Grab our RSS Feed

AND

GM-Volt.com Ford Focus BEV Test Drive

January 14th, 2009 | Posted in: Competitors, Test drive

The 2009 Detroit Auto Show marked a truly profound inflection point in the history of the automobile, as nearly every major automaker has either revealed electric cars or plans to build them.

Ford made an especially strong jump on the scene announcing that they will begin mass production of a battery-electric vehicle, yet unnamed, in 2011.

I was specifically invited by Ford and given a special opportunity to actually test drive a prototype. At this point the vehicle is based on the Ford Focus body, which is known as a C-class sedan.

When I arrived for my test drive out on the cold street in front of the Detroit Cobo convention center, I found the unassuming Focus was adorned with bright yellow plug graphics to let you know what was under the hood. I was given a tour of the engine compartment and could see the large electric motor, power electronic module, and 400V high voltage cables running back from the engine compartment.

After getting into the driver’s seat I turned the key and heard a little clicking, but no crank of course, and then the charge indicator lit up letting me know we could drive.

I pulled away and found the silent instant torque exciting and different, even though the car only does 0 to 60 in 10 seconds. There was no problem merging with traffic. There is no transmission, just a gearcase with planetary gears. The car performed flawlessly over a three or so mile city drive, and braking wasn’t harsh as a vacuum component was added to make the brakes more natural. They are of course regenerative.

There were a few little rough points such as some vibratory noise and a varying reading on the charge level meter, but what does one expect for such an early mule?

The battery is split into two packs, one below the cabin and the other in the trunk.

Overall the pack has 23 kWh of stored energy, and uses prismatic lithium-ion cells. Ford would not say whose cells were inside.

There are currently two of these early mules and the one I was in had only gone about 300 miles or so so far in its life. Ford is working with component-maker Magna who makes many of the components and is actually evaluating lithium-ion cells from up to 6 companies.

I was assured by Ford VP of powertrain Barb Samardzich in an interview that Ford intends to bring this car to production. The actual unique design is being developed now and a full production program is underway with a hard goal of a 2011 launch. She expects the final vehicle to have a 100 mile range and to roll out gradually. She expects to build at least 10,000 copies the first year and pledges to build more if the market demands.

Ford would not disclose what their target price was for the car but advised that Ford is a company that builds affordable cars. But don’t expect it to be too cheap, when asked if the car could be kept below $20,000 one executive said “that the batteries alone” would cost that much.

Ford’s entry into the EV realm could be construed as reactionary to the wide publicity the Volt has enjoyed, but Ms. Samardzich advised me Ford has a 10 year history of vehicular electrification going back to the early engineering that led to the Escape hybrid in 2004.

The fact they have shown so much detail on this EV and allowed this blogger to drive such an early prototype likely indicates a strong need to “prove” they are really going to do it.

At this point I’m sure they will, and our quest to break this country from oil addiction has turned yet another chapter.

And for what its worth, Ford actually beat GM in allowing me to drive their electric car first.

Posted by: Lyle

167 Responses to “GM-Volt.com Ford Focus BEV Test Drive”

Yoshi Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 7:40 am

100 mile range? Wow… If this car comes in under 35K, this might be bad news for the Volt

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 7:41 am

Progress is a beautiful thing.

=D~

(Quote)
Bearclaw Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 7:43 am

way to go Ford. I can’t wait to get to the autoshow and see all the green vehicles. I’m not so sure about the 100 mile range though. I’m thinking there will be a lot of anxiety about that one.

(Quote)
Eric C. Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 7:43 am

Hmm

Edit: Hey Lyle, something seems weird with the GM-Volt posting script. I posted three comments prior to this one, but apparently each time it was near the identical instant of the prior three posts, and my comment never showed up. If I tried to repost the same message, though, I was alerted that I couldn’t post a duplicate message. Two of the other three comments I posted included 90600 and 90602 according to the resulting links when I submitted them, if that’s any help in debugging. (Don’t post them though now, or I’ll look awfully redundant!)

In any case, congrats on the test drive. It’s too bad that Ford beat you to the test-drive status, but you’ll be behind that Volt wheel soon enough. I just hope the electrification trend continues. Maybe with some more hefty tax on gasoline, and increased EV incentives, we can really replace the majority of gasoline used in personal transportation.

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 7:46 am

So now Ford has achieved what GM did in 1996 when they put the EV-1 on the road. Except that the EV-1 was much quicker than the
new Ford mule. ANYONE (including Joe down the street with the S10 pickup and 35 lead acid batteries in the bed) can build a pure electric car. We’ve been doing that since 1887. I guess you might say that I consider Ford’s entry as about 120 years too late. And waaay too expensive for a niche car.

(Quote)
OzoneLevel Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:04 am

Where is my electric Expedition?

(Quote)
FME III Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:04 am

It will be curious to see how the Ford EV fares in the open market vis-a-vis the Volt. I, for one, think that range anxiety/limitations will cut out a significant number of potential buyers. Sooner or later, we all need to take a road trip, and 100 miles don’t cut it. And how many of us can afford one car for the city driving and another for the occassinal road trip?

That said, I’m rooting for Ford (sorry, my Dad worked for ‘em and I grew up with the brand) .

And it’s too early, of course, to tell how price will affect the Ford EV vs. Volt sale.

But I still think GM has the better concept with the E-REV.

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:08 am

This isn’t a Volt competitor. No ICE range extender. It’s a different animal for a different market.

NO TRANSMISSION DONC. Only a gearcase.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:11 am

Lyle, I am very happy for you to have had the opportunity to drive this car. What a total shame that GM hasn’t done this for you. Ford doesn’t owe you anything, and yet they were very gracious to you.

Your explanation for your drive is very good. I felt very excited reading it. We as a nation really need this. Thank you for doing this work.

Thank you to Ford and shame on you, GM.

(Quote)
Yoshi Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:12 am

FMEIII, I think many people would have one for city (commuting to work) and one for the occasional road trip (minivan). Think about it: who wants to go for a 6+ hour family trip in a subcompact?? The problem is, and this is probably what you’re tuning into, is that who can afford a commuter car that is 40K!

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:27 am

GM should definitely let Lyle drive a Volt mule before long. Lyle’s put a lot of effort into this blog. He’s been a Volt supporter since Day One. He ought to be one of the first people to drive the production models too.

(Quote)
Brett Pavel Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:27 am

Thank you, Lyle! Maybe GM will take notice and finally invite you before you change the subject name for your blog!

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:34 am

I would never buy a pure BEV, period.

(Quote)
Arnold Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:36 am

I have never thought of buying a car from an American company when I go car shopping. My latest purchase was a 2004 Acura TL. I am ready for a new car, but I am will to wait until the new 2009 hybrids come out. Now, with new product designs such as the Fusion and the Taurus, I am seriously considering a FORD product this time. Maybe I will wait for the electric Focus. This time I want to do my part for the environment, but also enjoy driving the car. For me, three of the reasons I look for in a car are design, internal material finish and maintenance. Ford, if you can build this car for under 30K with good design, I will definitely buy the car. For new innovative technology, cost is the key to outshine others in the industry.

(Quote)
BobS Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:38 am

#7 FME III “Sooner or later, we all need to take a road trip, and 100 miles don’t cut it. And how many of us can afford one car for the city driving and another for the occassinal road trip?”

I think there are plenty of families out there with a small commuter car for dad and a minivan for the family. A 100-mile EV would fit in just fine as dad’s commuter car.

(Quote)
dave b Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:40 am

Cautious Fan @ 8 says “this isns’t a Volt competitor.”

I beg to differ. I’m in the market for an EV to avoid using petro; Period. I’m looking to buy Ford’s EV, the Volt, or whatever reasonable and reliable EV is first to market. This is certainly a competitor in my growing list of options (which will be available). Congrats Ford!

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:48 am

Lyle,
I wonder if the hyper-negativity of some on this site have undermined your chance to drive a Volt mule. I still think they must be crazy if you’ve not had the opportunity, but perhaps you’ve been sworn to secrecy because anything you report will be second guessed ad infinitum by techno babblers and GM haters.
A pure EV has a very definite place in the present market. Most families have two cars and only need one for road trips. I could use a 100 mile range for over 95% of my driving. An optional range extender, with utility also as a home generator/storage unit, would be a very nice addition.

Hope we see a video of Lyle in a Volt very soon GM, you guys are dropping the ball.

(Quote)
Gsned57 Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:49 am

Yoshi, I’m with you. I need a commuter car for my 20 miles of daily driving and I intend to have a minivan type car for hauling, towing, and vacations. They need to modualize the battery packs so that I can buy them in 10 – 20 mile increments. For that matter you have a whole new industry of not renting cars but renting battery capacity if you need to go on a 100 mile trip.

Sell me a $10,000 ford focus with $7000 worth of batteries and let the fed give me $3,000 back and I would be the first in line to buy a HIGHWAY SPEED 20 mile BEV for $14,000.

Just help me to avoid sending my $$$ to the mideast for oil and I’ll be happy.

(Quote)
Chris Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:49 am

As a Ford owner and fan, this is exciting. I think its shameful that Dr. Dennis hasn’t been able to drive a Volt of any kind after the amount of support he’s given.

That said, I’ve buy an E-REV before I’d buy a BEV.

Chris

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:51 am

Oh PS
I drove a small Ford Electric pickup many years ago at work. They had high temperature sodium batteries and eventually succumbed to fire problems and cheap, cheap oil.

(Quote)
old man Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:57 am

I would consider this car if it was priced quite a bit less than the Volt. For the few road trips I take a year I would either rent a car or trade my electric for one of my kids cars for the duration of the trip.

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:07 am

Congratulations Lyle, you deserved this ride.

BTW, today as I asked Smart.com what the perspective of the Smart ED would be for Belgium, I have been quite amazed to receive a phone call in less than fifteen minutes to ask me what where my intentions and the Smart representative said to me “We are now in such an explosion of such demands for electric commuter cars” … but he didn’t know anything of the plans for Belgium.

Thanks for your posts again,

Regards, NPNS,

JC

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:09 am

Lyle Dennis:

Neurologist, marathon runner, webmaster, internet icon…and now automobile test driver.

In other news…I hate you. (j/k)
————————————————–
Seriously though, on this car/topic. To the people who think this is not a ‘threat’ or is not in competition with the Volt…you are wrong, anything with electric propulsion is competition to some degree or another.

There are many people out there (like me), just waiting and ‘dying’ to buy ANY electric vehicle with ANY electric range and have our names in all over the place to take delivery. I’m not planning on buying 8 EVs (maybe 2), the first one gets my business…the rest get nothing. In my case I prefer a BEV (no need to get into a debate about it…that is just how I feel), but right now, I’m not picky.

It speaks volumes how seemingly other car companies (and not GM) just say, “Hey lets build a electric car” or electric assist or a deep hybrid…and boom, they have one…or two, or three (or 5 in Chrysler’s case). Ford wasn’t even thinking about this segment 6 months ago…now they have a running prototype that anyone with a press pass can take for a spin? (I realize it does not work that way…but comparitively speaking it seems like it).

I’ve said for a very long time that GM would have been hard pressed to accomplish less in the two years since the Volt’s debut….it is a travesty that Lyle drives this before a Volt (and that only a solitary ‘fringe’ automobile journalist has ever driven a Volt mule).

From being the whipping boy of the ‘big 2.8′ on electric vehicles and having nothing, to a driveable protype and hard production in 2011 with 10,000 copies in only a few months? Ford has my respect on this one…and it sounds like a good shot at my business.
—-
Meanwhile we have Wagoner, backing down about his ‘never go C11′ stance from the Wall Street Journal today:

General Motors Corp. appears to be off to a slow start to meet the mandates of a federal bailout, and its top executive said Monday the company hasn’t ruled out a bankruptcy filing.

Speaking at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Rick Wagoner, GM’s chairman and chief executive, said the company wants to avoid a Chapter 11 filing, but also said its viability is “not 100%” certain at this point.

“GM Chief Operating Officer Frederick ‘Fritz; Henderson suggested Monday that it could be some time before substantive discussions (bondholders, UAW) can be held.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123178365916774153.html

So they have to have a plan in 4 weeks, and no negotiations with UAW have taken place, no discussions at all about what to do about the bondholders (like they would ever agree to a swap anyway)…and oh yeah Carl Peter Forster (GM’s Euro guy) says they need a pantload of cash to stabilize Saab before they can think about selling it off (or as GM likes to say ’strategic review’ it off, which means we’d like to sell it, but it might be worthless)…unfortunately GM still has under the minimum operating cash required to be viable, so that ain’t happening.

Basically, what they are saying to the gov’t is, “we have no viabilty plan, we can’t hit your benchmarks”…now we have to see if the gov’t is willing to endlessly prop them up with blank checks. (My ‘GSB’ may still happen, lol)

/and good morning, how are you all doing?

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:18 am

Tsk, tsk …

Ford is trying so hard to be contrarian, that they have basically recreated the EV1 – range too short and cost / price too high.

GM learned their lesson and created the Volt, which gives the minimum all EV range needed for the typical drive, while providing a gasoline generator for those occasions when you need to drive further. This configuration also allows you to have a battery pack that costs between $5K and $10K, not over $20K.

Those Ford people sure are dumb.

(Quote)
ziv Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:18 am

If the “batteries” cost at least $20,000, the battery pack and the battery management system will cost even more, so even a third generation Focus would cost $20,000+ for the pack and $14,000+ for the car, which brings it close to the cost of a Volt at $38,000. Granted the Ford may get a larger tax break, the Volt looking like it will be net $30,500 and the Focus will be a net price, after tax credit, $26,000 or more. EREV vs. range anxiety. I think there will be a market for both of them. We will be coming out of the recession, gas will be over $3 gallon, possibly, probably over $4 gallon by the time these cars come out.
The Ford is a perfect town car, pokey, but fairly roomy for shopping and kids, and all electric is great.
The Chevy is sporty, though not a real performance car, and will use gasoline infrequently for most owners.
The Converj, if produced, would be another niche altogether.
The Prius PHEV7 will be using the most gasoline, but with a 7 mile AER and 50 mpg, (most people drive about 33 miles a day according to the DOE so that is about half a gallon a day) that isn’t a whole lot of gas per month.
Bring them all on! We need to stop exporting $700,000,000,000 a year for oil. Bring on the new nukes, photovoltaics and wind, we can use it all!
It is ironic, the one thing that could kill this momentum is if oil stays below $50 a barrel for an extended period of time.

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:32 am

#25 ziv

Bring them all on! We need to stop exporting $700,000,000,000 a year for oil. Bring on the new nukes, photovoltaics and wind, we can use it all!
It is ironic, the one thing that could kill this momentum is if oil stays below $50 a barrel for an extended period of time.
====================================

+1
Beauty.

Nothing in this segment is bad news. Sure we can all knock this company’s vision of the future, or that company’s, but at the end of the day, lets just see them already.

Your also right that sub $50 oil (let alone in the 30s) is bad news if that coincides with a dozen $35,000+ EVs hitting the road…even worse if the price is still low after the 250,000 rebates are gone. The revolution is coming, it will happen…but cheap gas is now the largest factor in delaying it.

(I will note, 2 years out is practically a eternity away to attempt to forecast gas prices…it could be $250 as easily as $50)

(Quote)
Eco Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:41 am

You know I’m just not sure if 100 miles is enough. Most urban areas in the US cover a lot of area. Lately I’ve been watching my mileage, and it does not take all that much to hit 100 miles in a day going places and getting things done.

Why would Ford not do 100/100? Is there a configuration that gets you 100 miles all electric, then if you run low on juice, you find a filling station, fill a tank with enough fuel to run the ICE to charge the battery to get you up to another 50 or 100?

It would be like having those tires that you can run flat long enough to get to a safe place to fix your tire.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:43 am

statik,

Tsk, tsk …

You are impressed? because Ford, after “ten years of R&D”, did a simple EV conversion of one of their current offerings? at a cost / price to exceed the Chevy Volt? with only 100 mile range? with a likely 8+ hour recharge time?

Let’s face it. Ford has done nothing for the past two years, while GM has raced ahead with the Volt. You and others have claimed that Ford was wisely keeping their cards close to their vest, when, in fact, now that they have shown a card, they reveal a deuce.

Ford is dumb, dumb, dumb.

(Quote)
vincent Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:55 am

Good to see Ford in the game. Why all US auto MFG’s don’t just pool together on batteries is a mystery since they all need to survive in a bad way right now.

Also interesting that while we are importing about the same amount of oil…oil is now being stored on tankers because there is no place to put it.
What a game all along. Guess we all knew that.

Now alternate energy (electric) comes along again (thankfully) and oil gets cheap, again.
I hope the US car companies get the new propulsion systems out and mass produced quickly…again another reason to pool into a common battery company and bring costs down to make it affordable.
Heck they all use pistons and oil now…so whats the big deal. They have the same propulsion now and they are just fine right… Wake up to the hype of battery expense people. That can be solved now.

Another reason batteries should only be made in the US and not farmed out to another country….keep the energy supply made here or whats the point…right.

Lets hope they all work together on batteries. GM, Ford and whats left of Chrysler….they will be acquired by some one else anyway. Their days are numbered for sure.

(Quote)
Michael Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:00 am

I certainly would have range anxiety. I live in New Mexico, where a simple drive to the nearest real airport is 105 miles. I’m still sold on the Volt concept. I must add that the Mrs. thought the Chrysler 200C E-REV looked pretty good. (For those of you who don’t pick up on that immediately, that is not good news for the Volt.) By the way, we celebrated 39 years last Saturday. I think we can make 40.

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:04 am

#28 Jason M Hendler

statik,

Tsk, tsk …

You are impressed? because Ford, after “ten years of R&D”, did a simple EV conversion of one of their current offerings? at a cost / price to exceed the Chevy Volt? with only 100 mile range? with a likely 8+ hour recharge time?

Let’s face it. Ford has done nothing for the past two years, while GM has raced ahead with the Volt. You and others have claimed that Ford was wisely keeping their cards close to their vest, when, in fact, now that they have shown a card, they reveal a deuce.

Ford is dumb, dumb, dumb.
===============================

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

I’m impressed with Ford, because in only months they have shown the ability to entirely convert their corporate thinking on the tech, develop/produce, make available to the public, a working BEV and also charge it into production congruent to the deadlines of their peers.

‘In my opinion,’ dumbness is always measured by dollar bills. You are right, it is true that Ford spent most of their money and time the last two years not on a EV strategy, but on a developing a strong hybird platform and getting it to market as fast as possible to take advantage of a segment that is sorely lacking one.

Today, Ford has a product to sell, priced correctly (yes, on a current platform…like the EV will be as well), and most importantly for profit.

Conversely, GM has a product that by their own admission costs billions to develop, won’t be to market for at least a couple more years…and maybe will never turn a profit (at least until gen 2 – 2015?), all the while being operationally bankrupt themselves.

/so our definitions of ‘dumb’ are clearly at odds with each other

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:05 am

One for the rumor mill. Cerberus may have a buyer for Chrysler.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28646276/

A major sticking point is whether the foreign ownership would jeopardize their ability to get gov’t funds.

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:10 am

#29 vincent said:

“Good to see Ford in the game. Why all US auto MFG’s don’t just pool together on batteries is a mystery since they all need to survive in a bad way right now.”

=================================
This is a good question. Having the ‘big 2.8′ collaborate on battery tech…or develop a battery standard seems like a great idea, it would certainly save a lot money…money they clearly don’t have.

Forming a company to develop/produce batteries, that they each own a third of would seem to be a logical thing to do, and I think would give them a advantage over their competition.

(Quote)
Arch Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:10 am

http://www.phillyburbs.com/opinions/blogs/burbsblogs/news_politics_blog/news_politics_blog_details/article/420/2009/january/14/chevy-and-their-brilliant-marketing-plan.html

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Arch Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:12 am

http://www.motorauthority.com/report-magna-international-may-build-fords-electric-car.html

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Neutron Flux Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:19 am

I think all car MFG’s are now thinking electric to some degree but are all hedging their bets. Ford is “planning” to introduce but no official vote from BOD like with GM yet. GM is building an assembly plant not a MFG plant. they too are hoping for some break through in battery tech that will half the cost of same, they can then use their plant to build them without being locked into costly infrastructure to actually make the cells. Downside the big current MFGs will be in no hurring to implement new tech until they pay for investment in old

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:27 am

#32 Cautious Fan

One for the rumor mill. Cerberus may have a buyer for Chrysler.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28646276/

A major sticking point is whether the foreign ownership would jeopardize their ability to get gov’t funds.
===============================
This speaks to Chrysler’s/Cerberus’ desperation. Renault-Nissan has been desperate to get Jeep back into its stable…and more specifically the platform to underpin other offerings.

R/N has been hammering Cerberus for the better part of two years trying to get it, but Cerberus of course does not want to sell off only the ‘best piece’ of Chrysler and has insisted R/N take the whole thing…or pay a premium for the Jeep brand.

It would seem at first blush that Magna is willing to takeover some portion/buy some plants from Cerberus, provided they can work out some kind of deal that would see them have a fabrication contract with R/N on the Jeep brand…as well as build out their own capacity to produce vehicles in NA (which is clearly where Magna’s vision of the future takes them).

Of interest: Magna actually bid on Chrysler ‘back in the day’ when Daimler got it (lucky they lost). Also Chery (China) is reported to want a piece of Chrysler as a ‘in’ to the US market, specifically the “Neon” platform and the PT Cruiser brand. (The value of this portion of the transaction would be almost negligible comparitively speaking…but a interesting development to the makeup of the NA automobile industry).

(Quote)
DonC Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:34 am

This is hardly bad news, and Lyle is right to point out that this is the first auto show where there have been so many EVs.

That said, it’s far easier to build an EV than a E-REV. I could be wrong but Ford doesn’t seem to be a player in the electric space. Time will tell. But coming up with a prototype of an EV conversion of an existing automobile is not hard — plenty of companies will do that for you now. The advantages of a plug-in serial hybrid are just so overwhelming that pure BEVs will be hard put to it to compete. In this sense the Ford would compete more with the i-Miev than the Volt, at least until the cost of the battery pack comes way down so the range is more like 250 miles than 100 miles.

#8 Cautious Fan says “NO TRANSMISSION DONC. Only a gearcase.”

He he he he he. I saw that. What can I say?

Seriously, a transmission is simply the process of transmitting. In a car what is transmitted is power from the engine or motor to the axle. This is happening here. Another way to think about it is that any car with a gearbox by definition has a transmission since the synonym for transmission is gearbox. A planetary gearbox is just one form of transmission.

(Quote)
SteveK Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:37 am

For those commenting on low gas prices—the solution, as demonstrated by Europe, is high gas taxes but our political culture won’t allow it in the US. It would be even more impossible during a recession. But, if we really want ‘change’ perhaps we will see a floor put under gas prices when the economy recovers to encourage electric cars.

I am also a strong proponent of a massive investment in Nuclear Power. I used to post the following line on various websites:

Nuclear Power + Electric Cars = the Future.

I notice another poster uses this same formula with the equality being ‘American Energy Independence’. Either way I say YEAH!

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:40 am

“evaluating lithium-ion cells from up to 6 companies”.

Which 6 companies. And why do Ford’s batteries cost more than GM’s? 16Kwh = $10 vs 20Kwh = more than $20K.

(Quote)
scott Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:46 am

The only way I could imagine owning a pure BEV would be if I had another vehicle for longer ranges. If Ford is serious they will need to market this as a daily-commuter car that you own in addition to your sedan or SUV. That will be a tough sell. Very few will have the driveway space or money to own an extra vehicle.

(Quote)
Red HHR Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:48 am

Way to go Lyle! Hope you get many more drives. lets hope other manufactures will also invite you to a test drive. There are so many Internet pages that profess a new electric car… Most are unobtainum.

My commute is 80 miles a day, Would I be happy with 100 miles of range? I am number two at the local Honda dealer for the Insight. No deposit required.

I spend two years climbing the GM-Volt mountain and I find Statik with “GSB” (big grin) Oh master of (insert a totally over the top adjectives) what do I hear of GM requesting a “gas tax” to level the playing field?

Red HHR

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:54 am

statik,

Perhaps visionless is a better word for Ford, as this economic upheaval calls for vision to find a way through. Ford has no vision, whereas, GM does. GM has a perfectly positioned product in the Volt and its Voltec propulsion technologies, which is being emulated by everyone, with the exception of Ford and Toyota, my two favorite visionless whipping boys. Both Ford and Toyota are 2 years late in making the right choices, and now that they have, they have chosen wrong.

As for economics, I will place my bet on GM’s Volt, with a $6,000 battery pack with $1,500 range extender, over Ford’s $20,000+ battery pack with a 100 mile range and 8+ hour recharge time. That visionless pick by Ford is still shockingly dumb.

GM is going to either restructure with the help of the federal government, or through Chapter 11. Either way, their costs will decrease, so their vehicles will eventually make money.

Ford’s EV will cost way too much, and Toyota’s EV is way too small.

(Quote)
Ray Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am

Good to hear that FORD is in the game… You have to remember here that FORD has NOT asked for the Government handout at this point so out of the 2.8 … FORD is actually the strongest contender for a lot of the new car buyers… The Hybrid Escape (sold out at most of the dealers in my area and there is a waiting list) and the up coming Hybrid Fusion (price it right and I am buying one) show that FORD is truly in the game.. I am also contemplating the Hybrid Malibu but the milage numbers are truly not significant enough to warrant an extra $8 K in price over the base unit. (Central Alberta Canada). I want a Volt, have deposit in hand,, but am not going to be taken to the cleaners for a car whose milage is not equivalent to or better than the cars already out there….
Price and overall milage is what I am going to pay for. Looks? They all are going to be similar.. so I want the best bang for my hard earned dollars

(Quote)
jeff j Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am

The auto buyers opinions are going to be all over the board on which car they going to spend their hard earned money on , EV , EREV , ICE , Non Computer ICE , Diesel ect… The real news is in a short amount of time the choice will be yours to make with most major auto company’s coming out with not one but multiple engine choices . What I want really doesn’t matter.
Believe it or not I still have customers that refuse to drive anything but a carburetor engine, which is totally crazy to me . It will be impossible to convince a segment of people to go electric and they don’t matter either.

(Quote)
RB Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:56 am

Lyle, congratulations on getting the invitation, and thank you for this informative review.

I am looking forward to a Ford electric car similar to the one you drove and will consider buying one very seriously. My trips most days are 15 miles or less, and only 50 miles on a very big driving day, so a BEV with 100 miles range is something I can live with and be happy ever after.

(Quote)
Mike-o-Matic Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:01 am

>> And for what its worth, Ford actually beat GM in allowing me to
>> drive their electric car first.

Bloody disgrace, that! Bob Lutz should had you ridin’ shotgun in that very first Mali-volt mule.

(Quote)
Right Lane Cruiser Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:03 am

Statik, I’m with you. I am also impressed with Ford — and not just with their efforts to produce an EV. Naysayers should also note that Ford does have quite a bit of experience with EV development — their brief ownership of Th!nk is just one example. They have positioned themselves well, have a good sedan (Fusion Hybrid) to compete on the current hybrid playing field, and both their SUV (FEH) and sedan (FFH) are just as ready to be upgraded to plug-in capability as Toyota’s vehicles. While I will readily agree that both Ford’s and Toyota’s systems are needlessly complex for a vehicle primarily powered by electricity, they have it NOW for customers to use NOW. BAS and 2-mode systems from GM really can’t compete… Ford is in an excellent place right now — as evidenced by their ability to continue functioning (so far) without a “bailout.”

As for BEVs not being a player, I beg to differ. If Ford can produce this vehicle for something in the mid $20K range (and remember, we are still 2yrs out from stated production status and component — namely battery — costs will likely drop at least moderately), many people will find a quality vehicle with 100mi of range quite viable and practical. Upgrading the vehicle with more/better batteries after purchase should also be relatively simple (certainly easier than converting a fuel burning car to EV). Besides, RAV-EV drivers already solved the range anxiety issue many years ago. More than one simply hooked up a trailer with a well sized generator and drove with it running and the car plugged into it for longer trips. Yes, the fuel economy wasn’t so great (though on a par with the typical gas burning SUV), but do you really care when you only make trips requiring it a handful of times a year?

If the car has roughly the interior space of my ‘02 Elantra (seats 5 with a little squeezing), I’d happily buy one and either purchase a generator for home backup power and range extension on demand or rig up a trailer allowing me to simply rent a generator when I need the range. Problem solved and with a system not nearly as complicated as the one implemented in the Voltec powertrain.

Yes, the Volt would be more convenient, but it also has more points of failure than a BEV. I’ll keep my options open and eye on Ford.

(Quote)
unni Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:09 am

Summary : GM lives in Blogs, Press conf,Photos, Concepts etc

Rest all lives in the world ( ford took only 6 months to come up with the mule and they gave it for a public drive ). Last day some news said the ICE engine for volt is going to be from Austria. Finally GM just want money and publicity. After some time they will say “volt is not in track and more time needed” , then ” Its not practical to make volts” and ” we have another concept now for production and its better than volt” and next publicity cycle begins.

If they are serious for a 2010 production , do you think they wont have enough mules/ pre production versions for test drive at least for lyle ?

Congrats ford !!, I think you are on track.

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:13 am

Congratulations Lyle on the opportunity to drive electric. GM should feel some shame here on this one. They gave a first drive to Matt Laurer and a second drive to Phil Lebeau, but none as of yet to one of their avid supporters. Granted, I understand GM has a lot of bigger fish to fry these days–but still. I hope that they take our posts to heart and give you the same opportunity soon!

As for the Ford BEV, I am happy to see Ford in the race, I like the idea of this car, and I think they will pretty easily find 10,000 willing consumers when they bring it to market. With that said, sadly this wouldn’t be the car for me. The range is just too low for the possible circumstances of driving over 100 miles and running out of electric. The Volt answers this equation beautifully where the pure BEV falls short every time. I think Ford will still find success with this car, but it is not for everyone. Now, if they rigged this car to work with the “Better Place” scenario, that’s a different story. Is that option being considered-Lyle?

(Quote)
D'Artagnon Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:14 am

For me, this car IS a Volt competitor. Depending upon cost/value considerations, if Ford works up a good product — and if the economics are advantageous as compared to an E-REV — I would buy one for just driving around town, and save the gas-powered car for long trips. So far, however, I think Lady Dart would like either the Volt or the Chrysler better. We’ll have to evaluate and compare the vehicles at such time as they start reaching dealer lots.

I rode my bicycle to work every day for seven years, partly to avoid paying for rising fuel costs, and partly as a conscientious objector to U.S. dollars to be sent to unfriendly places in the middle east. The other part was that riding is an excellent way of staying fit.

I hope Detroit takes note of this, and manages to get itself in tune with what people desire in the way of vehicles.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see gasoline stations become as obsolete as coal delivery trucks?

Best regards,

D’Artagnon

(Quote)
Arch Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:15 am

http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-32/1231948231300740.xml&coll=7

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
Red HHR Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:17 am

I sit in my Lazy-Boy recliner and tap on my laptop. While sipping my coffee I can gaze out the big picture window on this cold windy New Hampshire day. I can see (really) a bunch of really large two megawatt wind turbines. Some are working some are not. Seems they do not like gusty conditions. Sometimes new technology is tough, It does not always work. It may take a number of tries to get it right. That is why some people are resistant to change (I know how that carburetor works)

My little windmill is working fine, though I do not think it would charge an electric car.

Red HHR

(Quote)
KentT Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:18 am

What kent b at blog #5 said hits the nail on the head, the Ford EV is no more than a four door, four seat EV1. It’s nice to see battery technology has allowed two more doors and seats but at a 100 mile range people won’t buy. THE MAGIC RANGE NUMBER IS 200 miles. 200 pretty much takes care of “range anxiety.”

No 200 mile range no sales. (At least in significant numbers)

AND the all electric car MUST HAVE FAST CHARGING. 50% IN 5-10 MINUTES (100 MILE RANGE FROM “ZERO” CHARGE). Otherwise no significant market share for an all electric EV.

Therefore, GM has it right. Until fast charging technology becomes commonplace, safe and does not shorten the life of that very expensive battery the extended range EV is the right choice at every level.

Flame on you bloggers!

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:19 am

A 100-mile EV at $20k? I’ll take it. 2011, but more likely 2012? I want it now! How long does it take to make, what amounts to, a highway-capable, enclosed golf cart with a good battery and motor? That’s all I need. I don’t even need a heater or ac.

Paying another $20k to reduce my range anxiety? No thanks. I’ll use that extra $20k to pay a tow truck, if I ever need one.

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:31 am

Reading through some of the comments, I think some here have missed an important piece in the above article. Some of you think the Ford BEV will cost in the mid 20’s…No, no, no…Read it again, it says:

“But don’t expect it to be too cheap, when asked if the car could be kept below $20,000 one executive said “that the batteries alone” would cost that much.”

Not trying to be a stickler, but just wanted to point that out.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:35 am

#39 SteveK Says: “I am also a strong proponent of a massive investment in Nuclear Power. I used to post the following line on various websites:

Nuclear Power + Electric Cars = the Future.

I notice another poster uses this same formula with the equality being ‘American Energy Independence’. Either way I say YEAH!”
————————————————————————————–
For ‘American Energy Independence’, keep the following in mind. The United States imports roughly 2/3 of the oil that we consume. Oil consumption breaks down roughly as follows:
• 44% gasoline (mostly for passenger vehicles)
• 17% diesel (mostly for heavy duty long distance travel)
• 5% jet fuel
• 15% fuel oil (home heating and industrial)
• 19% other (petro-chemical, plastics, fertilizer, etc.)

Let’s say EREV cars get up to 80% market penetration. That would be really good! For those EREV cars, about 80% of the miles driven would be converted to electricity. The total amount of oil consumed by the U.S. would be around 28% less (80% * 80% * 44%). While 28% less oil imports would be a really good thing, if the goal is to be energy independent, then 28% is not even half way there.

So it’s obvious to me that we need other solutions in addition to Nuclear Power and Electric Cars to become energy independent. These would probably include:
• Ethanol from non-food sources ( http://www.coskata.com )
• Bio-diesel from algae ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxNeBQCRv1c)
• More domestic oil production (stripper wells, oil shale, tar sands, offshore drilling)
• Conservation

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:39 am

#56 Schmeltz

$20k sounds like too much for batteries. That one executive might not be an authority. Time will tell.

(Quote)
Redeye Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:40 am

These are interesting times we are living in.

For me 100 mile range pure electric would not cut it. We often make a round trip that runs close to or just over 100 miles. The fear factor would be overwhelming.

The electric vehicle development will be advancing so fast in the next few years it will probably even outpace our speculators. Some pessimist’s and even nay-sayers will be converted.

My guess is electric vehicles will compete very well in price with the all ICE vehicles. And soon. A key is mass production of high quality, hi tech batteries.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:54 am

#48, Rightlane Cruiser,

“… If Ford can produce this vehicle for something in the mid $20K range …”

Did you NOT read Ford’s own statements that 100 miles worth of batteries currently exceeds $20,000 all by themselves? Battery COST was THE reason (along with range anxiety) that GM went with an E-REV configuration.

Ford dumped Th!nk, because they didn’t know what they had. Th!nk had to turn to Ener1, formerly GM’s Delco, for battery help to create a vehicle. Ford has NO experience in EV’s, other than punting Th!nk.

Face it, they are very, very late to the party, and have shown up with a loser.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:54 am

#4 Eric C. Says: “Maybe with some more hefty tax on gasoline, and increased EV incentives, we can really replace the majority of gasoline used in personal transportation.”
————————————————————————————–
#39 SteveK Says: “For those commenting on low gas prices—the solution, as demonstrated by Europe, is high gas taxes but our political culture won’t allow it in the US.”
————————————————————————————–
#42 Red HHR Says: “Oh master of (insert a totally over the top adjectives) what do I hear of GM requesting a “gas tax” to level the playing field?”
————————————————————————————–

Raising gas taxes works when gas prices are cheap, but those same taxes become burdensome and unnecessary when gas prices are high.

Also, since U.S. oil consumption is only 44% gasoline, a gas tax wouldn’t encourage alternatives for the majority of our oil consumption.

I propose that the U.S. set a minimum price on oil of $65 / barrel. If oil prices are below that, import tariffs would be raised just enough to meet the minimum price.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

Good post, Lyle. And good for Ford, also. If the batteries cost about $20,000 that would put a Focus type car into the $30,000 range. Assuming a Focus without the batteries and ICE and its associated parts would only cost you about $10,000. Maybe the cost of the batteries will come down.

(Quote)
jrcase Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

This may have already been posted (I didnt read all of the replies). I think for long trips, Ford could possibly offer a small pull behind generator that can supply power for recharging on the fly. This would enable the car to surpass the 100 mile range and make it unlimited. The pull behind generator could be linked to the car’s computer for on/off operations as needed. Would this not work as a solution to the limited range?

(Quote)
GXT Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:13 pm

k-dawg wrote @ 40:
Which 6 companies. And why do Ford’s batteries cost more than GM’s? 16Kwh = $10 vs 20Kwh = more than $20K.
===========================================

I don’t believe GM has ever given the actual price. Even if they have, I wouldn’t be suprised if Ford is being accurate whereas GM is already “future pricing”.

What I would like to know is why is Ford getting 100 Miles out of 20KWh and GM is getting only 40 out of 16KWh?

(Quote)
Luke Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

Awesome!

So, where’s the focuselectric.com blog?

My 1989 Ford Tempo was a lousy car[0] that makes for great stories… But my 1998 Ford Ranger has been earning my respect lately — despite a flurry of expensive maintenance between 90k and 125k miles, it’s been running with only regular maintenance to 178k miles. I’m probably due for another timing belt soon, but that little 2.4L I-4 just keeps running, without using any oil. I’m willing to give Ford another look.

A 100-mile range would work pretty well for me, since 99% of my driving now takes place within a 50-mile range. I do take the occasional road-trip, but those are now rare enough that I could easily rent a car whenever I do that.

If they release an (extended range?) electric Ranger (again), they’ll get my business as soon as I can afford it. Or if GM can deliver an S-10 sized ER-EV, I’ll be there.

[0] This explains why the American auto-makers have so much trouble convincing the public that their cars are reliable — they’re job isn’t to convince me that they’re more reliable than the 2009 Toyota lineup for reliability — they have to convince me that it’s more reliable than the Fords that I spent hundreds of hours repairing during the last decade. Still, I’ll happily service an electric car with a high-voltage DC wiring, if that’s what it takes to avoid being part of the slew of environmental, political, and practical problems that result from oil consumption.

(Quote)
Anthony BC Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

You create a web site to promote GM’s VOLT & Ford lets you test drive their car before GM let’s you drive the VOLT????? WHAT THE HELL is up with that? “Gee, thanks Lyle for all the FREE PUBLICITY, but err don’t touch the VOLT please??”

After ALL this work (without pay!) you’ve done to make us here & the rest of the WORLD know about the VOLT and its progress and that’s the thanks you get?????

You deserve MUCH MUCH better than that !

BTW, 100 mile range ALL ELECTRIC with NO range anxiety due to the Costco generator in my trunk , Ford my deposit is available if you’re interested!

(Quote)
HyperMiler Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:29 pm

#64 GXT

> What I would like to know is why is Ford getting 100 Miles out of 20KWh and GM is getting only 40 out of 16KWh?

Because Volt is using only 8 kw out of 16 kw capacity to guarantee 10 year/150,000 mile range, whereas Ford is max-charging and fully draining the battery?

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

Arch #52

I love this quote for that article.
“It’s ridiculous what they’re doing,” Kling said. “The technology’s there now. Chevrolet came up with that Chevy Volt, but at $42,000, who can afford it?”

Who can afford it indeed. Especially with so many out of work.

(Quote)
Noah Nehm Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

I think that Ford is on the wrong track. Adding a ICE, as GM has done, solves so many problems – range, interior heat, A/C, battery conditioning, battery life, use-flexibility, etc. Leaving it out may appear to simplify the problem, but it doesn’t, IMO. I also think GM is spot on with the 40 mile range, solving the 80/20 problem. Anything more is hard to justify economically.

(Quote)
George K Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:43 pm

#5 kent beuchert
“So now Ford has achieved what GM did in 1996 when they put the EV-1 on the road.”

I’m glad to see Ford doing something to get into the game. Although kent did make a good point.

There are a few design problems that knock most of the market out for the 100 mile BEV box, when failure is not an option. Price being one. But there are also the same questions that we were asking on this forum re the Volt’s “40 mile” range. Mainly, 40, or 100 miles under what conditions? One passenger? 75 degrees with no winter or summer issues? Freeway driving? Night time driving? Aggressive driving?

And what does Dave G do with all that stuff in his trunk?

Then there’s that recommendation (sure to be in the book) to plug into a GFI outlet. Mine trips under a heavy load once in a great while. Not an issue with an E-Rev or PHEV. But you’ll have to find alternate transportation to work with a BEV.

Still, I’m glad to see it, as it adds to the momentum of electrifying driving. But it does point out the better points (in today’s environment) of the Volt being an E-Rev.

(Quote)
Jabroni Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

“The 2009 Detroit Auto Show marked a truly profound inflection point in the history of the automobile, as nearly every major automaker has either revealed electric cars or plans to build them. ”

Not so fast there Lyle….roughly 10 years ago, they all had one due to CARB mandates

Toyota RAV4 EV
Honda EV
Ford Ranger EV
Chrysler Epic minivan
Chevy S10 EV
GM EV1

etc., etc.

Just think if we had built on this this technology over the past 10 years instead of selling Hummers.

Also, I would buy a pure BEV in less than a heartbeat…

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pm

#57 Dave G says,
So it’s obvious to me that we need other solutions in addition to Nuclear Power and Electric Cars to become energy independent. These would probably include:
• Ethanol from non-food sources
• Bio-diesel from algae
• More domestic oil production (stripper wells, oil shale, tar sands, offshore drilling)
• Conservation

————
Agreed mostly. It will definitely have to come from multiple sources.
However. I would like to respectfully disagree with domestic oil production (I am personally against replacing foreign oil with domestic).
And I would like to add Solar, Wind, and Hydro.

I also wonder if Tidal Wave energy makes sense from an electrical supply standpoint.

(Quote)
Texas Tea Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

Black Gold is trading for $36.79/barrel as of noon today.

Do these vehicles make financial sense with February’s cheap oil ?

Probably NOT.

(Quote)
Gas Electric Volt Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

My weekend commute is 101 miles

:>(

(Quote)
16falcon Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

I will seriously consider this Ford BEV as our second vehicle. One Ford Escape Hybrid (which we already own) plus one BEV would work great for us. Either one of us can use the BEV to commute and the other can use the Hybrid. Whoever might need to drive close to 100 miles (very, very rarely) could take the hybrid. Vacation/road trips would be in the hybrid. While not getting totally off imported oil since the hybrid has an ICE that runs often, I get better than 30mpg in the winter and even better in the warmer months which is pretty good for a small SUV. I would be using much less oil than I ever have. When the hybrid wears out I could replace it with a P-HEV like a Volt 2!

The bottom line is that my personal situation is such that I can consider a 100 AER BEV as my second car without “range anxiety” since I have the Hybrid for any longer trips. I think there are many couples that have 2 ICE cars now that could easily replace one with a BEV without serious “range anxiety”. The final BEV vs P-HEV decision for me will likely be determined by price and availability with some styling thrown in too.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

_____________________________________________________
#23 Statik Says:
“…GM Chief Operating Officer Frederick ‘Fritz; Henderson suggested Monday that it could be some time before substantive discussions (bondholders, UAW) can be held.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123178365916774153.html

—

Dear GM,

Is Joe going to buy his next car from GM?

The average Joe is forced to find a way to balance his own home and/or small business checkbook. GM is on the verge of alienating many of those hard working Joes that don’t understand why GM is not required to also find ways to balance its checkbook. There are many Joes on the fence with regards to their support for GM. On one hand GM is to be admired for the leadership role it has taken with the VOLT Program and for GM’s impressive quality and fuel efficiency for much of GM’s current model lineup. On the other hand, GM is rapidly approaching the tipping of many GM supports over the taxpayer funded bailout/loan issue.

The dance/standoff between GM, UAW, and GM Bondholders may zero out GM’s forward opportunity because of those parties failure to respond to the profound increasing negative public sentiment on the issue of government (taxpayer) bailout/loans used to underwrite GM’s operating losses. The vast GM executive organizational layer has also demonstrated its inability to make meaningful cost reductions within its own executive structure (through executive layoffs and compensation cuts) which does not help engender participation from the UAW, GM Bondholders, or anyone else asked to contribute in getting GM’s operating cost reduction.

Rather than GM executives maneuvering GM for another trip to the taxpayer trough, GM should be putting a presentation together explaining GM’s viability plan and explaining the anticipated means to pay back the taxpayers what has already been borrowed.

Sincerely,
A working Joe.
______________________________________________________

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

#38 DonC

Give it up man. Excuses excuses. LOL.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

#69 Noah Nehm Says: “I think that Ford is on the wrong track. Adding a ICE, as GM has done, solves so many problems – range, interior heat, A/C, battery conditioning, battery life, use-flexibility, etc. Leaving it out may appear to simplify the problem, but it doesn’t, IMO. I also think GM is spot on with the 40 mile range, solving the 80/20 problem. Anything more is hard to justify economically.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes, well said.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

#75 16falcon says,
I think there are many couples that have 2 ICE cars now that could easily replace one with a BEV without serious “range anxiety”.

——-
I’m one of those. My commute is 101 per day, but wifey rarely goes over 30 miles per day. She would love to never have to pay for gas again.

(Quote)
Brewster Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

A Car with batteries running an electric motor (Until the batteries go dead?)

I bought my 5 year old son one just like that in the early 1980’s. He LOVED it!

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

#75 16falcon Says: “One Ford Escape Hybrid (which we already own) plus one BEV would work great for us. … When the hybrid wears out I could replace it with a P-HEV like a Volt 2!”
————————————————————————————–
3 questions:
1) What exactly do you prefer about the BEV over the Volt 1?
2) Would you pay more for a BEV-100 than an EREV-40?
3) Why do you imply the Volt 2 will be a PHEV?

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:12 pm

#79 Rashiid Amul Says: “My commute is 101 per day, …”
————————————————————————————–
Have you inquired to see if you can plug in at work? How would this work?

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:12 pm

#69 Noah Nehm

Very well said Noah.

If it can’t be economically justified, it’ll probably end up as a niche. Not guaranteed though. SUV’s were certainly not economical but aggressive marketing seemed to make up the difference. But the automakers wanted larger cars because they got higher profits which helped cover higher labor costs. If larger batteries equal higher profits (I don’t see it), then automakers will use marketing to try and change our preferences. If they are able to succeed, then long battery operated ranges become the thing to have even if the marginal benefit of the extra range is near zero.

I agree with you, just wanted to point out another possible scenario.

(Quote)
keitwo Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

“And for what its worth, Ford actually beat GM in allowing me to drive their electric car first.”
…What a shame…..what a shame….

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

#70 George K Says: “And what does Dave G do with all that stuff in his trunk?”
————————————————————————————–
Mostly dead bodies…

Hey, I’m having a party! Wanna come over?

(Quote)
Carlos Ghosn Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

Welcome Ford to the EV race.
We will be waiting for you and GM at the finish line.
Your buddy,
Carlos

(Quote)
Right Lane Cruiser Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

#60 Jason M. Hendler

I did indeed read that. I also heard that the battery is a 23Kwh sized pack. GM is projecting a 16KWh pack at right around $10k for about the same timeframe as Ford’s proposed release date. Assuming this is a reasonable estimate (I certainly hope it is, and I seriously doubt that Ford would go with something significantly more expensive), at the same per Kwh price the 23Kwh pack should cost in the neighborhood of $14.5k for the pack. Not $20k. Throwing another very reasonable $10k in for the rest of the car and we end up with… gee. Mid $20k range.

You are quite right that Ford was every bit as short sighted as GM was with the EV-1 and dumped their holdings as soon as the regulations were relaxed. You are also absolutely correct that Ford was every bit as incompetent in battery engineering as GM and had to turn to an outside company. Just like Honda, Toyota, and Nissan. Wow. None of them had their own battery tech and had to turn to other companies like Panasonic?

Sorry. Ford may not have an EREV under development like GM, but they do have viable strong hybrid tech on the road right now and they did already dump brands that were damaging to their profitability — before it was too late. They also have managed to be the only one of the “big three” to survive the recession (thus far) without having to run to the government to pull from my pocket and yours just to keep the lights on.

Personally, I think Ford’s decision to jump to the “end game” of BEV production is a carefully considered step… one that is smart. You’ll note (with a little looking) that Nissan is following the same route. Will it work? Only time will tell. In the mean time, a simpler architecture is typically more durable and ultimately more cost effective (cheaper).

By the way, the assertion that Ford has no experience with electric vehicle research other than Th!nk is incorrect. Please check out the following link:

http://www.prdomain.com/companies/F/FordMotor/newsreleases/200911266474.htm

I’ll keep watching Ford’s progress — I still think they know what they are doing.

(Quote)
16falcon Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

#81 Dave G Says:
3 questions:
1) What exactly do you prefer about the BEV over the Volt 1?
2) Would you pay more for a BEV-100 than an EREV-40?
3) Why do you imply the Volt 2 will be a PHEV?
======================================================
1) Nothing! In a perfect world I would take the Volt in a heartbeat over a BEV but will the Volt (1) be available and (2) at what cost.
2) Which brings me to your next question, which is emphatic no. But it still to early to detrmine which vehicle will be cheaper and by how much. My gut feel is the BEV will end up being much cheaper than the Volt which is why I would consider a BEV over a E-REV.
3) Because I got my acronyms mixed up of course. You are correct that the Volt 2 should be an E-REV not a P-HEV, my bad.

(Quote)
THOM Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:23 pm

Im not sure why GM is so secretive about its break-through battery technology…they cant even get 1/2 the range of even the chineese cars.

Too bad GM wasted a year of developement going back and forth on a substandard battery.

Keep up the good work!…morons

(Quote)
HyperMiler Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

#89 THOM Says:

> Im not sure why GM is so secretive about its break-through battery technology…they cant even get 1/2 the range of even the chineese cars.

Chinese brand cars have a designed life-span of 7 years/120,000 miles, and BYD doesn’t expect batteries to last more than 7 years, the life-span of car itself.

Accordingly, BYD charges to max capacity and draws empty to get longer range. BYD also releases the most optimistic numbers, not realistic numbers.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

_____________________________________________________
#39 SteveK Says:
…I am also a strong proponent of a massive investment in Nuclear Power. I used to post the following line on various websites:

Nuclear Power + Electric Cars = the Future.

I notice another poster uses this same formula with the equality being ‘American Energy Independence’. Either way I say YEAH!”

——
Response:
I’m glad to hear I’m not alone. We are growing in ranks.

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

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:41 pm

#72 Rashiid Amul Says: “And I would like to add Solar, Wind, and Hydro. I also wonder if Tidal Wave energy makes sense from an electrical supply standpoint.”
————————————————————————————–
Solar-thermal and windmills are already very cost competitive with fossil fuel electric power plants. We need to build more of these ASAP.

Photo-Voltaic (solar panels) have a ways to go to become cost competitive with power plants. The main issue here is the huge amount of energy required to produce the solar cells. But with government subsidies, solar panels on home and business roof-tops can be cost effective for electrical consumers.

I’ve heard that Hydro is somewhat saturated. Not many more good places to build dams. Also, they’re finding out that dams have a severe impact on the ecology downstream due to colder water temperatures.

As for Tidal, I have no idea.

But as I said in post #57, electric cars won’t even replace 1/2 of our current oil imports, so we’ll need something else in addition to alternative electric power to achieve oil Independence.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

#87, Right Lane Cruiser,

I agree that Ford dumped Jaguar and Land Rover before the bottom fell out of the financial markets – shrewd move.

Nissan is selling into captive markets in support of Project Better Place, is Ford? No. Ford will recognize the non-viability of the mid range BEV, just as GM did with the EV1. Only the high end and low end products will have a shot at long term viability – (eg, Tesla Roadster and Smart ForTwo electric).

(Quote)
John S. Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

All this talk about whoose dumb or dumer takes me back to the fact that GM has snubbed Lyle (and by doing that, they have snubbed all of us for that matter) by not allowing a test drive. How much brain power is needed to reward the captain of the cheerleaders with a frekin test drive?

It is amazing to me that Ford realizes the value of throwing us a bone. They know that Lyle will talk about the test drive and that we will think and talk about it together also. It takes no vain power to reward those that can possible help you. With that being the case, my award for dumbness goes to GM today.

NPNS

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

#91 CDAVIS,

Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = Lots of Oil Imports.

See post #57 for details.

(Quote)
omnimoeish Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

#73

Black Gold is trading for $36.79/barrel as of noon today.

Do these vehicles make financial sense with February’s cheap oil ?

Probably NOT.
___________________________________________________________

Wow, you do realize the oil prices in February mean nothing since this vehicle won’t be rolling out for another 3-4 years? Gas prices could be $5/gallon or worse by then. You would rather them just build bigger trucks and SUVs? This is what’s wrong with American auto makers. That’s the kind of thinking that got them here.

Are you Robert Nardelli by any chance?

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

“What I would like to know is why is Ford getting 100 Miles out of 20KWh and GM is getting only 40 out of 16KWh?”

Would it be fair to infer that Ford isn’t pampering the packs for a projected 10 yr/100k mile lifetime? Who’s for paying $20k every five years to keep their e-Ford running?

Ford may actually produce a BEV some day — if they smell money. I suspect the timing of this mule has more to do with GM’s financial predicament than Ford’s own electric car ambitions. GM won’t be able to meet it’s government loan benchmarks, and Ford doesn’t want anybody in Washington to think, “Uh, oh. If we can GM, who’s gonna build Obama’s electric cars?”

It would make sense for the 2.8 to pool their battery research resources, but car manufacturers don’t want “badly to survive,” they each want to be the survivor.

The top GM EV proponent gets invited to drive a hastily cribbed up Ford mule which hasn’t clocked up 301 miles in all. That sends a clear message, to me.

Ford would love nothing better than to become the US’s sole domestic car maker, and they’re hitting GM where it will hurt most; at the time it will be most damaging.

(Quote)
omnimoeish Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

Lyle, I’m curious why it still has a lead acid battery. Is this to start the bigger battery?

(Quote)
igotzzoom Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 2:07 pm

I say the more options, the better. This BEV won’t be for everyone, nor will the E-REV Volt be for everyone, or for that matter, the Fusion Hybrid or the 2-Mode Vue.

Probably for the next 5-10 years, you’re going to see a lot of different alternative propulsion systems offered on the market to “see what sticks.” After a while, there will be some inevitable winners and losers (as determined by the marketplace) and there will probably be 2-3 dominant alt-propulsion platforms.

The other variable in this equation is the cost and capacity of batteries. If the cost goes down exponentially, and the capacity even only goes up incrementally, that will be a big determining factor in consumer acceptance, as well as OEM investment.

(Quote)
George K Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 2:10 pm

#85 Dave G

“#70 George K Says: “And what does Dave G do with all that stuff in his trunk?”
————————————————————————————–
Mostly dead bodies…

Hey, I’m having a party! Wanna come over?”

– — – — – — –

Dave, didn’t mean to bring your job into it. Just a point regarding the x-tra weight issue for a BEV!!?

I’m still glad to see it. It just isn’t for as broad a base as the Volt.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Oops, I didn’t see some of the later comments which also pointed out the obvious consequences of getting more range at the expense of overall battery life.

Also, after so negative a comment, I’ll offer the following speculation:

If you look at E-REV and BEV as ends of a continuum, the final marketplace “winner” may be something from somewhere in the middle.

GM says: “use a portion of the battery pack’s capacity, then replace all the energy from a generator. This gives us a longer battery life, and practically indefinite range.”

BEV makers say: “FORGET the added weight and complexity of an engine: just provide a more-than-adequate battery capacity for commuting — and if you get stranded, too bad.”

What if someone decides to “split the difference?” In place of the “Range Extender,” there could emerge something that might be called the “Range Stretcher,” or emergency backup genset.

This could be a much smaller generator than would be necessary to power the car by itself; but while running, it would extend whatever charge might be left in the batteries (turned on when half the capacity is used up?). As a worst-possible case, you might coast into a gas station, fill up the modest 3 – 4 gallon tank, pull over and park for a few minutes to an hour before driving to a friendly plug.

The advantages to this are many: smaller engine means lower weight, less expense. Since you’re not trying to equal a gas car’s range, you would need a smaller tank. Both these things mean more room (and budget) for batteries. You would now have a way to run a full-power HVAC winter & summer. On most trips, you would perserve at least some of the batteries long-term lifetime, but you could stretch it to 100% when it was necessary.

This would preserve many of the benefits of both approaches. I wonder if anyone will offer anything like this, or how it will be received? I think the market will need at least some experience with EREV & BEV before someone tries this. It would be interesting to see how these three approaches play out.

(Quote)
Speedy Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

I can’t belive people think the volt will go only 40 miles. Something is wrong you people on this board.

(Quote)
RB Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

#61 Dave G says “I propose that the U.S. set a minimum price on oil of $65 / barrel. If oil prices are below that, import tariffs would be raised just enough to meet the minimum price”
———————————————————————

The problem with doing things this way (beyond some legal issues) is that it provides no incentive for producers every to sell oil below $65 per barrel. Why do so, since the price to customers will be the same?

That is, a tax of the kind you propose amounts to a floor price for oil companies, which is not going to be widely supported and is in effect a subsidy to them, a poor public policy.

I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish, but it probably is better done with a tax of so much per barrel (or gallon). If the amount is fixed per unit volume, then the percentage amount declines as price increases, which is a step in the direction that you are proposing.

(Quote)
RB Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

#94 John S says “How much brain power is needed to reward the captain of the cheerleaders with a frekin test drive?”
————————————————————– —-

The brutal truth is that GM thinks that Lyle (and by extension all of us) are chickens who are already in the bag, so they are out trying to catch some more birds rather than spending time with those they have already captured.

(Quote)
Dwayne Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

A BEV thought : My inital thought was that there was no way that Ford could go 100 miles/day on a 23KWH battery and have the battery last more than a few years. Deep cycleing a Li battery is a very bad idea. On second thought the Ford would only do about 40 Miles /day on average like all the rest of us. So most of the time they would not be deeep cycleing their battery. Still, I would want a good warranty on the Ford battery! GM on the other hand never deep cycles their battery.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

#100 George K,
LOL!

(Quote)
SteveK Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 3:14 pm

Hi Dave G

Hopefully this won’t look like a dissertation (I know it is too long).

I’m looking way down the road—all electric cars, trucks, trains, heating, etc. Petroleum will be used primarily as a feedstock for polymers. We have enough for that or we can use coal. Also energy independence doesn’t mean not a drop of oil comes into the country. Wind, Solar and Biofuels will cost much more than Nuclear . We could choose to spend the money, but the amount of acreage required is enormous (the countries that really matter – India and China do not have that option). And, Wind and Solar require baseload backup with a capacity of ~ 85% of the nominal capacity of the wind or solar (according to the utilities), which really needs to be gas-fired turbines, so they can be turned on and off when needed—this adds to the cost. The alternative is some kind of storage system—pumping water etc.—again, money.

I don’t think you read all of my post on gas taxes, I did suggest that we could put a floor on gas prices (lower taxes when oil prices are high).

As I said I’ve become a bit of a fanatic on Nuclear, as I really think it is the answer, along with Li-ion batteries for transportation. Here is a note I sent in reply to an article on the Economist website, with some additional thoughts.

Nuclear Power, plus electric cars can bring a bright future to the world. Nuclear power will be the worlds primary energy source at some point. There is too much evidence for climate change for the world to ignore it (hopefully we are rational in the aggregate). The alternatives are simply not practical (wind, solar) especially in countries without vast expanses that they could sacrifice to wind or solar farms. We must increase education efforts on nuclear power to dispel the widespread myths regarding the technology (e.g. Gwyneth Cravens — ‘Power to Save the World’).

We must encourage the development of safety regimes and the training of nuclear engineers. It appears that the UK will be one of the countries leading the way, along with India, China, and probably Italy (and hopefully the US). I believe that as the benefits become more obvious there will be a rapid acceleration in the development of nuclear power around the world, which will not only bring great economic benefits, but may avert an ecological catastrophe.

In the more distant future there are dozens of very interesting ideas for advanced nuclear designs (Thorium reactors, high-T gas reactors, etc.) but for the present we can not wait for these technologies to be sorted out and developed but should go ahead with the proven designs we have today.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

#103 RB,

My thought was that if there was a minimum price, OPEC wouldn’t be inclined to over-produce, which would help with peak oil. In other words, with a world oil market, the only way to really increase the price is to limit the supply. Also, with an import tariff, domestic oil would not be taxed.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

_____________________________________________________
#57 Dave G Says:

For ‘American Energy Independence’, keep the following in mind. The United States imports roughly 2/3 of the oil that we consume. Oil consumption breaks down roughly as follows:
• 44% gasoline (mostly for passenger vehicles)
• 17% diesel (mostly for heavy duty long distance travel)
• 5% jet fuel
• 15% fuel oil (home heating and industrial)
• 19% other (petro-chemical, plastics, fertilizer, etc.)

—-

Response:

Although Electric Cars + Nuclear Power are not the exclusive answers to American Energy Independence, the application of electric cars and nuclear power on a mass scale is capable of being the principle catalyst towards achieving American Energy Independence.

Nuclear energy is such a good energy source that Mother Nature herself selected it as the method to power our Sun for which all earthly life depends on.

Nuclear power is the ONLY commercially available energy source that reasonably delivers all these attributes: 1) proven, 2) domestically sourced, 3) environmentally sustainable, 4) abundant, 5) reliable, 6) cost stable, and 7) cost competitive. All other energy options may be very strong in one or more particular attributes but significantly deficient in others.

Abundant low cost availability of electric power vis-à-vis nuclear power could:

1. Replace much of the fuel oil consumption.

2. Reduce the cost, to commercially viable levels, the manufacturing of synthetic substitutes for oil that are used in petrol-chemicals, plastics, fertilizer, etc.

3. Reduce the cost, to commercially viable levels, the processing of domestically available shale-oil.

4. Reduce the cost, to commercially viable levels, the processing of crop based ethanol to power for example the VOLT ICE E85 range extender.

Also factor in that:

1. Technological advancements in fuel efficiency are making many commercial petrol consuming points (trucks, planes, boats, etc…) more fuel efficient as those infrastructure points are being updated.

2. Alaska and several other states are scheduled to produce more domestic oil.

3. The emergence of alternative energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal, etc…) could positively augment a robust nuclear power electric grid. Nuclear power could be the backbone energy source with for example individual alternative power generation points (such as solar roof panels) contributing to the grid system.
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________

(Quote)
SteveK Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

#109 All good points CDavis. I lack your energy and determination today, but see #107 for a response I wrote.

Apologies to all those who really want to focus on the Volt and Electric cars. I was and am very excited by the Volt—it is the other half of the puzzle we need to solve. For those who haven’t read it, I recommend an article in the Atlantic a few months back on the origins of the Volt—it reminds one of Tracy Kidder’s – ‘The Soul of a New Machine’ if you read that.

(Quote)
Keith Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 3:36 pm

To those of you who would like to see what is happening in the electric vehicle industry in China this is a link that will provide you with hours of information even prices that you will find on some vehicles if not most.

http://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?Type=&year=&month=&location=&keyword=&SearchText=electric+cars&Country=CN&IndexArea=product_en&CatId=34

I am not saying that they are good or bad , I am just telling you where you can look and see what is happening in China.

(Quote)
RB Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 3:39 pm

#108 Dave G says “My thought was that if there was a minimum price, OPEC wouldn’t be inclined to over-produce, which would help with peak oil. In other words, with a world oil market, the only way to really increase the price is to limit the supply. Also, with an import tariff, domestic oil would not be taxed.”
——————————————————————–

I agree entirely with the spirit of your proposal. The questions that I have involve details, but perhaps important details.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 3:45 pm

#107 SteveK,

Good discussion. We agree that nuclear power and electric cars will be a vital part of any plan for energy Independence. We also agree that solar panels are not cost competitive with nuclear power plants.

Here’s where I think we disagree:

• Solar-Thermal power plants are already cost competitive with Nuclear power. This type of power plant is perfect for supplying peak electric usage during the day. For the SEGS type design ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGS ) natural gas is used to heat the steam when it’s cloudy, but 90% of the power is generated from sunlight. For the Solar Power Tower design ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower ) liquid sodium is used to store heat.

• Wind power is rapidly becoming cost competitive with nuclear power.

• Heavy duty long distance travel (trucks, trains, planes, boats) will require liquid fuels for the foreseeable future. The physics to convert these to electric just isn’t there.

• New bio-fuel production techniques are quickly becoming cost competitive, particularly cellulosic gasification for ethanol, and closed loop algae photo bio-reactors for bio-diesel.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 3:50 pm

IF GM hasn’t covertly had Lyle for a test drive yet, I’m disgusted with them.
I’m considering getting a T-shirt made that says “Statik was right”.

Tag
PS Competition/choice is good.

Let’s just get an alternative fuel vehicle’s wheels on the road.

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 4:30 pm

#114 Tag:

IF GM hasn’t covertly had Lyle for a test drive yet, I’m disgusted with them.
I’m considering getting a T-shirt made that says “Statik was right”.

Tag
PS Competition/choice is good.

Let’s just get an alternative fuel vehicle’s wheels on the road.
========================
My ‘other’ job is making clothes…so I can hook you up on that request. I don’t do a lot of silkscreening on them though (…I job that out to the Chinese, lol).

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 4:33 pm

#109 CDAVIS,

If I read this correctly:

Electric Cars + Nuclear Power + synthetic substitutes for oil + shale-oil + crop based ethanol + Technological advancements in fuel efficiency + more domestic oil + solar, wind, geothermal, etc… = American Energy Independence!

This sounds about right.

(Quote)
Michael Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 4:48 pm

Well, it looks like it is my day today. It might not mean that much for those of you who have been around from day 1, but since I am number 23114 on the wait-list, which as of today is at 46,230, I am now officially in the middle of the list. There are as many signed up after me as before. That certainly makes me feel like my chances are now SO much better. So, if the list means ANYTHING, today is my day to think happy thoughts.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

Dave G # 87 asks,
Have you inquired to see if you can plug in at work? How would this work?

————–
No. The setup is kind of weird so I thought I would wait until I was close to buy an EV of some kind.
The building has many companies in it, but no one on the premises owns it. Although I park underneath the electrical plug, I have no idea who would have to pay the electricity bill for it.

(Quote)
Tom H Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 4:54 pm

#27 ECO

Why would Ford not do 100/100? Is there a configuration that gets you 100 miles all electric, then if you run low on juice, you find a filling station, fill a tank with enough fuel to run the ICE to charge the battery to get you up to another 50 or 100?
———————————————————————-
The Chevy volt has a 40 mile battery and an ICE propulsion system. It fits well into a sub-contact package, but is a problem from a price point of view, because of the high cost of the battery.

If you beefed that up to a 100 mile battery plus an ICE propulsion system, you would have a very large package. And the cost for a bigger car plus an ICE plus a $20,000 battery would move it out of the catagory of affordable family transportation.

(Quote)
Tom H Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 5:21 pm

#113

#107 SteveK,

Good discussion. We agree that nuclear power and electric cars will be a vital part of any plan for energy Independence. We also agree that solar panels are not cost competitive with nuclear power plants.

Here’s where I think we disagree:

• Solar-Thermal power plants are already cost competitive with Nuclear power. This type of power plant is perfect for supplying peak electric usage during the day. For the SEGS type design ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGS ) natural gas is used to heat the steam when it’s cloudy, but 90% of the power is generated from sunlight. For the Solar Power Tower design ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower ) liquid sodium is used to store heat.

• Wind power is rapidly becoming cost competitive with nuclear power.

• Heavy duty long distance travel (trucks, trains, planes, boats) will require liquid fuels for the foreseeable future. The physics to convert these to electric just isn’t there.

• New bio-fuel production techniques are quickly becoming cost competitive, particularly cellulosic gasification for ethanol, and closed loop algae photo bio-reactors for bio-diesel.

————————————————————————-
This is a well written and well thought out post, but it think it is too optimistic in terms of cost for solar, wind, and bio-fuel. Every proponent of any alternate fuel will state the their entry is “rapidly becoming cost competitive”, and the press will endlessly reprint their press releases, but that does not make it true. Nobody is building wind, solar, or bio-fuel facilities without subsidies.

On the topic of heavy duty long distance travel, I agree that it is harder to electrify, but there are things that can be done.

When diesel gets expensive enough, electricfication of railroads will look good, and will be done. At that point, more motor freight will go via rail, some in standard rail cars, some via piggyback. The big ships will be nuclear, and smaller ships will be used only for short coastal runs. All transoceanic freighters will be nuclear.

Electrifying air travel would appear to require overturning the laws of physics as we understand them, so air will become more and more of a little used premium mode of transport for cargo and passengers. But if other modes are electrified, there should be enough petroleum to support aviation for generations to come.

(Quote)
stas peterson Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 5:32 pm

The only thing that will disrupt the coming Electrification of Ground Transport, is if the eco-wackos raise the price of electricity from the equivalent of 70 cents a gallon to $5.00 – $8.00 per gallon of electricity equivalent. Especially as the AGW scare is proving to be a chimera. The World has cooled for 11 years now, contrary to the computer models.

Don’t think that is possible? Too Bad, it is the reality.

The price of Wind power is a minimum of 15 to 25 cents per KWH. Solar is even worse at 25-40 cents per KWH versus the 3 cent to 5 cent per KWH for Nuclear or clean Coal. Twenty bucks a month to fuel your electric car becomes $180 bucks a month to fuel your electric car.

The trouble with Wind is that it is intermittent, destabilizes electric grids when over about 20% of the total generation, and creates Blackouts. Wind can’t run over 25 mph or under 7 mph, in practice. Wind machinery has demonstrated actual lives of 9 years, instead of the nominal 30 years. Exposure to the elements, variable loads on bearings, and fatigue to wind-foils create lots of wear.

Solar is even worse. The actual experience with Wind by the UK utility that runs over 2000 windmills is astonishingly only 3% of rated nameplate generation availability. Versus 92% availability for Nuclear or Coal.

Only religious true-believers like the O’Dumma pair of Browner and Holgren @ EPA and Science Advisor, could sabotage the Nuclear Renaissance, and stop new nuclear construction. Then they could force only Wind and Solar investment, driving up the price of electricity. Then we will have the worst of all worlds. No electric vehicles, and power shortages, blackouts everywhere, with no reduction in demand for petroleum.

They would be delighted to make sure gasoline gouging is ever present, since it will be permanent and done by government setting taxes as the way to gouging.

I still fail to see the difference between gouging by Oil Sheik or Commissar, and gouging by government bureaucrat. Except who does it; and the sheik and commissar might actually recycle some of the money in to new production. Government produces nothing.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 5:46 pm

#23 statik:

Well I can’t let a whole day go by without saying SOMETHING. LOL.

As to Wagoner and the possibility of C11, do you think that he is floating that as a way to put pressure on said UAW, bondholders, and/or the Feds?

I had always thought that they would gin up some sort of semi-credible “viability” scenario and the Feds would slip them the $$, wink, wink, nod, nod. I have to agree with Mr. Wagoner that a real “viability” scenario, which would actually stand up to expert analysis, it probably a dream at this point.

Anyway, this whole economic survival soap opera is obviously the whole bottom line here. All of these technical developments are meaningless unless somebody can figure out a way to float GM over the next few years until these gee whiz new technologies can ramp up to the point of profitability. Assuming they ever do.

So it’s hard to keep up one’s enthusiasm for the incremental day by day technical progress when the cliff seems to be approaching so rapidly.

That said, I could get pretty intersted in a GM equivalent of this BEV Focus. Even if it was a !@#$% Aveo. I wonder where the Focus is made? Isn’t it strange that we never seem to know without looking it up?

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

I really like the idea that ford will have a little electric car out running around in a few years. I would seriously consider it for a commuter if it ends up cheaper than the Volt.

As far as the cost of electricity goes, if you wanted wind or solar to replace base load, it would be very expensive.

The land use (relatively small footprint) and nearly 100% uptime of nuclear is hard to beat for a baseload provider. These plants run 24/7 for 18 months straight (even when the wind is calm and the sun is not shining). The new energy secretary talks about Nuclear alot in todays testimony. It is worth listening to for some insights on what the Govt is thinking. It sounds like Nuclear will be a big part of our future energy base load provider.

(Quote)
ccombs Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

I am so glad that even though Obama shied away from nuclear in his campaign (’cause it is a dirty word in the US), he chose people like LBNL’s Dr Chu to be his advisor. They are realistic people who will certainly push nuclear. Wind and solar have their place, but nuclear is the only tech ready for prime-time at the moment.

EREVs and nuclear are the first *real* thing out there that can reduce petroleum dependence. Let’s git ‘er done!

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 6:20 pm

____________________________________________________
Response to #116 Dave G:

Perhaps we are in our own ways both saying that Electric Cars + Nuclear Power (as the primary energy source) = American Energy Independence…in the context that all the other stuff (ethanol, wind, solar, etc.) provide meaningful ancillary contribution towards energy independence.

When I began my Energy Independence soap boxing, I was one of those individuals that though nuclear power was a bad thing and that alternatives like wind and solar cold serve as America’s primary energy source. I was wrong. There is a reason most of the other industrialized nations are quickly heading towards nuclear power as their primary energy source. Twenty years from now those nations (our economic competitors) will have the benefit of abundant low cost reliable energy. I for one don’t want in twenty years from now to be held hostage over foreign oil imports (or cheap Chinese hydrogen fuel imports).

____________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = American Energy Independence!
_____________________________________________________

(Quote)
Canada Man Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Congrats Lyle on this test drive. I’m jealous.

I’m quite impressed with Ford lately. Or more rightly with their PR.
” No thanks, no bailout for us, we are viable, even though things stink at the moment.”
“Check out our hybrid options. Strong hybrids coming right around the corner, all electrics soon to follow”
“Pssst, hey, you, electric car/doctor/guy who runs a GM site, how’d you like to go for a spin in this??”

Good move. Scoop the GM supporter. Ok, so not alot of nitty gritty details (who makes batteries, how much in the end…etc) but still, it’ makes GM look like goofs. Not bad Ford, not bad at all.

@ Tagmat 114 and Statik 115 – can i get a shirt to please?? Medium will do fine.

Drive safe all.

(Quote)
statik Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

Just as a side notw on ‘capping’ executives salaries and are they worth their pay…some execs are worth every penny, and then some:

Steve Jobs’ health has forced him to ‘temporarily’ step down (long rumored…much denied by Apple). Stock effect? Down 6-9% after hours (no clue on where it really opens tomorrow)…cap loss of 6 to 9 billion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN1448105320090114?rpc=44

I wonder if Wagoner had to step down and Fritz Henderson took his place what the response would be? I’m thinking it goes up, lol.

#125 Canada man, its on the way…check your mailbox

(Quote)
kubel Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 6:42 pm

Kinda funny that Ford beat GM to the punch letting you drive their mule.

Rest assured, guys. Ford (as a company, not the brand) IS developing a PHEV. Ford owns a number of companies, and two of which have already leaked that they are working on a PHEV.

I think we got used to GMs transparency with the Volt. GM had to be transparent with the Volt, because they had to win back their target audience that they lost when they crushed the EV1. Ford doesn’t have that kind of PR blowback to deal with, so it isn’t absolutely imperative that they win back their potential buyers early. Ford EV owners are still driving their Fords today.

Ford will have a production answer to the Volt come the 2012 model year. Trust me. But it’s all dependent on if they can make money with it. If gas is $1/gal and there is no government PHEV policy, both Ford and GM will kill their PHEV programs.

(Quote)
Zach Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 6:50 pm

I’ve very excited about these new electric vehicles!!

I honestly can’t see myself going on a drive that’ll exceed 50 miles or so. I live about 20-25 miles from Seattle, so 50+20 in the city and I’ll still have 30 miles left! 150+ miles and it’s a no brainer for me.

(Quote)
Van Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

Assuming 5 miles per KWh, same as the Volt claim (40 miles on 8 KWh) the Ford uses 20 of its 23 KWh or about 85% versus the currently disclosed 50% for Volt. If we compromise (i.e. split the difference) and utilize 70%, and adjust the mileage to a more real world 4 miles per KWh, then we have Fords BEV with a 65 mile total range, and the Volt with a AER of 45 miles. As someone pointed out, this BEV seems not ready for the klieg lights.

(Quote)
Speedy Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:14 pm

I can’t what till people start drive these all electric car’s and find out just how scary it is went that car is max out it range and people can’t get home. It’s amazing people think ford is ahead of gm.

(Quote)
RB Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:18 pm

#127 statik said “I wonder if Wagoner had to step down and Fritz Henderson took his place what the response would be? I’m thinking it goes up, lol.”
—————————————–

Fair or unfair, it goes up, yes

(Quote)
Bingo Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:18 pm

China BYD already figured that out folks. They may sell similar car for USD $22,000. Ford, GM are probably doomed if they can’t figure out a feasible price.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:29 pm

hi Speedy #131,

“…how scary it is when that car is max out it range and people can’t get home”.
____________________________

My EV GEM work car is a solid performer around the campus. The 10 seconds it takes to plug-in for recharge almost always puts a smile on my face. But, there are times when I over reach the range.

One example was when I left the charging station and headed toward downtown at 25mph. The drive out was on a slight downgrade toward the ocean. I turned around with about 65% battery remaining. The trip back was uphill and used more energy. Night was falling so the head lights had to be turned on as well. To conserve battery I switched to “turtle” mode which dropped my top speed to just 15mph. I also turned my headlights off with 1/2 block to go. Fortunately there was no traffic. I made it back with about 5% battery remaining.

The E-REV system is the way to go.

=D~

(Quote)
Speedy Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:29 pm

Voltec can be moved too different platforum’s with ease.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 8:58 pm

#127 statik Says: “Just as a side note on ‘capping’ executives salaries and are they worth their pay…some execs are worth every penny, and then some…”
————————————————————————————–
If the company is profitable, I don’t really care how much their top executives make. It’s their money.

The problem comes in when the company has not been profitable, the top executives were still making a ton of money, and then we have to bail them out.

So I would say top executives should make no more than 1 million in salary, and the rest of their compensation should be based on profit sharing. To prevent get-rich-quick schemes, some or all of the profit sharing could be averaged over some number of years.

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:00 pm

As far as the ChiComs cars go, there are many of us in the country who will not buy a chinese car. It’s bad enough that they have won over many of our manufacturing jobs, many will feel that they should not win in the car market too.

(Quote)
koz Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:08 pm

GM could have given Lyne a spin in the CoboVolt, called it a Converj prototype and it would have been closer to production than the Ford. I’m glad Ford has come to the dance but let’s be real about what they have actually done. Same goes for Chrysler. The only reason we have so much to complain about with the Volt is because GM has shown so much. Prototypes and marketing are relatively easy when there is little or no production content. Same scenario for the Volt’s introduction in ‘07.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:29 pm

_____________________________________________________
In the spirit of the Cadillac Converj “concept” release and all this nuclear power talk, I present you this fun link:

http://i.gizmodo.com/5131414/the-cadillac-wtf-all-new-for-the-year-8000
____________________________________________________

(Quote)
jbfalaska Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:32 pm

Chevy Volt: American-made, American-fueled. That’s still my car. I’m still delighted Ford and Chrysler are getting on the bandwagon. With high regard, but little actual product, that’s all we have today – high regard for their initiatives. Come on GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, Fisker Karma, Persu in building vehicles to help the world walk away from Middle-East Oil Barons who are no fans of democracy or western values.

(Quote)
mmcc Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:40 pm

OK, let me get this straight. Lyle starts a blog for the Chevy Volt over 2 years ago, and gets over 46,000 people to sign up for the car and Ford lets him test drive their electric concept before GM. Hmmmm

(Quote)
Adrian Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

0-60 in 10 seconds? Is that some sort of joke? You will run over merging onto expressways in Chicago with that.

10 seconds… so sad.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:24 pm

#120 Tom H says “This is a well written and well thought out post, but it think it is too optimistic in terms of cost for solar, wind, and bio-fuel.”

This is not an area where I have much expertise, but it strikes me that the most cost prohibitive option appears to be nuclear. You see a lot of stuff about how much nuclear costs but all those numbers come from France and the French government, and from what I’ve read the accounting is so bizarre that no on has any idea what it costs. When you add the fact that nuclear is capital intensive, it’s hard to see it happening. If you want to compare PV solar to nuclear, note that solar can get by with incentives whereas nuclear needs incentives AND loan guarantees.

Also, and this is just my observation, while one of the benefits of nuclear is supposedly 24/7 energy production, it seems that every summer here in CA when you need all the electrical production you can get the nuclear plants go off-line for a week or so for “maintenance”. So much for 24/7.

Finally, apart from the thermal solar Dave G is talking about, which is competitive in some areas of the country, to a real extent thin film PV solar is cost competitive and it’s available now.

In order for solar PV to be competitive with coal, it would have to sell at the same price. That would be $1/watt. Traditionally solar panels have cost about $4/watt to produce and they’ve sold at retail for $10/watt (installed on houses not major installations). But First Solar is making the panels for $1.08/watt and selling them for $2.50/watt. And Nanosolar is actually selling the panels for $1/watt (though admittedly volume sales for major installations). Given that it’s already happening, it seems an overstatement to say that PV solar for $1/watt is overly optimistic. (Granted there is still the issue of the sun not shining at night).

(Quote)
Speedy Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:29 pm

Let get this straight, ford let you test drive a electric protoype car and gm hasn’t let you test drive a prototype Volt Electric car yet. Ford is ahead because of this? And what is that post mean? Gm has already let people test-drive protoype Volt’s already and have shown the production car already.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 10:55 pm

______________________________________________________
#143 DonC Says:
(Granted there is still the issue of the sun not shining at night)

—
Very Funny.

______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________

(Quote)
Stew Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:03 pm

#142 Adrian

0-60 in 10 seconds? Is that some sort of joke? You will run over merging onto expressways in Chicago with that.

10 seconds… so sad.

————————————————————————————-

* Sigh * Pay attention, I mean REALLY pay attention to how you drive. Do you seriously have frequent need to accelerate much faster than this?

These types of cars are not meant to be competitive at the local drag strip, for the love of God. These are the types of cars that normal people would drive to work every day in.

I commute in the Seattle area, freeways and all, and I don’t think I could accelerate faster than this even IF I wanted to. Usually I’m going more like 5 mph.

0-60 in 10 seconds is pretty much what most vehicles that I see commuting are capable of. Corolla’s, Civic’s, Grand Caravans, etc, none of these people seems to have any issues. Maybe it’s you?

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:08 pm

#121 stas peterson Says: “Solar is even worse at 25-40 cents per KWH versus the 3 cent to 5 cent per KWH for Nuclear or clean Coal.”
————————————————————————————–
You’re talking about photo-voltaic solar panels. Yes, these are quite expensive.

But solar-thermal power plants are already cost competitive with nuclear and coal – right now, today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGS

(Quote)
Xiaowei1 Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:15 pm

“But don’t expect it to be too cheap, when asked if the car could be kept below $20,000 one executive said “that the batteries alone” would cost that much.”

You can have any car in the world converted for 20k in the space of 2 weeks by people who did not originally build the car; and it would be an extremely professional convention for that price delivering equal distance and speed (or so the ever trustworthy internet tells me).

I’m not overly sure why it would take a major car company 2+ years to create an all electric car, especially when they are boasting 10 years of experience. I’m more incline to think Ford decided at the last minute they needed an all electric full size vehicle to stand out a bit from their competitors.

(Quote)
unni Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:49 pm

#144 Speedy

That straight was too straight, Lyle wanna share the his exp and he gives you the platform to write ?

He is a follower of volt for 2 years and he was building a community for volt and GM allowed some media guys to have test drive where Lyle was cornered ( you need be cornered to know the feeling of how you feel when cornered ).

He was happy that ford invited him for drive and he is sharing his exp. There is nothing wrong. You may have read about other EVs also if you have followed this blog for some time. Take this as one of them.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 11:57 pm

#143 DonC Says: “Granted there is still the issue of the sun not shining at night.”
————————————————————————————–
I don’t really see an issue here. Electrical demand during peak daylight hours is roughly twice the amount of night time baseline electrical demand. Rolling blackouts almost always occur during the day. Most businesses operate during daylight hours. Air conditioners are used more on hot sunny days. Solar power is perfect for solving this peak demand issue.

By contrast, nuclear power plants typically run most efficiently at a constant output. It is possible to vary the output of a nuclear reactor, but I believe doing this makes nuclear power much less cost effective. So nuclear power plants are perfect to satisfy the baseline electrical demand.

My point is that a combination of energy sources for electricity works best. Nuclear and solar are complimentary technologies. Other sources of electricity will also have their place in the mix. There’s no magic bullet with will solve all of our energy needs. We’ll need to look at all available sources of energy, and see where each fits best.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 1:02 am

#150 Dave G says “I don’t really see an issue here. Electrical demand during peak daylight hours is roughly twice the amount of night time baseline electrical demand.”

I understand your basic points. But I don’t think this is true everywhere. CA and the Southwest are quite different in this regard than the Northeast. The peak demand in the former is in the summer during the hours of 3 and 5 (something like that). I believe the peak demand in the NE is in the winter between 6 and 9.

Electrical usage is really about peak use. Rather than chronic shortages what you have is overcapacity for most of the time and a few hours during a few periods during the year when you need more capacity. Solar dovetails nicely in some regions but not others.

Again, I do understand what you are saying. In fact wind and solar are complementary because wind works best at night and in the winter and solar works best during the day during summer.

(Quote)
Casey Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 1:22 am

Don’t forget nuke power, with wind solar, will be the answer to most problems down the road

NO PLUG NO SALE, LJGTVWOTR, DBNGCMEMEV, (my house)=D~~~(my volt)

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 1:38 am

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Actor Ricardo Montalban, best known as the debonair and mysterious Mr. Roarke on the popular television series “Fantasy Island,” died on Wednesday at the age of 88.

In the 1970s, Montalban became the spokesman for the Chrysler Cordoba, famously praising the luxury car’s “soft Corinthian leather” in his much-imitated rich baritone and elegant diction.

_________________
Thanks for everything Ricardo.

=D~

(Quote)
ausmartin Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 2:20 am

Good on Ford – a plug in.
But I got to laugh for the old engine trap door they are still using manual stays, can’t they afford mini gas struts .

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 3:42 am

Keith @111,

Many thanks, perhaps because of you I could become Chinese…

Regards,

JC NPNS

(Quote)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 3:53 am

My little stone for the big building ….

Rsstrict oil supply to increase the price … ok it works for a while but OPEC has learned the story of tin. Tin producers were playing a little harder than Opec and made themselves out of the marketin the ’80s.

There is a limit to this game called the irreversibilities, the high price of oil of the ’70s and early ’80s made people change their windows from single glazed to doubled or tripled glazed ones.

When the fuel price went down in the mid 80s and 90s they didn’t smashes those windows to return to single glazed ones …, and so on.

So OPEC is careful player and the environmental and security aspects of oil must predominate instead of the the crude oil price in our way to get rid of it.

Economic theory says that to be efficient an economic system must compensate the negative externalities of an activity through the use of the so-called pigouvian taxes. The US have done exactly the opposite by subsidizing the oil industry, no wonder the situation so inefficient now.

Regards,

JC NPNS

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 4:42 am

Again, I do understand what you are saying. In fact wind and solar are complementary because wind works best at night and in the winter and solar works best during the day during summer.
———————————————————————————–
That is not the way it is. It is much less windy at night. You can look it up.

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 4:50 am

#121 stas peterson Says: “Solar is even worse at 25-40 cents per KWH versus the 3 cent to 5 cent per KWH for Nuclear or clean Coal.”
————————————————————————————–
You’re talking about photo-voltaic solar panels. Yes, these are quite expensive.

But solar-thermal power plants are already cost competitive with nuclear and coal – right now, today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGS
—————————————————————————
I followed your link, and it did not support your assertion that solar thermal power plants are cost competitive. The Wiki article indicated that the plant exists, and has been generating power since 1996. But it says nothing at all about cost. If this plant were competitive, people would be building more of them,

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 7:15 am

Solar roof prices could really tank this year.
This might be the time to buy.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7013690631

(Quote)
THOM Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 8:10 am

Cant knock ford. They didnt take the government welfare and still is able to slop a working prototype together for the show.

Where is the GM mule that was in washington?? Did cushman need there golf cart chassis back???

(Quote)
Sleeve Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 10:03 am

Ausmartin, what do you mean “But I got to laugh for the old engine trap door they are still using manual stays, can’t they afford mini gas struts.”

Don’t you understand who pays for the parts in a car?

(Quote)
fred Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

I’ll buy one, if it’s cheaper than the Volt. And if I can get one.

(Quote)
Canuk Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 7:04 pm

Lyle: Excellent post about the Ford EV. It is amazing that Ford let you test drive their electric before GM, especially with all the free publicity you’ve given GM from this site.

With this in mind, wouldn’t it be a neat idea to change the tact of this board a little. Suppose you pit the development of GM’s Volt against Ford’s EV, so that this site constantly keeps tabs on how each is coming along on its journey to market.

I don’t know how doable this would be, but I bet that once the “race” became known, it would make for some good reading for us. Also, more importantly, it would problably spur the competitors to speed up their development a little.

Anyway, good to see that Ford is getting serious about electric drive.

Thanks,
Canuk

(Quote)
LB Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 9:30 pm

Excellent!

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 5:43 pm

#151 DonC Says: “I believe the peak demand in the NE is in the winter between 6 and 9.”
————————————————————————————–
This surprises me. I live in the NE, and it gets really humid in the summer. Without air conditioning, you sort of wilt.

In the winter, most people use natural gas or fuel oil heat. I don’t know anybody that uses electricity to heat their house.

IIRC, all of the blackouts we’ve had have been in the summer during the day.

Where did you hear that peak demand in the NE is in the winter between 6 and 9?

(Quote)
Real world range and life. Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 6:55 pm

It’s simply not credible to make around 3,500 pounds get 100 miles using a last year’s tech 23 kWh lithium powerpack and get a decent life span out of the powerpack. My guess, based on my real world lithium powerpack electric vehicle use, is that a 45 mile range would give them a 5-10 year lifespan, depending on keeping the car in garages (home or parking) when not in use and the quality of Ford powerpack management and integration system. If they truly totally drained it to maximize range, I guess they would get 100 miles, exactly once, after which they would have an inert bunch of lithium, ready for recycllng.

Also, if they can get powerpacks in quantity for less than $1,000 / kWh, they are doing well.

(Quote)
Ford Announces BEV Focus for 2011 | Sequence Omega Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 11:46 pm

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

GM-Volt.com Ford Focus BEV Test Drive

167 Responses to “GM-Volt.com Ford Focus BEV Test Drive”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts