Grab our RSS Feed

AND

GM VP Asks For Public Assistance Making the Electric Car a Mainstream Reality

January 17th, 2009 | Posted in: Politics

Larry Burns is GM’s VP of R&D. After the Converj unveiling, he wrote a post asking the public to help GM make the Voltec drivetrain a widespread reality.

He indicates there are challenges to do so.

His solution is to create a partnership between automakers, suppliers, utilities companies, and the government to ensure electric transformation of the US automotive fleets.

He directs us to detailed remarks he made to the Transportation Research Board.

Those remarks are here and summarized as follows:

Burns says we now have a “once in a century” opportunity to change the way we drive, and directs us to the problems of pollution, dependence on foreign oil, and greenhouse gas emissions as some reasons for enacting this change. He notes nothing has to be invented for this to happen but all we have to do is exchange the “DNA” of current cars, by switching from combustion engines to electric motors, from petroleum to electricity, and from hydraulic controls to electronic ones.

He presents the Chevy Volt and how it works, and says of the car “we expect to announce an impressive combined city/highway fuel economy very soon.”

He also notes the Volt will cost 80 cents or less per day for most people to operate, and that renewable sources could create its electric energy.

He says that electric car manufacturing has to mature and that they actually use 60% less parts and 1/10th the number of moving parts.

To make electric vehicles the norm he recommends an agenda be set and that 5 steps be taken:

1. All parties should act with a collective will to transform holistically.
2. Develop a comprehensive transportation blueprint among all stakeholders
3. Focus on attain market tipping point in favor of electrification
4. Embrace a portfolio of solutions, not “a silver bullet,” i.e. E-REVs, BEVs, and fuel cells
5. Set ambitious goals and hold ourselves to attaining them

He concludes “General Motors, therefore, is urging the creation of such a partnership that would involve the U.S. government, auto manufacturers and suppliers, the energy and infrastructure industries, and other key stakeholders.” and says “This is also a promising time. President-elect Obama’s initiatives regarding transportation infrastructure and technology and his commitment to science and fact-based decision-making are very encouraging.”

Source (FastLane)

Posted by: Lyle

118 Responses to “GM VP Asks For Public Assistance Making the Electric Car a Mainstream Reality”

Randy Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 10:41 am

I love the volt concept BUT I and many others have no use whatsoever for a small sedan (IE volt) Until they put this tech into a pickup truck or a 7 passenger van they will have a limited usefulness. I will either wait for a truck or convert an existing truck to electric if i have to do it myself.
Stan Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 10:43 am

He doesn’t have to convince anyone here. Gas is on its way back up so it won’t be a hard sell to the rest of the skeptics.
Randy Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 10:44 am

PS Phoenix motors of california has a nice EX cab short box electric truck, but they want $50000 for it and they are only selling it in fleets, so perhaps GM might want to consider their colorado small pickup for electric drive.
Randy Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 10:51 am

While 70% of americans drive less than 40 miles a day probably 50% drive less than 20 miles a day, a shorter range will lower the price and still service a lot of people.
Redeye Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 10:57 am

The war is on. The petroleum industry will not take the electrification of the automobile sitting down.
We’ll see how powerful their lobby is.

Volt, Converj and the T & H hybrids are all a good start. They all help.
Get ‘em on the road !
An_Outsider Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 10:57 am

Shift from internal combustion engine (ICE) to electric motor is only part of personal transport solution. In high density area, public transport remains the most effective way.

Otherwise, as seen in some futuristic movies, an automatic traffic control system taking care of your car once on the “grid”, like the subway does. At least, the should have to plan to include a network connexion for future upgrade.

By future upgrade I mean an automatic pilot driven the car (improved system over actual GPS telling you where to turn or parallel back-up parking assistance) with a centralized traffic lights control will help a lot to reduce start and stop & traffic jam.
Dave K. =D~ Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 11:11 am

hi Larry,

You can count me in on mainstreaming the E-REV.

So far:

I have contacted my State Representative and State EPA asking that State vehicles be phased to E-REV models. I listed the savings related less support stations and less refueling employees. I listed the American manufactures and related automotive support employees who will be supported with this smart decision. Also mentioned E-REV use for daily mail delivery.

I have asked my workplace and condo association to install/provide usable outlets for EV recharging. My Association said, ‘they would consider it’. Workplace said, “Will install outlets as they are needed and will kick in a $75 monthly bonus to those who use alternative energy means for commuting”. These being motorcycles, bicycles, scooters, EV, and E-REV. I am on good terms with the head of the Facilities Department. We have about 2500 employees working here.

I have posted most of the NEW news concerning the Chevy Volt on a gaming web page. Daily hits are around 1000. I keep the posts positive and provide the best photos.

____________________________

There is no turning back now.

=D~
THOM Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 11:11 am

Cmon! GM takes Govt welfare (completely against its stance a few months ago that “bankrupcy is not an option), then after years of developement hasnt shown a true working prototype of a so called “volt” and now want the general public to finance its developement???

How about this..Have the govt give me 10% of the auto bailout money and i will GUARANTEE to have a all electic vehicle on the road that will acheive 50 miles on batteries and have a engine drive generator as a range extender. I would let ANYONE from the media /press/ university/govt drive it in 6 months!
Scott Casteel Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 11:17 am

We need to converj the information network with the power grid so we can smart charge. This is a technology that needs to happen yesterday.
Redeye Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 11:18 am

Wonder how long before our politicians figure out a way to tax electric vehicles to make up for lost gas taxes.
A surtax on our electric bills ? An income tax increase for those owning an electric vehicle ?
You can bet your battery they’ll think of something.
kent beuchert Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 11:25 am

Nothing like claiming that electric drive is an Earth savior. That’s hardly the case and that “fact based fellow” Obama has uttered more untruths over the past than I can enumerate. Nor is global warming anything even approaching cast iron science – the climatologists can’t even model 98% of the system – any conclusions based on models that ignore this large a portion of the system in question are mere guesses and assume complete stability in the other sector (not a smart assumption) .
I just heard Obama clam that oil dependence is the cause of global warming. That’s a complete lie even if you believe that carbon emissions are a problem. He talked about global warming while his audience was shivering under the colder than cold in a decade that has been colder than normal. Personally, my bet is that we are about to enter a new ice age, based on the effect of solar radiation on cloud formation, an enormous determinant of Earth temps – carbon emissions are a drop in the bucket compared to the rapid changes that we have seen in the not too distant past. Now we find out that the last great ice age occurred during a period in which CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Global warming is more a religion than a science. And its adherents act exactly like religious believers.
I also note that “fact based” Obama is claiming to take the same trip Lincoln did in 1861 to his inauguration. Another typical lie here – Lincoln actually came thru Baltimore to Washington in the middle of the night to avoid assassination.
Larry Burns is kissing Obama’s ass about as thoroughly as one can – he knows that GM’s future rests mostly on Obama. GM cannot
survive without more money, despite CEO Wagoner’s previous guarantee to Congress that GM could “definitely” survive without need for any more. Then, as soon as GM got the money, Wagoner
changed his tune. Anyone around here want to put money on anything Wagoner says?
Cautious Fan Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 11:31 am

“1. All parties should act with a collective will to transform holistically.”

OK maybe I’m being overreactive here, but seriously!!!! NOOOO. I don’t want GM, Toyota, and the Federal gov’t acting with a collective will. I want to watch the end-of-days cat fight break out, and the federal gov’t to watch. I want the automakers to hate each other and fight for profit and market share like it’s WW3.

That’s how consumer win. Look at consumer electronics. The gov’t has very little involvement beyond FCC regs, the companies compete like crazy, and they even manage to abide by industry standard, and we get awesome stuff. If we want to see rapid advancements that actually make sense, we need to keep the system competitive.
Van Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 11:38 am

We need lithium battery production facilities able to produce vehicle batteries at a cost of less than $450 per KWh. The rest is small potatoes. This is the silver bullet. We need a Manhattan like project to solve the real problem. All this other stuff, like fool cells, just diverts attention from the real issue.
Brewster Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 11:47 am

kent beuchert #11

Congratulations – that’s a new record – the most nonsense per paragraph I’ve ever heard.
JEC Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 11:59 am

14 Brewster

I kinda agree with you on that…
Shawn Marshall Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

#11, #12, #13

I kinda agree with you on that.

Larry Burns VP of pander-moni-ummm!
joe obrien Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

Still amazed to hear GM say this after they destroyed the EV1’s while people begged to buy them.
Mark Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

The main concern, above all others, is cost. If electric cars are going to have a 30-40% premium on it, some people may not be able to afford it, regardless of how much they save over the long run.

If GM wants the electric car to be a mainstream reality, then they MUST be as affordable as a non-electric car.
ThomC Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

#11 Kent Beuchert
I totally agree with your points about global-warming-as-pseudo-science, as well as the possibility of an impending ice age. Climatologists determined in the mid 50’s that terrestrial ice ages have a 20,000 year periododicity and that the last one was about 20k years ago. We’re due for an ice age and serious climatologists have been telling us that for 50 years.

I also agree that global warming through man-made CO2 is complete rubbish. When I first heard the claim in the new I thought it was a joke… How in the world can you call CO2 a pollutant when its the respritory byproduct of every non-plant based life form on the planet?!?! Yet the media hysterics continue carrying on like the theory is an established fact.

However, I don’t think Burns is saying that the electric car is an “Earth saviour”. I do think the E-REV can substantially alter global economics by reducing petruoleum dependence. Global oil is a resouce with an inelastic demand… that’s the only way to explain the wild (bizarre) price swings over the last two years. If western civillization move away from petroleum as the prime mover for transportation, the global demaind-price for oil will fall and stay down. The strategic goal is to reduce our imbalance of trade and I think that’s Burns’ target.

# 14 & 15 (Brewster & JEC)
You’ve got your religion and I’ve got mine. It’d be nice if we could simply agree to disagree. Problem is that the postulates of your religion will materially and substantially impact my lifestyle. Trivial as that may sound, I really don’t want to live a lifestyle developed in the middle ages, which is what the Global Warming lunacy is pushing us toward.

#17 Joe Obrien
>> Still amazed to hear GM say this after they destroyed the EV1’s while people begged to buy them.
There may have been a couple of hundred people “begging” for the EV1, but that doesn’t make the car commercially viable. I suspect there’s a greater demand for Lamborghini Countachs than there was for EV1s. GM’s working hard to produce a commercially viable electric car, so give it a rest OK?
RB Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 12:38 pm

Let’s just get some E-REV wheels on the road.
Frank D Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 12:39 pm

There also needs to be a program that allows the retrofit of the existing fleet of cars to electric. We have a huge amount of cars on the roads today that continue to pollute and use oil.
chevonly Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

Years of Republican abuse, Bush has blown 10.5 trillion in the last 8 years, now we are stupid enough to ask for a free lunch, get real Homer it don’t exist sooner or later we will all have to pay for monkey boy’s incompetence and as far as bailouts, GM is small potatoes compared to the billions that have been blown on wars and the crooks on wall street at least GM makes something, also any new technology is going to be expensive at the start but the price will come down with competition and innovation, are we on this site to support the electric car or poke fun and ridicule the effort, GET WITH THE PROGRAM nothing worth while is EASY we will all have to pull together to clean up the mess REPUBLICANS have made of this country.
JEC Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 1:07 pm

19 ThomC
“You’ve got your religion and I’ve got mine”
==========================================
huh?
Who brought religion into this? I never said I was for/against any global warming/cooling theory. I was just saying that post #11 said a whole lot of nothing.

First he states that science cannot model 98% of the impacts, but then makes his statement:

“Personally, my bet is that we are about to enter a new ice age, based on the effect of solar radiation on cloud formation, an enormous determinant of Earth temps – carbon emissions are a drop in the bucket compared to the rapid changes that we have seen in the not too distant past.”

So, now he somehow is predicting globlal cooling and trying to back it up with scientific evidence? Seems like a very contradictory statement, at least that’s how I read it.
Brewster Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

#19
“the postulates of your religion will materially and substantially impact my lifestyle. ”

I feel exactly the same about your religion.

The difference is, my “religion” is based on scientific research, yours is based on political dogma and wishful thinking.

This is not the forum to debate this further, but I DO suggest you read excerpts from the many solid websites devoted to real science.
statik Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

“He (Larry Burns) concludes “General Motors, therefore, is urging the creation of such a partnership that would involve the U.S. government, auto manufacturers and suppliers, the energy and infrastructure industries, and other key stakeholders.”

“5. Set ambitious goals and hold ourselves to attaining them” (regardless of economics or common sense I’m sure)
===============================
===============================

The whole thing is pretty ridiculous. The government for ‘all intents and purposes’ has already nationalized the auto sector…they pretty much can pencil in anything they want at this point. They don’t need flow charts, fancy bullet points outlining how to get things done or even the rationale for doing something.
—
Side note: The gov’t already is hugely underfunded on infrastructure revenue (go check out your roads and bridges, lol). because of lack of inflation increases and the raiding of the gas tax for ‘other’ projects.

It would seem to be that a nice hefty gas tax increase would solve both problems (revenue stream/adoption of EV)…without invoking some kind of complicated, inefficient scheme cooked up my some execs that have no business not being in the unemployment line/garbage can.

This would also insure that there is no further erosion of the ‘tax pool’ from gasoline as more EVs are adopted. Additionally, this type of tax/revenue stream would also go along way to achieving a more equitable flat tax rate amoungst the entire population.

If they “HAVE” to subsidize the industry to get it going, how about just giving out a $250/kWh battery rebate direct to the manufacturers of automotive packs when they sell it to a US automaker …and not trying to make $40,000 cars sellable (direct rebate is also a ton better than having the rebate ‘hoovered’ up through inflated MSRPs).

Added Bonus with the direct rebate plan: the gov’t only pays for REAL WORLD production and not more ‘plans’
RB Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 1:45 pm

The very best thing GM can do is to produce an outstanding vehicle that people will want to own and will be willing to buy with their own money.
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Mark #18 says,

The main concern, above all others, is cost. If electric cars are going to have a 30-40% premium on it, some people may not be able to afford it, regardless of how much they save over the long run.

If GM wants the electric car to be a mainstream reality, then they MUST be as affordable as a non-electric car.

—————-
Mark, this is 100% correct. It seems to me that GM is talking out of both sides of the mouth. One side wants these cars to be mainstream, the other side makes the cars to expensive to do that. These cars can easily be mainstream but won’t happen until the cost drops like a rock. My Hyundai cost 15.5K out the door back in May. That is an awful lot gas to get me up to the cost of the Volt. People won’t buy these cars until they can justify the cost to themselves.

I will buy one because I can justify it by hating terrorism, helping the climate, keeping our troops safe, etc. But I can’t justify it when talking about cost. And I bet most people think of cost first.
GXT Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

Well this is certainly a sign that EFLEX is the incorrect path that many of us believed. I guess they didn’t learn much from the EV1 after all.

Contrast the Insight approach with the Volt approach:
The Volt hopefully available by Nov. 2010. The Insight in a couple of months.
The Volt will be sold with government subsidies and at a loss. The Insight without subsidies and at a profit.
The Volt will apparently cost ~$40K. The Insight will apparently be sub $20K.
The Volt will be low volume and available in limited markets. The Insight will be availably everywhere and in large volume.
By 2015 GM hopes to have sold 200,000 Volts. Honda, 1,750,000 Insights.
The Volt battery is 16KWh. The Insight 0.58KWh.
If the average person drives 15,000 miles per year and If a Volt gets 12,000 miles all electric and then 3,000 miles at 50MPG, that will be 60 Gallons of fuel used per year. If the Insight gets ONLY 48MPG (the reviews show 50-60+MPG is what should be expected) it will use 312.5 Gallons per year.
Fuel saved by the Volts by 2015 as compared to a 25MPG car: ~325 MILLION gallons.
Fuel saved by the Insight by 2015 as compared to a 25MPG car: ~2 BILLION gallons.

Fuel wasted by GM by 2015 by concentrating on the Volt instead of a really good hybrid: ~1.7 Billion Gallons. Fuel wasted by GM if they distracted two other automakers in the same way: ~5 Billion gallons.
Dave B Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

RB @ 20 says “Let’s just get some E-REV wheels on the road.”

—-

Ditto. I do not believe we have a chicken and egg problem here because the infrastructure with 110 v and 220 v charging is already in the home. Yes there may need to be some installation of outlets for apartment owners or businesses, but that’s why the E-REV is nice…options: gas or electric. GET THE BEVs and E-REVs to the consumer and they will buy!
tBay Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 2:00 pm

The 21st century will be a very exciting time for the automobile. Throughout our whole lives, the average car has always been powered by gasoline.

GM wants the Chevrolet Volt to make an impact. In fact, they want the Volt to spark a transformation. But GM knows they can’t transform the industry by themselves. If they want to overhaul an entire industry, it’ll take the power of an entire industry-and more. This is what Mr. Burns is saying and that is why he’s calling upon everyone to help GM make it happen. I really hope people from all sides (government, corporations, organizations) come together and create an industry revolution by electrifying the automobile. And I hope GM takes a leadership role.

Hopefully in a few decades, cars powered by gasoline will be “old-fashioned”. I’m excited for the future.
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 2:08 pm

#22 Chevonly says in part,
……….GET WITH THE PROGRAM nothing worth while is EASY we will all have to pull together to clean up the mess REPUBLICANS have made of this country.

—————
And Democrats. No one is innocent.
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

#30 tbay says,
GM wants the Chevrolet Volt to make an impact. In fact, they want the Volt to spark a transformation.

=======
Yes. However an impact or transformation can’t happen with a $40,000 car. A $20,000 would be better.
An_Outsider Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

#30
GM wants the Chevrolet Volt to make an impact.
======================================
Quite funny if you know the prototype name of the EV1 was…”Impact”. I hope GM won’t do the same error twice (leased & crushed) the Volt.
Vincent Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 2:17 pm

How about dumping all the all old school management. They suck.
As I have said sooo many times prior …
Get a dozen bright guys from this sight.

Now put your bail out money here in the US. Not Korea and LG.
All US auto makers pool money and…

MAKE ALL THE BATTERIES TOGETHER WITH THE BAIL OUT CASH
EACH COMPANY USES THE SAME BATTERY, SHARE THE TECHNOLOGY.
BINGO AFFORDABLE ELECTRICS. COME ON PEOPLE!

KEEP the design staff that comes up with the concept vehicles.

Fire the jerks that come up with “Production Models” and water down fantastic concepts.

Your already out of the red in record time.
Make all idiots that created the AZTEK visit the good employees 3x a week to show them how stupid GM was and what NOT to do! Ever Again.

Want more advice GM??? Get my e mail from Lyle.

Sorry to be blunt but you GM people need a Piston where the Sun Doesn’t Shine!

On that note. I DO want GM to survive and I am still wondering where OUR shares of stock are from OUR bail out…

AND IF IT DOES NOT COST MUCH MORE TO MAKE THE CONVERJ SLAP A VOLT LABEL ON IT AND SELL MILLIONS OVER NIGHT.
NOT A 70K CAR THAT WILL SELL LOW VOLUME. YOUR ALL ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH…WAKE UP MAN!
Brett Pavel Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 2:21 pm

#22 Chevonly and #31 Rashid….Amen to that, and I am a Democrat but I see plenty of blame there too!

Now it is our job to change things as individuals. Lyle sure is doing
his part by raising interest and awareness about a new revolution in
automobiles and energy.

I am committed to being the change i want to see!
BillR Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

Many of the everyday services that we have today are a result of government spending (military, space program, etc.). I would include examples like nuclear power, jet aircraft, and computers, just to name a few.

As we and the rest of the world begin to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, either by electric cars, home heating with biomass, coal-to-liquids, or other methods, it will bring downward pressure on oil prices (as we have seen over the last 6 months). It is entirely possible that oil prices may not rebound appreciably for the next decade. This would have a detrimental effect on the widespread adoption of electric automobiles.

If, however, it becomes a government goal to reduce oil consumption, and provide incentives to drive electric, then programs can be put in place to provide incentives for electric cars (i.e. tax credits for electric cars, gasoline taxes, etc.).

These programs also require support from the electric utility industry. Nighttime charging needs to have better rates than daytime peak power, and infrastructure to charge cars in parking lots, at work, or in apartment complexes needs to be implemented.

So I get Larry’s point, that to solidly push the public into widespread adoption of vehicles like the Chevy Volt will require more than just several manufacturers making vehicles that are available for sale. It will require commitment from government and other associated industries to ensure that it is successful.
Jason M. Hendler Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

I hope Lutz drags this guy by the collar into his office and sets hims straight on GM’s policies regarding their desired relationship with federal, state and local governments. Voltec is not a soapbox from which to espouse far left leaning dogma.

Statik,

The American auto industry is NOT nationalized, as the equity position the government has is in NON-voting shares. Current economics (as well as union contracts and state laws protecting dealerships) are crushing the industry at this moment, not federal regulation.

Beyond any doubt, any attempt by the US government to run US automaker swill cause many Americans to buy foreign vehicles.
N Riley Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

It will take a concerted effort to switch our vehicles from petroleum to electrical fuel. We need to get started as soon as possible. I believe this is a worthy goal. With a new president coming into office during a most trying time in our economy, the incentive should be there to pursue this goal. Let us hope the Obama administration will take this opportunity to set us on a new path to fuel independence from foreign oil.

Not that I voted for Obama or that I believe the democrats are such wonderful administrators or legislators, but everything is coming together and this gives the American people a good opportunity to make an advance in foreign oil independence. If not done properly or quickly this opportunity could slip through our fingers and we could find ourselves even more dependent on those that hate us so much.
CDAVIS Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

______________________________________________________
#27 RB Says:
The very best thing GM can do is to produce an outstanding vehicle that people will want to own and will be willing to buy with their own money.

—-
Response:
Well said!
_____________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = American Energy Independence!
_____________________________________________________
noel park Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 3:17 pm

Along with many others here, I volunteered a long time ago to put down a substantial cash deposit on a Volt. My offer still stands. I don’t know how to show much more commitment than that.

If GM goes belly up, I guess I might lose my money but, after the licking I have taken in the stock market, it would seem like chump change. At least I would be able to feel like I did all I could.

I even volunteered Dr. Dennis to hold the deposits, which scared the h**l out of him, as I remember it. I’d still do it though.

Come on Mr. Burns, I double dawg dare ya!
Joe Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

The government of 50 years ago would act on these great proposal…. that’s how we got to the moon,,but the government of today is a different story I hope I’m wrong.
.
Len Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

#38 N. Riley – I agree, we need to get off foreign oil and this is a great time to do it. Getting behind something like the electrification of the automobile will keep my mind off our financial system which basically makes me mad as hell.

I don’t know about global warming but for sure by raising the CO2 level we are raising the ph of the ocean which is dissolving the coral. Whole ecosystems are going to disapear and to me these things are like canaries in a coal mine. Besides I like to eat fish.

I’m an engineer and basically believe in the scientific method, but I have seen scientists spout pure nonsense, one example I remember well was the statements that neuclear reactors were safe and they had thought of everything and statistically there would only be an accident every million years or so. I was studying statistics at the time and remember thinking a statement like that was pure rubbish. But of course the scientist that said it was a neuclear scientist. Three mile island was about a year later.
N Riley Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 3:31 pm

To all those who are only blaming republicans for our current problems you are just wrong. There is plenty that the democrats did while in power during the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, early 1990s and from 2005 on. Congress was and is controlled by democrats for most of our recent history. They are the ones who have been passing the laws and regulations and forcing banks to make bad loans to people banks they would never finance. And republicans did not do a very good job while they were in power in congress. The president does have tremendous power, but he can not pass any laws or publish any rules or regulations that directly affect our lives, our businesses and our environment. The president can be a leader for change and he has been lacking in that department for the last 20 years. There is so much blame to go around. Lets try to not blame just one party for all this mess.
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm

Dear all,

I agree with a lot of comments and admire America : on one hand we have GM (the company which made the EV1s look like pancakes) asking for a cooperative approach to the electrification of the automobile, on the other hand we have a daring business enterprise called Better place whose very substance is just that.

The solution is simple but may the individualistic American busineses and citizens go for it ?

GM should do like Renault-Nissan and embrace the Better Place project.

After I analyzed the economic model of Better place, i decided to become a member of it and founded a group two days ago “Make Waloonia (Belgium) a Better place”.

I love the Volt but without a collective and public involvement, the risk is high that the electric car will be short lived.

Our cell phones work because there has been a collective and public action on standards; antennas, and so on … we need the same collective and public involvement for electric cars, for standard recharge stations, for standard batteries swapping services.

Is GM able to get into and /or initiate such procedures ?

Have a nice sunday,

JC NPNS
GM VP Asks For Public Assistance Making the Electric Car a … | Chevy2006.com Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 3:41 pm

[...] The rest is here: GM VP Asks For Public Assistance Making the Electric Car a … [...]
N Riley Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 3:42 pm

#42 Len

I don’t know about CO2 emissions either, but I do believe the cleaner we live in our environment the better it is for our environment. I am not an environmentalist as defined in today’s terms, but I do believe in reducing our environmental impact footprint on our world.

I am not a believer in global warming as presented today because I believe it is more political than environmental. I do believe in climate cycles because these have been proven over and over again. Our beloved Earth has gone through many warm periods and cold periods and will very likely continue doing so. We can impact the Earth through our environment. How much depends on your perspective. We do have industries that are very harmful to our environment through harmful pollution into our air and waters and to our land. We should work very hard to clean up our environment, but it has to be a world-wide effort. We, in America, Canada and Europe, can do a wonderful job, but if the rest of the world keeps polluting like they are beginning to do, it will not mean much towards bettering our environment. IMO.
kubel Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Subsidizing the cost of the car won’t solve the problem. If we are going to dump public money and endless bureaucracy into a project, it should be a reverse Manhattan Project. During WWII, the Manhattan Projects goal was to get energy out. Now we need to get energy in.
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 3:55 pm

N Riley #46

Thanks, you said it better than me.

JC NPNS
DonC Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 3:55 pm

#28 GXT

Your argument is a bridge too far. While you have a point, it’s hardly as compelling as you seem to think it is. In a bad but not worse scenario, with gas at $4/gallon, over ten years a Volt should require about $12K less gasoline than the Insight. This means:

1. On a pure and personal economic front, with the Insight at $25K (forget the sub $20K fantasy), and the Volt at $32K after rebate, the Volt is a slightly better deal.

2. From a public policy standpoint there is no contest. The Insight is helpful but, as compared to the Insight: The Volt will make the country more secure by not funding terrorism. It will create a huge social surplus by using excess electricity which would otherwise be wasted. And it will dramatically cut the hydrocarbon emissions responsible for a significant health costs.

Focusing on the number of Volts which will be produced also represents a fundamental mistake. The Volt may be a small first step, but without the first step there can never be a second, third, or fourth. Simply stated, the Volt starts us on a path to a destination to which the Insight can simply not take us.
Len Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

#46 N Riley

I agree we should reduce our environmental impact. If we are sucessful in the electrification of the automobile and show the way to clean energy the rest of the world will follow (we could probably learn alot from the Germans though), I don’t think our military is going to be a help when it comes to getting the Chinese to stop pouring so much polution into the atmosphere. We have to show the way. I think after the olympics and seeing all the polution there, that the Chinese must be very envious of places like Pittsburg that once looked like that (or worse).
ThomC Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

#24 Brewster
>> This is not the forum to debate this further
In principle I agree with your assertion. However, in your post #14 you attacked Kent Beuchert (“the most nonsense per paragraph I’ve ever heard” is an attack in my book). Adding insult to injury, you didn’t even bother to supply any substance in your attack. Not surprising as that’s the operational mode of many advocates of Global-Warming-as-Armageddon.
>> The difference is, my “religion” is based on scientific research, yours is based on political dogma and wishful thinking.
How very interesting… I feel exactly the same way, 180 in reverse. I’m not a climatologist and I strongly suspect you aren’t either. I do have 50+ years of research to support my position, you don’t, but neither of us is personally qualified to offer a valid assessment of the data… we both are faithfully deferring to our respective resources, hence “My religion” and “Your religion”.
The problem is “Your religion” if given free reign could cause the economic demise of western civilization as we know it and “my religion” is essentially laissez-faire with regard to the western economy.
At least you understand the reference to “religion”…
DonC Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

#44 # Jean-Charles Jacquemin says (in so many words) “Project Better Place is a great idea.”

Standards are great, and in fact there is a five prong plug standard which GM and the other car manufacturers, together with the electric utilities, have already developed. However, Project Better Place is a terrible idea for a host of reasons. Four that spring to mind are:

1. Trying to standardize batteries when the technology is so new is crazy.

2. Giving any company a monopoly on charging rights is crazy.

3. Failing to use the existing excess capacity in the electrical grid is crazy.

4. Spending a zillion dollars on infrastructure which the E-REV platform renders irrelevant, thereby wasting a zillion dollars, is crazy.
ThomC Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

#23 JEC
>> huh? Who brought religion into this?
>> First he states that science cannot model 98% of the impacts, but then makes his statement:
>> So, now he somehow is predicting globlal cooling and trying to back it up with scientific evidence? Seems like a very contradictory statement, at least that’s how I read it.

The argument for global cooling was developed in a fundamentally different way, by different people, that the argument for global warming:
The 50 year old argument for global cooling is based on climatologic patterns established through geologic core samples. In contrast, the ” Global-Warming-as-Armageddon” argument is based on a series of flawed computer models that were so flawed that the climatology/meteorology community didn’t bother to expend the effort to discredit the models until political policy based on those theories threatened to irrevocably damage the western economy.
Therefore Beuchert’s statement is not contradictory. His statement that “science cannot model 98% of the impacts” is accurate. Chaos theory was originally developed by a meteorologist (Edward Lorenz) who was trying to develop computer models to predict weather. Lorenz discovered is that while weather is a deterministic system, the trigger for any given weather pattern cannot be determined because the actual trigger may be extremely small relative to its deterministic result (known as the “butterfly effect”). Lorenz determined that it is impossible to accurately predict weather patterns more than three days into the future.

>> I never said I was for/against any global warming/cooling theory
I’m very glad to hear that. Please accept my apologies for making that invalid assumption.
Red HHR Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 4:32 pm

What are those big round things on the chassis behind Larry Burns? Is that a compressed air or hydrogen Volt chassis? Also there are two plug in ports. Is it an old prop? Or a new development.

Maybe GM cold sell Volt Chassis to independent companies that wold install customer designed coachwork! That model worked well a hundred years ago, Or to take the hundred year ago scenario a bit further, The Volt could be the new model T.

#25 Statik is right, while the federal government may not own GM, they most certainly have a controlling interest. I was thinking of writing my Senator and asking him to have GM give the keys to one of the Volt mules to Lyle. My take, If Gm is unable to repay the loans, they can provide the Voltec Chassis to other manufactures.

Red HHR (have a good day)
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 4:52 pm

DonC #52;

I’m too tired today (it is 10 53 pm in Belgium now) to contradict you on your four propositions.

Just let me to rest and answer tomorrow, I just have to say that the Danish and Portuguese people do not seem crazy (at least not all of them) nor the people of Renault-Nissan … I agree with you that the model may be be perfectible.

Have a good afternoon,

JC NPNS
noel park Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 4:59 pm

#55 Jean-Charles Jacquemin:

Good for you. You are setting a great example. Don’t be discouraged.
CDAVIS Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 4:59 pm

_____________________________________________________
Lyle’s headline post says:
“GM VP Asks For Public Assistance Making the Electric Car a Mainstream Reality”

—
Response:
Seems to me that GM has already received $15B+ taxpayer loan/bailout “Public Assistance” to help make the “Electric Car a Mainstream Reality” or was that just fools money that does not count?
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________
Dave K. =D~ Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 5:03 pm

hi Red HHR #44,

I agree, the more loan money GM asks for the less control they have over their future. A few prior posts mentioned joint ventures and technology sharing. This may be the collateral GM uses to repay the initial multi-billion dollar TARP loan. Will will see many E-REV’s and EV’s on the road in 2011. Will these come from GM, Ford, Tesla, Phoenix, Korea, China, Aptera, India, Canada, or maybe from the oil rich Mideast?
__________________________

I own three vehicles and will not NEED new wheels for 3-6 years. I will not settle for anything less than electric drive. There will be no Chinese car in my garage. I’ll pay an extra $10,000 for ‘American made’.

=D~
CDAVIS Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

______________________________________________________
Gooblygook Speak = “All parties should act with a collective will to transform holistically.”

Give me a break!
GM, just make the darn car and get it sold before somone else does. Fire ALL those GM Gooblygook Speak makers and hire more engineers.
______________________________________________________
ant Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

To: Dave K. =D~

Don’t you know that the moulding of GM cars are from BYD, besides many key parts are not made in America. Volt’s battery manufacture in Korea, A123 also have plant in China. You are not buying “American made” car, you are buying “American brand” car
ThombDbhomb Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

Let’s all place blame on our opposition parties, then move on. Who is against electric cars? Anyone? The consensus seems to be that we need to electrify the auto. Why not work together to set the vision and industry standards? Then let the competition begin.
Zach Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

#6,

Man, you’re thinking 20 years into the future, lol. Nice!
Eric Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pm

I agree wholeheartedly with Larry Burns, we must change the “DNA” of all vehicles to electric and electronics, our very survival depends on it.
MarkyMark Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 6:13 pm

#58 Dave K. —Right on brother,my cars will last that long also.I will buy with NPNS in mind.I will not buy “Chinese” batteries,cars,windmills,etc
An_Outsider Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

#62
Yes, kind of wishful thinking… for now, I know.

After the coming of the information highway, the highway driven by information.
#9
I agree with you for smart connected charger to avoid power grid overload and off peak better rate

more reading
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/01/gms-burns-calls.html#more
Brewster Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

ThomC;

I gather you didn’t take my suggestion to go see what real science is saying.

I wasn’t going to comment further, but your claim that I didn’t put in any substance in my last post requires that I at least point out two facts:

I don’t know where you got the “50+ years of research” nonsense, but if it were true, it would be way too short. Climate Science started when in 1895 Arrhenius recognized that carbon dioxide affected global climate. His model, although primitive by modern standards, (done with pencil and paper!) is still basically accurate. The “flawed” modern computer models do not contradict him, nor each other. They only improve upon detail.

“The problem is “Your religion” if given free reign could cause the economic demise of western civilization as we know it and “my religion” is essentially laissez-faire with regard to the western economy.”

That is precisely backwards. If you read real science, you will find that only attacking GW, and soon, can save western civilization. And it will probably be good for the economy.

My apologies to the other readers… I will not take up any more space, no matter the nonsense…
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 6:38 pm

#44 Jean-Charles Jacquemin.

I understand what you are saying and I will agree with you if this was 2-3 decades from now.

My only concern now is standardizing too early.
Standardizing now could stifle innovation.
To stifle innovation now would be a horrible event.
Adrian Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 7:10 pm

Climate change has nearly 0% influence from man. 1000’s of years of data show this out. Stop using bad science with the Volt. The Volt can stand on it’s own thank you very much. The only external reason outside of superior design any of should use is to get our money out of terrorists hands.

There is no man made warming. The earth stopped warming ten years ago. It is all about sun spots. To talk about warm change please go somwhere else.
Vector256 Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 7:15 pm

#49 DonC – So what you are teling us is that Volt sales are dependent on +$4.00 gas prices – the same prices that have put us in the worst economic depression since the 1930’s ? The same prices that contributed to the collapse of the housing market ? The same prices that curtailed retail sales to such a degree that we just lost Circuit City – forever – along with many smaller companies ? The same prices that gave single mothers the impossible choice of gas in the tank (to keep their job), or food on the table for their children ?

Great ! Way to go GM ! If gas prices spike like in 2008 again, about the only people left with enough money to buy a Volt will be government employees. Can the single mom buy a Volt ? Can the college student, saddled with education debt, afford a Volt ? No.

Will the over 50 crowd with money to spare buy a Volt, after years of being a loyal Buick customer ? I strongly doubt it (Where’s the buttons ? Where’s the a/c and heat control knob ? Damned newfangled gizmo – I’m going back to the Buick dealer).

GM is very wise to limit their initial production run – just enough to satisfy the eco-celebrity, eco-nazi and the anti-oil jihad crowds. Honda, on the other hand, has done it right – make it a Prius-killer, make it good looking, price it low, and make a lot of them. Did I mention the Insight uses regular gas ? That’s important, too, because plus and super gas prices will eat you alive at the gas pump. And down the road – the Hymotion extra battery pack and the custom performance chip with user selectable speed at which the ICE kicks in – OEM setting, 55 MPH, 65 MPH, Never.
Vector256 Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

#66 Brewster says – That is precisely backwards. If you read real science, you will find that only attacking GW, and soon, can save western civilization.
——————————————————————–
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha…ha…..ha….

Alright, (giggle) I’m ok now, I’m….I’m….(Chuckle)…

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha….oh….that’s a good one (snicker). I’m ok now, really….I am….(must not laugh)….ok, I’m done now.
DonC Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

#69 Vector256 says “So what you are teling us is that Volt sales are dependent on +$4.00 gas prices – the same prices that have put us in the worst economic depression since the 1930’s ?”

First there is no economic depression. We’re a long way from that. Second the recession wasn’t caused by high gas prices. They didn’t help but they were more a symptom of the bubble than the cause of it (if you want know the cause of the intensifying downturn check your buddies on Wall Street). Third the Insight will tank along with the Volt if people believe gas prices will stay at current levels (it will be a bomb not a hit).

How many times do we need to see this movie before we get the story line?
Casey Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

#22 Chevron

You need to take a nap and when you wake up (hopefully in a better mood) try watching some else besides MSMBC,
Casey Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 7:57 pm

#22 Chevonly

You need to take a nap and when you wake up (hopefully in a better mood) you should watch something besides MSMBC. Obama is already spending a trillion dollars and he hasn’t been sworn in yet what do you think he will do in the next four years, Dont blame every thing on Republicans 911 changed a lot of things and the economy didn’t help, Dems are just as much to blame
DonC Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 8:06 pm

#55 says “Just let me to rest and answer tomorrow”

No problems. Catch you tomorrow. In order of importance I’d go with 4, 2, 3, 1.

As for the Danes being crazy, in many instances what works in a small country with a high population density and $8 gas makes no sense whatsoever in a large one with a low density with $4 ($2?) gas.
DonC Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 8:17 pm

#72 Casey says “You need to take a nap and when you wake up (hopefully in a better mood) try watching some else besides MSMBC,”

Yes it’s true that MSNBC and Fox News have become mirror images of each other. One is watched by the young. One by the old. One is left. One is right. Both try to pass off opinion — sometimes off the wall opinion — as fact. I’d have to say that MSNBC has more humor whereas Fox has more anger. I’d also have to say that Fox is also better at it, perhaps because they’ve been at it longer or perhaps because they have less shame. Hard to know.
jbfalaska Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 8:23 pm

I’m in and wholly agree. This is every bit a national security issue as a green issue. America is selling itself out. As retired Air Force veterean, I and so many of my peers spent their careers subsidizing the protection of oil for the rest of the world. Those that hit us in New York city were virtually all Sauds and those individuals were subsididized by our spending on Gas and Oil. The cost of our protecting oil is estimated at $10/Gallon. The rest of the world uses this subsidy to beat our American companies in trade.

Time to move on this and free the USA from a horrible addiction.
ThombDbhomb Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 8:43 pm

The crank cases are in da house. We need to rid ourselves of crank cases. EVs don’t have crankcases.

Why argue over the causes of climate change? We have a common cause – electric autos. Instead of fighting, let’s find something we can agree on and move forward. EVs anyone?

#67 Rashiid Amul

Sometimes, competing formats are equally valid. Why not skip the war over competing formats by standardizing on a format? Standardization could accelerate progress.
koz Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 8:45 pm

So much to comment on here, I hardly know where to begin. For those mistaking Burn’s comments, such as Jason M. Hendler at #37, you should read BillR at #36. He translated into less emotionally charged words the gist of what Burn’s was saying. Those offended or concerned should take of your politically fogged classes and see things with more clarity and less bias.

GXT #28, the mice in your pockets and the pockets of your handfull of near-sighted buddies don’t count. The Insight gets 40/43mpg EPA. The new standards are pretty accurate for regular driving of ICE and hybrid cars. Driving in a manner that produces 60mpg will produce what range and efficiency with the Volt, do you think? When LI batterries continue to fall the approx. 10% per annum in cost/kwh, what do you think the comparisons will look like for the 2015 EREV (Voltec) models? So you believe nothing that GM claims or says, but you believe the political BS number of 200,000 Volts by 2015.? They said that to the government when the government was consider increasing the CAFE standards. I don’t like this political BS talk nor a lot of other things GM has done and said but I take it in context. Further; if you want advancement, if you want less dependence on oil, if you believe less gas usage will improve the environment then you ADD the numbers together. More Insights, more Priuses, and definitely MORE VOLTS (Voltecs) the better off we will be.

ThomC #53
“In contrast, the ” Global-Warming-as-Armageddon” argument is based on a series of flawed computer models that were so flawed that the climatology/meteorology community didn’t bother to expend the effort to discredit the models until political policy based on those theories threatened to irrevocably damage the western economy.
Therefore Beuchert’s statement is not contradictory. His statement that “science cannot model 98% of the impacts” is accurate. Chaos theory was originally developed by a meteorologist (Edward Lorenz) who was trying to develop computer models to predict weather. Lorenz discovered is that while weather is a deterministic system, the trigger for any given weather pattern cannot be determined because the actual trigger may be extremely small relative to its deterministic result (known as the “butterfly effect”). Lorenz determined that it is impossible to accurately predict weather patterns more than three days into the future.”

I’m not going to support or refute global warming, just clarify what it is postulated to be since anybody supporting or refuting it should at least know this much. It is not predicting the weather nor speaking solely about our atmosphere. It did not initiate from computer models nor have those models been proven to be flawed or reasonably accurate. It began with physics and atmospheric science. Radiant energy enters our atmosphere and radiant energy leaves our atmosphere. The concept is that altering our atmophere will alter the way in which this happens. The concern is what role will rising CO2 levels and other “greenhouse gas” levels play in altering our atmospheric radiant properties (terminology?). Those supporting Global Warming theory feel the atmosphere will “trap” more energy as greenhouse gas level rise. This does not necessarily translate into consistently rising atmospheric temperatures. It does dictate a steady rise in overall, and I forget the corect term, energy content within the atmosphere (air, water, ice, land, etc). This energy can be displayed in air temps, wind, ice levels, ocean temps, ocean currents, etc. To accurate assess this or model it is a gargantuan task. Modeling atmospheric temperatures is only a small and imprecise method of expressing global warming.

DonC and others. What concerns you so much about standardizing on Voltages, charging tolerances, packaging, etc. It hasn’t limited battery advancement to date. Nearly all batteries produced today are already based on standards. You are correct that a well designed and affordable EREV may render PBP irrelevent. It’s the affordability issue that concerns me. In theory PBP can produce a much more affordable solution with today’s technology and what we can most likely expect to see in the near term.
Lloyd T Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

If Obama and the Dems really wants to change things then they will pass a law that bans import of any foreign oil by a date certain (5/6 years?). Then instead of this old politics, earmark-laden $1 trillion stimulus plan, sink the money into R&D on battery technology, efficient grid networks, wind farms and affordable solar panels (that even the poor can afford). If this nation can go from the German upgraded V2 to the Saturn 5 in less than six years this is certainly doable. Then the money stays HERE!!! Congress, both sides, have ruined this nation with stupid, short sighted policies that lead dirrectly to the corruption that lead to this staggering loss of national wealth. Guess what…if you write bad legislation (fannie/freddie and the whole real estate mess) you create avenues for crooks to prosper. And for the GM haters out there, what’s the point…whatever else you want to say it was the Volt that turned this technology into the juggernaut that it is becoming. Don’t tell me about Tesla, Fisker etc. This never reaches today’s crescendo without the Volt. Prius, Impact…sorry, old school patch jobs and of limited utility. These are appliances. I like cars and I love the Tesla/Fisker approach to high performance electrics. But give the Volt credit, even if one is never built the trend is irreversible.
Dave G Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

From the article: “4. Embrace a portfolio of solutions, not “a silver bullet,” i.e. E-REVs, BEVs, and fuel cells”
————————————————————————————–
I agree that there is no one silver bullet, but fuel cells are not part of the answer, and most people won’t go for BEVs. We also need ethanol and bio-diesel in the mix.

In other words, a portfolio of plug-ins and bio-fuels aligns much better with the new secretary of energy’s policies. It also aligns with http://www.setamericafree.org .
Casey Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 9:20 pm

Sounds like a lot of frustrations pouring out today, the planet warming the planet cooling, oil prices going back up and the Volt will or will not be produced. In a couple of days most will get back to work and things will calm down and we can all get back to normal… lol

NO PLUG NO SALE, LJGTVWOTR, DBNGCMEME, (my house)=D~~~(my volt) .#33,772 and still waiting
LB Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 9:38 pm

It’s all great, independence of foreign oil, cleaner air………. don’t have to sell us on the ideas, we’ve been talking about it all here for a very long time, we want it, just make them affordable to most people, with different configurations to fit the diverse needs of this great country and the cars will fly off the shelves like sliced bread.
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 9:45 pm

I’m agnostic on Anthropogenic Global Warming, but I’m totally convinced that the number one single thing we can do to fix this country (among the many other things needed, obviously) is to reduce/eliminate foreign oil imports.

If you’re a believer in AGW and you buy a Volt, Prius, Insight or whatever, well, as a wise man once said, anyone who’s not against us is for us. We’re all on the same side in this one, whatever our motives.
old man Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 9:55 pm

#78
I didn’t think I would ever see an intelligent thought process on GW.
I was/am impressed and I thank you for your post.
Jeffhre Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 10:36 pm

N Riley#43

It’s true that the Clinton Admin started the ball rolling on banking deregulation. However, no one has ever been able to force lenders to loan to people they don’t want to, with out gunpowder propelled (highly beyond the constructs of law) coercion.

Lenders choose to lend, even when it’s not in their best interests. Right now many are so afraid, they will not lend even when it clearly is in their best interests, as tomorrows economic landscape may prove to be frightfully different than today’s. Lets just agree that we are supporters of the electrification of transport and take it from there. NPNS

#76 & 77 Yes, yes.
Vector256 Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 10:39 pm

#71 DonC says – (if you want know the cause of the intensifying downturn check your buddies on Wall Street)
+++++++++++++++++
They’re not my friends – they’re not your friends – they’re the ones who are directly responsible for the great oil price spike of 2008. So why $1.50 a gallon now ? The oil future investors were fine, as long as oil prices continued to skyrocket. The typical oil future contract, at the height of the price spike, would change hands 18 times before the purchase by the end user of the oil (airlines, heavy industry, etc).

When oil prices beban to drop, the wall street oil traders (traitors) sold their futures. The further prices dropped, the more traders unloaded their oil futures, further driving down the trading price of oil. I just wish I could have seen their faces after selling at an enormous loss.

Right now, oil futures are toxic – too many fingers got burned in the last half of 2008. The only buyers right now are the end oil users (airlines, heavy industry, etc) – as it should be. When $700,000 can control $10 million dollars in oil futures, it’s easy for profit seeking investors to drive up the price of oil.

Don’t worry DonC – the price of oil will go up again. But it will go up slowly, as it used to do – the usual 50 to 75 cent increase around June. Only if full blown war breaks out in the mid-east will the prices of oil surge like 2008 – and war WILL come to the mid-east, sooner or later. Only then will the oil investors forget about 2008, and jump into the oil future market again. We may be looking at 7 to 8 dollars a barrel if that happens.

BTW, I’m on the side of the poor folks, like single mothers and their kids – NOT wall street. Eco-Nazis tends to either forget or ignore the effect a gas tax would have on the little people – the ones making minimum wage or less (part-time jobs). Forgeting about the poor, in their zeal to chanpion all things green, can be corrected with education. Not caring about the poor, however, is UNFORGIVABLE. You want higher gas prices ? Try telling that to a single mother who has to choose between gas (to get to work) and feeding her kids.

Solution: if you want to tax gas, gas debit cards should be given to the working poor, with balances sufficient to offset the tax increases. Better yet, you should have to scan your drivers license to buy gas. The license would have your tax bracket encoded on it, and your gas price would be adjusted accordingly. The poor would pay no tax increase, and Bill Gates would pay, let’s see, about $200,000.00 a gallon. (He better buy a Volt).
James E. Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 11:46 pm

This all that I have to say about the next vehical we buy.

No Plug No Sale!
Youda Farmer Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 12:20 am

This economic mess will soon be Obama’s fault. If it happens on his watch he gonna get some blame.
Hopefully he will give alternate energy plans a boost in his $800+ billion dollar stimulus plan. I think Obama has said he like’s the Volt but not GM management.
ThomC Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 12:40 am

#78 koz
>> I’m not going to support or refute global warming, just clarify what it is postulated to be since anybody supporting or refuting it should at least know this much.
As I said before, I’m not a climatologist and neither are you. However, I found a website published by someone who IS a climatologist, who has written a primer on anthropogenic global warming:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

WARNING WARNING WARNING

This website references real science. It explains stuff. You will have to think. You may actually learn something. You may actually learn many things. Your head will hurt if you make it to the end of the webpage.

Its very good (at least I think so). It’s written by a real-live climatologist-type scientific person who references other real-live scientific persons and explains real-live science with English words and not-many formulas. He’s trying very hard to get information across to a layperson audience.

I keep harping on this because AGW is a con. A lot of people are working very hard to reinforce this con because they stand to make a lot of money and collect a lot of personal power from it. And the way they play this game, it’s a zero-sum game. This is not like real wealth creation, which (like a rising tide) floats all boats. In their game, when they make money and gain power, everyone else loses money and power.

OTOH…

#70 Vector256
>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha….oh….that’s a good one (snicker). I’m ok now, really….I am….(must not laugh)….ok, I’m done now.

There have been many instances where dangerous people have been marginalized by normal people have a good, solid belly laugh at the dangerous person’s expense. So please, don’t stop. Keep laughing
Casey Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 12:58 am

#89 Thom C

Does this mean that Al Gore is a con man?

NO PLUG NO SALE, LJGTVWOTR, DBNGCMEME, (my house)=D~~~(my volt) .#33,772
ThomC Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 1:19 am

#90 Casey
>> Does this mean that Al Gore is a con man?

From the above website:
Al Gore now combines Amway and Evangelism to produce a series of “training sessions” which in turn will produce an army of “climate change fighters”. His new Climate Project is a non-profit volunteer group that focuses on his now totally-discredited movie, An Inconvenient Truth and his follow-up presentations. Gore will lead the participants through the junk science and format of his presentation, so they can repeat it in their communities.

His reported advertising budget? $300,000,000.00.

Each participant makes a commitment to give the presentation at least 10 times.

Yes. This means Al Gore is a con man.
unni Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 1:21 am

offcourse i think people has to wonder about electricity generation. I think that should be a combined effort.

another point is is sounded like GM looks for expanding Onstar for other brand owners also as a subscribtion model and comming up with standards so that every vender can install.

The next Gen is going to be electric misers and elctric guzzlers )
Ed M Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 4:21 am

For the those of the auto world that think there’s no market for electric cars now that the price of oil has dropped, you may want to read the article below. Once the recession is over oil will cost more than it did last summer. A lot more.
The current slump in oil demand will bankrupt many Canadian oil producers. For America that will mean major losses in future oil supplies.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/weekendreview/story.html?id=b5b94d25-e8a3-46cd-b938-65891301120b

“The age of oil is ending and the world is blithely unaware. We will soon suffer severe shortages, experts warn, leading to a time of great economic and geopolitical tension”

We need the Volt badly to protect the North American economies, so get over your gas cars.
Vector256 Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 8:05 am

#89 ThomC – I wasn’t laughing at you. silly. I was laughing at Brewster in #66. If you want to go back and read it, fine, but I’m not repeating what he said – it’s simply too funny, and my sides still hurt from laughing so hard.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I stand by my statement in #86 – IF we must raise gas prices via taxation, it MUST be done in a way to negate the impact it would have on the poor. Otherwise, you just make the poor even poorer, and that’s just not right. Encode tax bracket data on driver’s licenses, scan them at the pump, and your tax adjusted price would be displayed. If you can’t do that, DO NOT INCREASE THE TAX ON GAS AT ALL.
Dave G Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 8:18 am

#83 Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says: “I’m agnostic on Anthropogenic Global Warming, but I’m totally convinced that the number one single thing we can do to fix this country … is to reduce/eliminate foreign oil imports… We’re all on the same side in this one, whatever our motives.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes. The bottom line is that there are plenty of reasons to reduce/eliminate foreign oil imports, so we are all together on this one.

There is actually a political organization that has this as their mantra. They call themselves a group of “tree huggers, do-gooders, sodbusters, cheap hawks, and evangelicals.” The fact that each diverse group can laugh at themselves like this give me hope that they can work together.

• Environmentalists want to stop burning all fossil fuels, so reducing foreign oil imports is an obvious benefit for them.

• Economists know that our dependance on foreign is like our economy losing a quart of blood every week.

• Farmers look forward to the day when they can help replace foreign oil and become profitable again.

• National security experts know that dependance on foreign oil not only weakens U.S. policy abroad, but also strengthens our enemies.

• Christian evangelicals see us sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to Islamic based governments, and this causes obvious concerns for them.

This political group is very diverse, including senators from both parties, the former head of the CIA, scientists, and Willie Nelson! See here for more details:
http://www.setamericafree.org/coalition.html
Dave K. =D~ Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 8:18 am

hi Vector256 #94,

“IF we must raise gas prices via taxation, it MUST be done in a way to negate the impact it would have on the poor.”

___________________________

Ahhh, if we only lived in a vacuum. Recent history shows the weakness of government and the blatant collapse of self control. The Congress are OUR representatives charged with promoting the interests OF THE PEOPLE. And protecting OUR hard earned tax dollars by saving them or spending them wisely.

Someone had recently made a painfully honest statement. He said, “What we used to call corruption, is now called business as usual”. In this environment of distrust and TARP Shanghais any more taxation for “programs” may as well be flushed down the toilet.

=D~
rschmitz Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am

I think that another recommendation be that US citizens stop thinking about the 1-5 times a year that they do long trips. People Consistantly think they need a car to go 600 miles a day. this may be true on the few long trips they take, but if public transportation, buses, trains, and Airlines (all focusing on less petroleum use) then we really don’t need a car that needs more than 100 miles a charge.
Paul F Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 9:13 am

Easy solution. Now that the prices are plunging, schedule a series of tax increases into the future on gasoline and diesel (with commercial use exemption) that start immediately and tier out to 15-20 years. Got to pay the deficit off somehow….
Jim in PA Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 9:39 am

The long-term plan put forward by GM above is good for America, and favors GM only in that they are the only ones smart enough to be following it right now. This is the kind of forward thinking I would expect out of a Secretary of Transportation. But I won’t hold my breath for that.
carcus Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 9:44 am

Off topic,…

Can anyone give me a link (in english) where BYD’s F3DM has been given an extended test drive and performance specifications verified?

Lyle, how about a trip to China for a test drive? Ford let you drive their electric, why not BYD?

This car’s been on sale for a month in China, you’d think there’d be an in depth review of the car by now.
MarkinWI Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 10:01 am

Wow. Quite the thread.

First of all, I love how every winter all the global-warming doubters come out. The fact is, even giving full credit to Thom C’s link, everyone agrees that warming is occuring, we just don’t know if it’s normal or not, and we don’t know how much of a contribution man-kind is making. Maybe the amount is insignificant, maybe the amount is significant. But the mixing of forecasting localized and short-term weather/chaos theory/butterfly effect with forecasting whether patterns, let alone long-term whether trends, is just plain wrong. It’s mixing apples and oranges. Example: A forecaster can’t reliably tell you how much rain will fall on Jimmy Carter’s peanut farm in Georgia tomorrow, if any. That is chaos theory. However, a forecaster can tell you with 100% reliability that a storm system is forming on the West coast today, and will rain somewhere on the mid-west in three days, etc. Does science have all the answers? No. Will some of the tens of thousands of credible scientists in the world always disagree with the majority consensus? Yes. The problem here is credibility. The tobacco industry has taught the public that you can always find scientists who will give a contrary opinon. So you have to decide: do you trust the majority of scientists, or do you trust a minority?

Second, Al Gore and his movie have only been completely discredited if all you consume is right-wing media. Most people do more than watch Glen Beck and right-wing mock-u-mentaries, or never watch them at all. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee, which knows a little bit about science, still hasn’t caught on yet. But really, who cares about this, except Al Gore haters?

Third, there is plenty of political blame to go around for everything that ailes us. It is ridicuolus to say that the Democrats have been in control all along, when the Republicans had control of both chambers for 12 years, and all three branches of government for 6 years (and that’s if you don’t consider the fact that on all major economic issues, Clinton and the DLC were basically Republican light). Anything that Republicans really wanted to change, they could have. Republicans didn’t, and banks didn’t tell them to, because they were making money hand over fist until 2006, by charging people high interest rates for high risk loans (100% mortgages for the suburbs, mortgages for the inner city, credit cards to students without jobs, etc.), and assuming that their butts were covered because: (a) land values had only gone up since the 80s, and (b) they changed the bankruptcy laws in 2005 to their own advantage.

Last but not least, how are we going to help Larry Burns?
steve Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 10:01 am

#100 carcus Says:
Lyle, how about a trip to China for a test drive? Ford let you drive their electric, why not BYD?

This car’s been on sale for a month in China, you’d think there’d be an in depth review of the car by now.
———————————————————————————
Shouldn’t the question be to Lyle. Ford let you drive their electric, why not go to Michigan and ask GM let you drive the Volt? After all this is a GM-Volt blog.

I would not consider a one month of data as an in depth review of any vehicle. I would want an in depth review of a vehicle after it’s been on the road for at least one year.
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 10:12 am

Lyle, I would love to take that trip to China with you.

Just let me know when we leave.
Rashiid Amul Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 10:17 am

MarkinWI #101

The North pole is melting.
The Polar Bears are drowning because of weak ice.
I believe the Earth is warming.

But I have no idea what to believe for the reason why it is happening.
There is so much conflicting data on web, and I do not have the background the fully understand it all.
I have found a chart showing the earth is warming.
I have found a chart to show the opposite.

But I don’t think that everyone driving an EREV can hurt.
BillR Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 10:39 am

#98 Paul F

I’ve been an advocate for years for an increased tax for highway fuels. At $0.50 per gallon, almost 10 million barrels of gasoline per day, and 42 gallons per barrel, this could equate to about $75 billion per year! However, I do not trust the federal gov’t to use the money wisely.

Therefore, as these taxes are collected, they need to go to a third party (to maintan control) and spent only on related projects, such as highways, mass transit, alternate energy, new power plant technologies, electrification, etc. Perhaps a portion could be earmarked for paying down the deficit.

But if this money ends up in the general coffers, your trusted senators, representatives, and President will squander it on pork barrel projects, welfare, payments to special interests, etc. Then they will just find more places to spend it.

A tax on fuel is actually a great way to raise revenue (I suggest a gradual phase in – gives people fair warning of tax increase, and time to adjust their energy consumption), however, if some kind of safeguards are not put in place, there is no guarantee that this money will be used to support transportation, infrastucture, or deficit reduction, or any other purpose for which it was originally intended.
Shawn Marshall Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 10:44 am

Larry Burns smoochy, touchy-feely language is obviously a sop to what he sees as the incoming liberal environment. He is trying to make friends and say that we all need to get along. Why is he doing this? Because GM needs two or three more boatloads of our money. I’m not opposed to helping GM but they have fundamental competitive issues to resolve if they are ever going to make it.

We need tariffs on foreign oil only to promote domestic production and to provide revenue for battery R&D and production and to help US car companies.

We need a massive Nuclear power program to displace oil usage and compete with coal. Rising oil prices have made many coal millionaires.

We are the only thing standing in our way – there is a brilliant future out there and it starts with ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.
wwskinn3 Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

For those that want to “do it yourself”

http://www.electricity4gas.com/?hop=holteboo22
MDDave Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

#11, kent beuchert, says: I also note that “fact based” Obama is claiming to take the same trip Lincoln did in 1861 to his inauguration. Another typical lie here – Lincoln actually came thru Baltimore to Washington in the middle of the night to avoid assassination.

——————–

What the heck are you talking about? Obama’s recent train trip did, in fact, go through Baltimore on the way to Washington. Just because Obama didn’t make the trip in the middle of the night and under the threat of assassination doesn’t make the comparison to Lincoln’s trip a lie. Obama probably wasn’t wearing a stove-pipe hat either, is that also a problem for you?

Obama obviously has an interest in history, with a special affinity for President Lincoln. Obama’s train trip may have been political theater as a way to pay homage to Lincoln, but it was never billed as anything but that, so I’d hardly call it a lie.
charlie h Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

#89, ThomC writes, “This website references real science.”

No. That web site cherry picks real science to further obfuscate the issues. I found what I was expecting about a quarter of the way down… The usual attack on Mann. What your nice “scientific” web site at middlebury.net fails to bother to mention is that in the most recent IPCC report, Mann’s “hockey stick,” which was in fact never actually invalidated by McIntyre, is one of about 10 (TEN) independently constructed hockey sticks that point to the same conclusion: It’s hot and, at the rate we’re going, we’re going to find some very interesting changes ahead of us.

Real science is not fought on editorial pages by people who are saying, “folks…”. Real science happens with people analyzing real data and showing other people who know their stuff their results and it looks a lot like that equiation we glimpse at the top of the page and then are promised, no more of that!

That article is entirely BS. Good, rich, fertile BS but BS all the same.
GmsAJoke Says:
January 19th, 2009 at 12:58 am

It is BS, total BS. They have the tech to make this work already, how many more meetings do the assholes in charge have to have be for they put it in motion. I love that they are going to let this pass them by. Bunch of fricking morons running that company.

Here is a clue dumbass gm smucks, the government buys cars every fricking day. Take some of that taxpayer money gift you are using to pay your bonuses and build the car. Then sell it to the government (overpriced of course) and take some more taxpayer money. R&D covered dumbshits. And more than likely overpriced enough to cover your bonuses. Take your short term thinking and extend it out just one more year instead of the 15 seconds you have now and you will still get your bonus.
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
January 19th, 2009 at 2:40 am

Rashiid #104,

I have seen maps showing that the North pole ice is the largest and biggest this year since 1979.This is contrary to all the previsions.

AS you said driving EVs will not hurt at least.

Regards,

JC
Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
January 19th, 2009 at 2:41 am

DonC,

I’m forgetting to answer you but yesteday was too busy for me, I’ll try later today.

Regards,

JC NPNS
J Man Says:
January 19th, 2009 at 11:06 am

If they want to sell more of these they need to make them more affordable. It is a Malibu sized car so it needs to be a Malibu sized vehicle. They need to offer the car everywhere, not in select markets. If a dealership wants to stay in business the will convert at least one bay and equip it to service electric cars. GM wants to loose dealerships, if the do not convert they do not stick around.
JR Says:
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:12 pm

#11 – kent beuchert

Once again we are seeing the complete misunderstanding of what “Global Warming” really means. For fear of adding “Hollywood” into the mix here, the flick “The Day After Tomorrow” although definately Hollywood in it’s finest, it was based on some serious scientific models, which, to me is scarey. Far too many people blindly believe that “Global Warming” simply means that we will just get a little warmer. No, not quite. What it really means is that we are heading for a definate “Climate Shift” – it may or may not be as dramatic as the movie, but it will come. This means that your climates will become more & more extreme in their temperature swings & if the ocean currents do stop due to de-salination – you will see Ice Age climates return. It is a fact that these ocean currents drive our weather, our climate, moderating the equator & the northern hemispheres.

What many people also seem to miss about this whole issue is that the Earth is a “closed” system really; matter is neither created or destroyed, it just changes state. This is exactly the case w/CO2. We are extracting fossil fuels (locked up hydrocarbons); releasing them into our atmosphere. Obviously, you will reach a point where it begins to affect your atmosphere. The only way to slow this down or stop it, is to “pull” or “filter” the CO back out of the air we breathe. Luckily, we already have bioengineered filters on our planet – they are called TREES. Therefore, instead of slashing & burning every tree in the Amazon in the name of $ & progress, we we need to plant more to help filter and “lock-up” more of the CO in our atmosphere.

Remember, the definition of insanity is doing the same things over & over; expecting different results. Carrying on with the very same ancient energy policies and vehicles will not accomplish anything. Any hydrocarbon fueled heat engine will produce CO. We need a fuel that doesn’t.
ron erickson Says:
January 24th, 2009 at 11:24 am

I believe Larry Burns is advocating a partnership similiar to what was done to rescue the US semi-conductor industry way back in the 1980’s when the US had lost its edge in electronics manufacturing. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on SEMATECH.

SEMATECH (SEmiconductor MAnufacturing TECHnology) is a non-profit consortium that performs basic research into semiconductor manufacturing. It was conceived of in 1986, formed in 1987, and began operating in 1988 as a partnership between the United States government and 14 U.S.-based semiconductor manufacturers to solve common manufacturing problems and regain competitiveness for the U.S. semiconductor industry that had been surpassed by Japanese industry in the mid-1980s. SEMATECH was funded over 5 years by public subsidies coming from the US Department of Defense via the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for a total of $500 million.

The US auto industry today is at a point where it has lost its leadership. I believe Larry Burns is proposing a “SEMATECH” approach to regain US leadship in this vital industry.
Han Joverseon Says:
January 25th, 2009 at 9:42 am

We NEED an ER EV soon but not at this price. It needs to be AFFORDABLE. Otherwise instead of being shafted by big oil and big government (gas taxes) we will be fleeced by big auto makers. The AVERAGE American, especially in these tough times cannot afford a $20,000.oo car of ANY KIND!!!!
Koz Says:
January 25th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

ThomC #89

“As I said before, I’m not a climatologist and neither are you. …
WARNING WARNING WARNING

This website references real science. It explains stuff. You will have to think. You may actually learn something. You may actually learn many things. Your head will hurt if you make it to the end of the webpage.

Its very good (at least I think so). It’s written by a real-live climatologist-type scientific person who references other real-live scientific persons and explains real-live science with English words and not-many formulas. He’s trying very hard to get information across to a layperson audience.

I keep harping on this because AGW is a con.”

Just getting the time now to respond adequately to your comments. You’re right, I’m not a climatologist, but I never claimed to be. Neither did you say this before about me. (–personal assumption counter-attacks deleted—) Quite fankly, the point of my original comment was that nobody should have much of an opinion about AGM unless they seek out AND can develop a reasonable undestanding of the scientific debate.

I read your link all the way through and you are right again, my head does hurt. It hurts because it is hard to fathom how someone would believe and present this site as a convincing argument against AGM. Not because it is chock full of untruths (it isn’t or at last not 100% untruths) or because it is “folksy”, but rather because it falls short at the core of the argument. I understand the author’s attempt to present a layman’s argument against AGM and he does a pretty good job of sticking to this concept. His obvious disdain and repeated attacks on Al Gore seem odd and out of place in a “folksy” scientific refutiation of AGM.

These bolded statements from the site speak to at the core of the AGM scientific debate:

“Man-made CO2 doesn’t appear physically capable of absorbing much more than
two-thousandths of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere.

And, if all of the available heat in that spectrum is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won’t matter a bit.”

Lot’s of numbers given in the argument but the crux of the mattter is dismissed with “doesn’t appear”? Percentage of black body radiation spectral absorption, while related, is not the number or approximation that is meaningful. The second statement is very…umm…shall we say, suspect. Perhaps you should alert this Atmospheric Physicists that not all of the radiation leaving the Earth’s atmosphere is radiating directly from the Earth’s surface. Excited CO2 molecules in the atmosphere radiate in what spectrum? His percentage argument (unsubstantiated 8% CO2 absorption) is based black body surface radiation and makes sense if we were talking about an unbalanced system but this is not a physical possibility. Our system, like all others, is always moving towards a steady-state. If not, then his 2 thousands of a percent, while sounding minute, would be huge. The REAL question is how much does atmospheric CO2 change radiative properties of our atmosphere not what percentage of black body radiation can CO2 absorb. For a more in depth discussion of the issue I urge you and everyone interested to study:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Look for the science, not the opinions. Thank you for raising the issue and I expect to start a thread to debate the AGM core mechanism in the Forum when I find the time. This is really the only AGM topic worthy of debate at this level.
chuck muller Says:
January 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pm

gm/cry/ford/ can eat shit

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Volt Test Drive by Vancouver EV Association February 8, 2010
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- General Motors issued a very special invitation to the Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association last week to drive the... […]
WopOnTour
gasoline cars are like smoking . . . . February 8, 2010
interesting article, better presenting what I've had a hard time putting into words (which is why HE's a writer and I'M... […]
prowler
A common European strategy for electric vehicles February 8, 2010
I coudn't resist to cut and paste the next excerpt : Link :... […]
Jean-Charles Jacquemin
Run flat option or standard? February 8, 2010
I suspect that run flats might be standard because they get rid of the space and weight taken by a spare tire and may result in less fatal accidents... […]
1nk
Engine Thermal Management in a Series Hybrid February 8, 2010
I've just recently discovered how different the environments under which a conventional (even parallel hybrid) ICE and series hybrid ICE are... […]
XGC75
electric car with wind generator February 7, 2010
My design of ELECTRIC CAR WITH WIND GENERATOR: http://velkovelkov.blogspot.com/ I think this conception is original and realistic. The low position... […]
Velko Velkov
Please provide complete home solar systems. February 6, 2010
Please provide both a volt charging solar system and a complete whole house solar system that takes the user completely off the grid and stays on... […]
1nk

GM VP Asks For Public Assistance Making the Electric Car a Mainstream Reality

118 Responses to “GM VP Asks For Public Assistance Making the Electric Car a Mainstream Reality”

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts