http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1038564_thnk-picks-indiana-for-u-s-factory) […]
Jason M. Hendler
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010 November 18, 2009
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010: _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler
Any news about the NiMH battery? November 18, 2009
Now that there are new owners of the patent, is there any indication that they will allow its use for electric cars? Like many others, I believe that... […]
Desertstraw
energy requirments of modern electric vehicles November 18, 2009
does anyone know any credible sources of information concerning the electricity requirements of modern electric vehicles per mile of travel and the... […]
crubkings
30% reduction November 18, 2009
The Belgian governement decided that if you buy a car with less then 60g/km emmision you get a 15% tax reduction and you can write it off for 100% if... […]
filiep

Status of the 2-Mode Hybrid and Plug-in Hybrid Saturn VUE

75 Responses to “Status of the 2-Mode Hybrid and Plug-in Hybrid Saturn VUE”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts