GM hosted a press conference on their battery strategy and GMs director of EVs and HEVs Bob Kruse wrote a blog post about it.
As we know, the Volt lithium-ion cell contract went to LG Chem of Korea. Mainly the decision to choose them over A123 was based on the fact that LG was ready with cells sooner, and had a much larger production capacity and longer track record. According to Denise Gray, GM’s advanced battery director, the lithium-manganese chemistry of LG chem was “not significantly different” in energy density or power density characteristics than the lithium iron phosphate chemistry of A123 cells. In fact, A123 cells and packs continue to undergo testing.
GMs main point of the conference was reiterate that they are doing the pack design, engineering, and software controls in-house. So while LG or someone else may make an excellent cell, GM intends to make the best pack and become the worlds best electric car battery make maker. This gives them competitive advantage over car companies that are “married” to a specific cell supplier. Gray is convinced batteries will continue to advance in the future and right now GM is testing cells from “more than a dozen suppliers.”
Kruse confirms GM will soon open a large advanced battery lab within their Warren Technical Center in addition to the Volt’s battery assembly plant. That plant he notes “will be the first lithium-ion battery manufacturing plant operated by a major automaker in the U.S., and will create new “green” jobs.”
He advises us that GM is already working and second and third generation designs for these battery packs, and current ones have already evolved considerably from the first prototype packs GM received a year and a half ago.
Future generation Volt packs will continue to deliver the goal 40 miles of all electric range but will be considerably less expensive. Costs will be cut in several ways. Economy of scale will bring down production costs for the cells. GM and LG are also studying ways to tweak the chemistry perhaps removing expensive elements within the chemical mixture. The packs will also become more refined. ” Fewer parts leads to lower costs,” according to Andrew Farah, the Volt’s lead engineer. In addition to fewer parts Gray notes the current first generation packs have “a lot of bells and whistles” in terms of temperature and control management and suggests this safety overkill may not all needed.
The present crop of mules are performing flawlessly by the accounts of all involved and that the only surprises so far have been “pleasant ones” with respect to how perfectly they and their batteries have been performing.
It was also acknowledged and demonstrated that the Cruze-mules have already undergone considerable crash safety testing. The design of having the battery enclosed in the central tunnel has proven to be extremely safe. The graphic above illustrates what happens to the pack as filmed from below as the mule is crashed into a concrete barrier at 35 mph. Nothing. No breach has occurred.
We are at a turning point. As long as GM can hold on financially we will be seeing some beautiful things called integration vehicles in the coming months.
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:08 am)There is no doubt that Gen 2 and Gen 3 will be cheaper. The $64,000 question (or should I say, the $40,000 question) is, will GM’s strategy be overtaken by improvements in pure EVs to the point that a significant share of their potential market for this car goes the pure EV route instead.
Of course if the norm is for most households to have at least two vehicles, it may be that in the future we’ll all have one EV for tooling around town and one ER-EV for our trips across country.
For another take on the same press briefing, check out Autoblog Green
http://www.autobloggreen.com
Off topic: Go Tar Heels!
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:13 am)I would sure like to see those integration vehicles make it out the door. At that point, the design is fixed.
However, the economy is still in deep. Sales are horrible and the public is extremely angry about AIG and bailouts. It’s really up in the air.
It also doesn’t help that the price of oil is so cheap. However, Boone says it will hit $60 before it hits $40.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:15 am)This is all great news. Nice to see they are already crash testing.
I wonder what happens in higher speed tests when the battery is breached? Is a fuel tank rupture and battery breach somthing to worry about?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:17 am)#2 Texas
I agree the economy sucks and gas is cheap. If GM were launching the Volt this spring, I think they’d be in trouble. I’m willing to bet that by Nov. 2010 the economy will be doing better and gas will no long be under $2.
As the cliche says, timing is everything.
Of course, the bigger question is, will GM still be around? I think yes.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:25 am)FME III, I think the strategy is perfect. With all that they are learning about the volt, GM should be able to produce EV’s as good or better than anyone. Personally I’d rather have 2 E-Rev’s than an Ice and a BEV. IMHO, GM improved the volts long term business case 10 fold when they decided to do pack assembly in house. The fact that they are still testing a dozen other chemistries and they seem to still be saying nice things about A123 and leaving that door open says to me they can and will choose future cells based on performance/cost as opposed to being stuck with a long term partner. The way battery technology is changing and with all of the start ups out there, why would you want to limit yourself? I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of the other guys go that same route.
I’m also glad to hear that they think they over engineered the batteries. If that’s the case, it’s much easier to take things away in future generations than it is to have a bunch of battery recalls because your battery packs aren’t robust enough.
GM, you have a technically beautiful automotive solution with the volt and you made a very smart business decision with the battery contract. Good luck getting through the financial mess and spend my tax dollars intelligently.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:30 am)#4 FME III – by Nov. 2010 the economy will be doing better and gas will no long be under $2.
_____________________________________________________
Agree. While hybrid sales have plummeted in recent months along with the price of gas and loss of jobs, hard to visualize demand for oil staying so low for another 18 months…and beyond into Volt’s higher volume years…
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:31 am)#5 gsned57,
Oh, by all means I agree that GM will be producing pure EVs. I believe some of their Volt people have been quoted as saying as much.
I just hope that they can recoup their investment in the Voltec system before we all reach the promised land where we all drive EVs all the time. (That said, I agree with you, I’d rather have an ER-EV. too. I think it will take a long time for people -myself included- to cease having range anxiety.)
By the way, scroll down on todays autblog green and you’ll see a post on Rick Wagoner calling for phasing up the gas tax so it’s at a minimum of $4 a gallon.
After years of fighting gas taxes and higher fuel standards, there’s nothing like being “all in” in betting on the Volt to change your perspective. For Wagoner, the road to Damscus went through Washington D.C.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:37 am)Lyle – Could this press conference have been a reaction to some of the questions raised in recent days (here and elsewhere) about the questions raised by past (Bob Lutz) and present (Frank Weber) comments on state of the battery program?
In any case, good to learn the batteries are on target.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:39 am)From the article: “As long as GM can hold on financially we will be seeing some beautiful things called integration vehicles in the coming months.”
This sentence should read, “As long as GM continues to get bailouts from the taxpayers…” GM has already failed, financially.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:39 am)yes 2010 is the time when gas prices will shoot up . thats the time inflation will start again but this time it can be kept under control if american passeners buy volt and other cars.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:55 am)For all the knowitalls yapping about their money being in the hands of GM it is a LOAN not a gift where were your comments during the years of GM profits where you were benifiting from taxes paid by gm that have gone to defence Medicaid Medicare etc. It’s amazing how much couch potato accountants have to say, if your so smart as you think you are start building your own line of vehicles.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (7:03 am)#1 FME III Says: The $64,000 question (or should I say, the $40,000 question) is, will GM’s strategy be overtaken by improvements in pure EVs to the point that a significant share of their potential market for this car goes the pure EV route instead.
————————————————————————————–
EV advocates consistently underestimate the range anxiety issue. For most people, life frequently doesn’t go according to plan. You may have planned your trip to get home easily, but a cell phone call could change all that.
There are also issues with forgetting to plug-in. When I get home from work, there are a million things on my mind, so it would be way easier to forget to plug in one night than to forget to fill up on gas once a week.
EV advocates also consistently underestimate the issues with a future fast charging infrastructure. The large amount of batteries will make these expensive, and it will take a long time for fast-charging stations to fully make their way into rural and remote areas. 30 years from now, if you want to drive anywhere in the U.S., you’ll need a car that runs on gas.
Then there are the psychological issues. Most people will embrace a new way of doing things, as long as they can continue to choose the old way. If for some reason, electricity becomes really expensive, and gas or E85 is cheap, then you don’t have to plug-in the Volt.
So while BEVs will be embraced by some purists, EREVs will be embraced by the masses.
By the way, The latest announcement from GM was:
Lauckner indicated he expects the Volt to cost in the mid 30s…
http://gm-volt.com/2008/10/17/car-and-driver-on-the-volt-tens-of-thousands-in-first-year-generation-two-after-5-years/
So after the $7500 tax credit, the Volt should be in the high 20’s.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (7:14 am)#9 charlie h,
Keep in mind that Japanese and German car makers are also getting bailouts from their respective governments. The economic crisis is affecting all car makers.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (7:14 am)FME III Says@7
“:By the way, scroll down on todays autblog green and you’ll see a post on Rick Wagoner calling for phasing up the gas tax so it’s at a minimum of $4 a gallon.”
*************************************************************************************
I think that’s a great idea if those tax dollars are recycle back to those who buy American made hybrid cars such as the Volt. I would not do it for the foreign cars because in no way could anything like that could ever happen, for example, in Japan. Why subsidize foreign cars with our tax dollars!!!
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (7:23 am)#7 FME III Says: I just hope that they can recoup their investment in the Voltec system before we all reach the promised land where we all drive EVs all the time.
————————————————————————————–
For me, the ‘promised land’ is being energy independent, and EVs alone will never get us there.
U.S. 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.)
The United States imports around 2/3 of the oil we consume. Batteries won’t work for planes, ships, trains, and 18-wheel trucks. So its pretty clear that energy Independence will require bio-fuels.
If bio-fuels are required anyway, why not also use them to fill up our EREVs. This approach would use our existing infrastructure of 110v home outlets and liquid fuel filling stations. Not surprisingly, this is the solution that many others are advocating as well:
http://www.setamericafree.org/solution.html
Why spend trillions of dollars on a fast charging infrastructure? Where is the motivation for this?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (7:25 am)I sure as heck couldn’t run one of those batteries into a wall.
I guess the three people in the lab felt the same way!
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (7:34 am)Loosely related to Lyle’s post .. regarding the Big 3 and “green jobs” in Michigan
http://freep.com/article/20090317/NEWS06/903170390
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (7:39 am)Nice to hear there continues to be progress with the battery testing, and that the results of the testing appear to be going well. This contradicts the rumors that have been circulating lately. Therefore, either the rumors are false, or the GM people are lieing. I hope it’s not the latter.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (7:43 am)@15 Dave G
“Batteries won’t work for planes, ships, trains, and 18-wheel trucks.”
Maybe right now.. but who knows?
Also, I like biofuels. Coming from the Midwest, i know lots of people who produce/use them. They are a good step in becoming energy independent. I wont bring up the debate about corn ethanol (i think algea is the way to go), but there’s also the debate about emissions. That may be a point people can use against biofuels vs. pure EV’s. Dont bring up burning coal for electricity. That is another hurdle still to be tackled, but electricity in my opinion is the most versatile cleanest energy. We just need to means to take advantage of it, in the best & most clean way.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (7:52 am)FME #1:
Regarding your 64 errr $40,000 question, I think if/when a pure EV vehicle can be perfected enough to satisfy the range anxiety issue, it will be relatively easy to subtract the range extender aspect from the Volt, and replace the space occupied by the ICE with more battery capacity. It is easier to subtract, than to add in this instance.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (8:04 am)#7 FME III Says: By the way, scroll down on todays autblog green and you’ll see a post on Rick Wagoner calling for phasing up the gas tax so it’s at a minimum of $4 a gallon.
————————————————————————————–
Thanks for the pointer. Here’s the link to the original Washington Times story:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/gm-chief-says-gas-tax-hike-worth-considering/
The car companies’ bean counters have done their calculations. Peak oil and population growth paint a clear picture. In 10-15 years, there won’t be enough oil for people to own cars like they do now. If car companies want to continue their business model, they need new fuel sources. It’s that simple.
So its no wonder that GM is supporting a gas tax hike. I’m sure other car companies will follow. I think the chances of an increasing the gas tax are much better now than anytime in the past.
Also, I think the idea of a federal gasoline tax to guarantee a minimum price floor of $4 a gallon is a great idea. Part of the problem with the current car market is gas price volatility. Will gas stay cheap? Should they buy that SUV, or something more efficient? Should they just wait and see what happens with gas prices? If people know that gas will be at least $4/gallon, they will make decisions accordingly, buy appropriate vehicles, and the car market as a whole will improve.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (8:04 am)time for GM to institute a buy-return contract.
Buy a GM in the next 7 months, perform scheduled maintenance, and GM will buy it back in a trade in for a Volt at a mileage-dependent price.
I brought this up months ago, but with GM sales in such dire circumstances, they need to generate sales.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (8:22 am)I’ve touted for $2 gas tax for years, and for the money to be used on getting us off foreign oil, however best that is spent. However, try being a politician and pushing for another tax increase. Or explaining to a country in recession, you are going to take more out of pocket money from them. Rock & hardplace.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (8:33 am)charlie h Says:
March 19th, 2009 at 6:39 am
From the article: “As long as GM can hold on financially we will be seeing some beautiful things called integration vehicles in the coming months.”
This sentence should read, “As long as GM continues to get bailouts from the taxpayers…” GM has already failed, financially.
——-
Charlie H. the Toyota troll, always happy to distort the record. Of course, he didn’t bother to mention that Toyota and Nissan have “already failed” when measured by this same yardstick.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (8:54 am)#19 k-dawg Says: Also, I like biofuels. Coming from the Midwest, i know lots of people who produce/use them. They are a good step in becoming energy independent. I wont bring up the debate about corn ethanol (i think algae is the way to go), but there’s also the debate about emissions.
————————————————————————————–
I’ve heard a few people mention bio-fuel emissions, but I don’t see how this is an issue. Energy crops absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, and bio-fuels release this carbon-dioxide when burned. So bio-fuels are carbon neutral. Bio-fuels are very clean burning, so there’s hardly any other pollutants.
Unlike corn and other food crops, energy crops don’t require fossil fuel based fertilizers. After the bio-fuel is extracted, the leftover biomass is perfect for soil remediation.
Some people argue that bio-fuels will affect food production or available wilderness areas, but I don’t believe that either. The fact is that a significant percentage of our existing farm land is currently idle. In addition, there are many farm type areas where the soil is not conducive to food crops, but would work fine for energy crops. Also, remember that we are only talking about converting around 30% of our oil use to bio-fuels. Plug-ins and other methods will take care of the rest. So I don’t see available land as an issue. Our new energy secretary has come to the same conclusions.
I do see electricity as the best option to replace oil when practical. EREVs can convert up to 85% of our gas consumption to electricity. Home heating oil can be replaced by electricity. Most of the Industrial fuel oil can be converted to electricity.
Electricity will become cleaner. In fact, algae bio-reactors can absorb the carbon dioxide and other pollutants (e.g. nitrogen oxides) from fossil fuel power plants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGcLgE52rzw&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnOSnJJSP5c
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (8:54 am)This is good news. Thanks Lyle and to GM also. GM needs to keep the public (and that includes us, of course) of their progress. It helps keep away the nay sayers.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (8:55 am)I know Dave G is going to be all over this one…hehe.
GM stubbornly holding to a 40 mile electric range and holding it up as gospel for this car and “future generations” packs is a mistake…in exactly the same way that it was a mistake for Toyota to have said that no one wanted a PHEV or lithium batteries a year or two ago and they were not going to make one. Toyota smartened up…I hope GM does too.
Regardless of GM’s “study” on a optimal range for your average driver over a average year…people don’t buy cars so analytically, if they did, the car business would pretty easy to control (if you could build the cheapest car).
Some people are going to want less range (and pay less), some are going to want more battery, some are going to want all battery (and will pay for that premium). Some are going to want a ‘hella fast’ EV which will also meet these three criteria, some are going to want a ’super eco mode’ EV, very will all require different capacities.
The 40 mile range is fine…maybe perfect for the first generation of Volts, I have no problem with that at all (just build the thing already), but to deal in absolutes is to welcome failure.
Looking into the future, I’ll use myself as a example again. I want a pure BEV, I don’t care what any study tells me, or other posters, or my wife…that is what I WANT…a EV is not a NEED, it is not like buying a loaf of bread or drinking water.
For right now, I’d be more than happy to give my money to GM for a Volt (or anyone else who can let me drive any range pure EV out of a plug), but you better believe when there is a pure BEV choice on the market and if all GM is still pumping out is 40 mile AERs, I’m gone…and they have no chance at ever getting my business. Thats a fact, no study or reasoning is changing my mind.
The ‘best car’ last year…the most ‘optimal’ car was the Toyota Camry, so did everyone buy a Camry? Nope, they sold 436K, which is pretty good, but it is only 3% penetration.
To hold to a single standard is to pigeon hold yourself…and honesty will look pretty ridiculous once we are a decade or two into the future.
“640K ought to be enough for anybody”
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:00 am)A gas tax would be a big mistake IMHO. Who gets the money?
Alternatively,we could ‘nationalize’ the purchase of foreign oil and resell it to domestic refineries. This would light a fire under domestic exploration and production and push the government to stop obstructing it. It would also encourage the development of alternate fuels.
Proceeds from the resale of foreign oil could be used for grants to domestic automakers for (X)EV development and production, for battery R&D and production and for subsidizing nuclear plants R&D and installation. The proceeds would need to be distributed by an independent board of scientists and industrialists. The charter of the board would state the specific goal of financial support for domestic transportation and electricity generation industries. Otherwise the government will just waste the money promiscuously like all other taxes.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:04 am)I do like the fact they came right out and said testing is going well. I wouldn’t mind watching that film though, or seeing the results of a 65 MPG crash, and maybe a t-bone impact….that would be entertaining
Side note: I hope that is not a shot of ‘the lab’ during working hours, that is a heck of a lot of terminals if there are only 2 people left working down there.
“Hey is that you way down there Sara?”
“Yupe, its me!”
“Will you be shooting off the cannon today or me?”
“Can’t today, we rented the lab out to a floor hockey team.”
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:07 am)Statik – BEV
I think you are correct that many people would want a BEV, me too if it is nice and cheap and can get about100 miles per day.
I think GM is just trying to put as many batteries in as many cars as they can initially. When lithium auto batteries are no longer a scarcity, the market will provide eggzackly what you want, despite the protestations of some determinists who believe their present perceptions define the future of the market.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:12 am)#27 Statik:
I agree with you on all counts. 40 mile AER is wonderful for first gen. but they better be thinking long and hard about Gen 2 and Gen. 3 of much, much, much further ranges. I am looking forward to the day where the base Volt is an All-Electric with a range of a few hundred miles, and the range extender ICE is simply an option that very few people spec. or need anymore.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:13 am)#28 Shawn Marshall Says: A gas tax would be a big mistake IMHO. Who gets the money?
————————————————————————————–
Road and bridge construction, road and bridge maintenance, other road and highway infrastructure costs, tax credits for plug-ins, tax credits for bio-fuels, etc..
Consider that the cost of gas in European countries is mostly taxes.
Now also consider that the tax being proposed here is a floor tax, meaning that as the price of gas increases, the tax decreases, to keep the minimum price around $4/gallon. In addition, consider that the floor tax would be phased in over time as the economy improves.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:15 am)The upcoming Cruze is a great looking small car. Much better than the outgoing Cobalt. If all the testing is going so well in a Cruze body, why not introduce the world to EREV in the Cruze? Or both the Cruze and the VOLT? Readers of this blog would surely go for the VOLT. The average American family would probably find a $20,000 EREV Cruze more affordable.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:20 am)#30 Shawn Marshall said:
Statik – BEV
I think you are correct that many people would want a BEV, me too if it is nice and cheap and can get about100 miles per day.
I think GM is just trying to put as many batteries in as many cars as they can initially. When lithium auto batteries are no longer a scarcity, the market will provide eggzackly what you want, despite the protestations of some determinists who believe their present perceptions define the future of the market.
====================
Yeah, that is what I was trying to get at. I have zero problem with what they are doing now….just their tunnel vision of the future. I think the current setup is good. If anything, it is too good…it is not really necessary to go ‘the extra mile’ right now, they are going to sell whatever they can produce from now until about 2012 (when we get some capacity in the segment), they are actually losing sales by fiddling about with needless complexities.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:21 am)Since the first oil embargo in 1973, I’ve been complaining to whoever would listen that we (National Labs, NSF, etc.) should pour money into battery research. It never happened. It looks like a tipping point has finally arrived. We could have gotten there sooner with some collective action, but oh well.
Although I can’t spend a lot of time on it, discoveries like Professor Cui’s at Stanford or the group at MIT in the news recently, give me a strong impression that there is still some great Physics to discover here, and that before long we will have some real breakthroughs to lower the cost and increase the performance of electric cars.
I am glad that GM is at least in a position to take advantage of these advances. The Volt was definitely the place to start, and hopefully as the technology improves GM will be there to make good use of it.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:26 am)#3 Nuclearboy
“I wonder what happens in higher speed tests when the battery is breached? Is a fuel tank rupture and battery breach somthing to worry about?”
———————————
Terrible things happen to current vehicles at high speed crashes. So, what is so different? Most crashes happen at much lower speeds. I think that is why GM has shown the 35 mph crash photos. It would, of course, be interesting to all of us to see photos of 45, 55 and 65 mph crashes. They are a little harder to simulate in the lab as the speed of the crash increases.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:27 am)#31 Schmeltz Says: 40 mile AER is wonderful for first gen. but they better be thinking long and hard about Gen 2 and Gen. 3 of much, much, much further ranges.
————————————————————————————–
Future Volt Generations Will Offer Cheaper, Smaller Batteries, Not Longer Ranges
http://gm-volt.com/2008/12/24/future-volt-generations-will-offer-cheaper-smaller-batteries-not-longer-ranges/
So one question worth asking is what will the range of future Volt versions be?
The answer per GM’s Volt vehicle line executive Frank Weber is “Forty.”
Weber explains it as follows:
“I don’t want to go higher than 40. Everything I do is to go down with cost, cost, cost. All battery improvements will go into cost reductions for the batteries. Next generation battery will be half the size, and half the cost.”
He also indicates how other components of the Volt will improve, stating “next generation power electronics will be half the size and half the cost. Next generation electric drive unit will be actually not half the size and cost, but you will see improvements in the electric drivetrain.”
He also notes that battery modularization will likely occur in the future, just as you might have V6 and V8 engines now, future E-Flex vehicles may have optional electric ranges for those at the extremes of the daily driving curve. Weber says “when you look at the core of the (E-Flex) program, once you can shrink the battery and make the cost of the battery more reasonable, the next generation will allow you to modularize the battery capacity. Because there are people who who might need 20 miles or 80 miles. Very different people have very different demands and so the next stage is to get different levels of batteries.”
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:30 am)Dave G @ 21 said, “…I think the idea of a federal gasoline tax to guarantee a minimum price floor of $4 a gallon is a great idea.”
I normally agree with your considered opinions, but in this case, I have to disagree. What ever happened to, “Build a better mousetrap?” We don’t need the government to nanny-state us into going with the better technology. Obviously, fossil fuels are a finite energy source. Imported oil is sending huge sums of capitol right out of our country, which in the long run is insupportable. Gasoline will hit $4/gal soon enough…and more than likely continue climbing due to world consumption increases and production drop-off. Market forces and national security concerns are going to drive us towards renewable energy sources. To me, this is simple evolution.
Instead of taxing more money away from Mr. and Mrs. Mainstreet, we should be advocating investment in nuclear power as a short term (off the shelf) semi-clean solution for the domestic production of energy, and ER-EV technology as a short term transportation solution that will benefit from the clean(er) electricity produced. Longer term, we should be researching clean renewable energy production and storage technology that will completely replace our current dependence on fossil and radioactive fuel sources…domestic, or abroad.
We don’t need to put more money in the hands of our government…who’ve shown little regard for where or how that money is spent. Government is not the solution…it’s the problem.
Just my .02…
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:43 am)Just a few questions:
Are you really advocating a $2.00 per gallon gas tax? Draconian measures to force vehicle sales?
Are you overestimating how many Volt’s will actually be sold? Cars sales at the moment are at lowest since 1982?
Are you sure everyone can live without taxes on the oil companies and taxes at the pump? How do you replace 2.2 trillion dollars in oil company taxes over 25 years.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:46 am)GM is still testing batteries from many suppliers for one good reason, among others. If they expand Volt production like we all hope and transfer the Voltec system to other vehicles, again as we all hope, they are going to need a number of suppliers to have an adequate battery supply available. We could be talking about several hundred thousand vehicle batteries every year, possibly more. One company, or even two, may not be able to handle the volume and quality. Plus it gives GM the freedom to choose from among multiple suppliers for future needs. Competition is good and will drive the cost down. This is all good.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:47 am)#37 Dave G.:
Yes, I remember that article here regarding GM planning to keep the range at 40 miles, but make the battery smaller and cheaper…and I still wholeheartedly disagree with GM’s stubbornness on this. Perhaps in time as other competitors introduce all-electrics, and it’s evident that there is a market for said cars, then GM may change their stance on this issue. I really hope they do.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:49 am)#25 Dave G
I am not an expert in energy crops and biofuels, but I have questions about your claims. Maybe you could educate me.
“Energy crops absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, and bio-fuels release this carbon-dioxide when burned. So bio-fuels are carbon neutral.”
Doesn’t it take energy to cultivate, transport, and process energy crops? If so, then your energy balance is off and bio-fuels are not carbon neutral.
“Unlike corn and other food crops, energy crops don’t require fossil fuel based fertilizers. After the bio-fuel is extracted, the leftover biomass is perfect for soil remediation.”
If the crop is harvested and processed onsite, and the the leftover biomass is returned to the farm field, the leftover biomass does not replace the bio-fuels that were extracted and sold off. If the crop is not processed onsite, then the situation is even worse.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:53 am)Well this is the most positive sounding thread in a while!
It’s nice to hear.
I am in the camp of people who will only be able to afford one ‘good’ car. I like the 40 mile (60 KM) range. This will meet my family’s needs roughly 60% of the time.
The pure BEV issue comes into play during boring real world driving. Imagine sitting on the ‘freeway’ maybe moving and maybe not at -20c waiting for the idjit who didn’t buy snow tires to be picked out of the ditch. I have the feeling that sitting there with a 1500 watt heater running and not moving would adversly affect the ability for the car to actually cover 60 km.
I would not put my wife into that position. WHEN that traffic issue crops up, and it will, the engine on our Volt will fire up.
I CAN see that you folks who live in California or southern France might be able to get away without the engine but not where winter happens.
A dead battery could be deadly and I will not accept that sort of danger for my family. I will happily carry the engine around not running as much as possible, and have that nice warm blanket of safety for when it’s needed.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:56 am)#38 GLV Says: (regarding a federal gasoline tax to guarantee a minimum price floor of $4 a gallon), I normally agree with your considered opinions, but in this case, I have to disagree… Gasoline will hit $4/gal soon enough…and more than likely continue climbing due to world consumption increases and production drop-off.
————————————————————————————–
I’m trying to understand your point of view. If you feel that gasoline will hit $4/gal soon, then setting a tax floor of $4/gallon, and phasing that in over a few years – the proposed tax may never kick in at all.
My point is that if gas prices go up and the proposed tax never really kicks in, setting a minimum floor on gas prices will affect consumer behavior. Also, a minimum gas price will increase investor confidence in alternative energy. So even the the tax never generated much revenue, it would be a good thing.
My feeling is perhaps $4/gallon is a bit high. I suspect Wagoner feels the same, but any sort of political bargaining like this would start high and work down. A floor of $3/gallon would probably be adequate.
Last summer when gas was over $4/gallon, I was advocating a tax floor on gas prices of around $3/gallon here on gm-volt.com. The main reaction I got was that gas prices would never fall that low again, so who cares. But in the next 6 months, we saw gas prices fall to $1.50/gal. That kind of price volatility will definitely put the brakes on alternative energy investment. That kind of price volatility also confuses car buyers as to what type of vehicle they should consider.
If people are opposed to increasing the price of gas through taxes, perhaps we could raise the floor as market pressure drives the price up naturally. For example, today we could set a minimum gas price of around $1.75/gal. When gas hits $2.25/gal, we could set the minimum price to $2. The point is that if car buyers and investors know the price will never come down significantly, it will change things for the better, even if no taxes are actually collected.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:58 am)#15 Dave G
“Why spend trillions of dollars on a fast charging infrastructure? Where is the motivation for this?”
—————————–
Since when has proponents of this or other foolish and costly things needed justifications for doing those things? There are powerful forces in government and the environmental movement pushing this idea of charging stations. It will be done because it is costly and is not necessary. No sense in arguing about it. Just bow your head and accept the high cost of building the infrastructure to support it. Taxpayers across the country are going to have to “pony-up” the money for this and many other foolish ideas. More is coming down the pike. Keep your eyes open and just watch.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (9:59 am)Statik – ” For right now, I’d be more than happy to give my money to GM for a Volt (or anyone else who can let me drive any range pure EV out of a plug)”
———-
Telsa?
Also regarding 40AER. In the future, market will determine range/prices. GM is doing the 80/20 right now, which may hold for 10 years.. who knows. But if everyone and their brother is buying 100AER cars, I think GM would be right in there. Its a big gray area right now, especially w/battery costs changing. I do see BEV as the future, but to conquer my range anxiety and my driving needs, I would need at least a 250mi range in cold Michigan weather. I do not want to have to rent a car for trips over 100miles.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:06 am)#27 statik – on the range wanted in an EV
Some people want a BEV just like some want a Ferrari. That’s a personal preference and everyone is entitled to their preference. If you want never to have to buy gas then that’s what you want. No problem there.
From an economic perspective the calculus is different. At heart it’s simply balancing acquisition cost against running costs. A battery even after cost reduction will cost more than a fuel tank, but running on the battery charged from the grid will cost 1/6th of what it would cost to run from gas put into the tank.
Since the battery is expensive, and since you’re paying for it whether you use it or not, what GM is doing with its 40 mile E-REV is using all the battery capacity as much of the time as possible. If the battery was larger then you’d have “idle” capacity which you were paying for but never using. This may be OK from a personal preference perspective but not from a numbers standpoint.
A shorter range might actually be better from a strict economic point of view, but from a marketing standpoint the 40 mile range allows the majority (80%) of potential customers to imagine a gas less commute, and that is an important selling point.
This article has been cited here before (sorry I can’t remember by whom), but it’s the best explanation for this I’ve seen.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/117782-lead-acid-lead-carbon-batteries-the-only-option-for-average-consumer
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:12 am)#45 N Riley
Another anti-government and anti-environment rant today? I guess you buy into the biofuel “solution” and don’t like investment in fast charging infrastructure.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:15 am)#42 ThombDbhomb Says: Doesn’t it take energy to cultivate, transport, and process energy crops? If so, then your energy balance is off and bio-fuels are not carbon neutral.
————————————————————————————–
If you assume bio-fuels are viable, then they are also viable for the cultivation, transportation, and processing of energy crops. So while these issues affect bio-fuel production efficiency, they do not effect carbon neutrality. Note that most other fuel sources have similar production efficiency issues.
======================================================
#42 ThombDbhomb Says: If the crop is harvested and processed on-site, and the the leftover biomass is returned to the farm field, the leftover biomass does not replace the bio-fuels that were extracted and sold off. If the crop is not processed on-site, then the situation is even worse.
————————————————————————————–
I’m not quite understanding your point here. If the leftover biomass isn’t burned, then the carbon in that biomass is never released. If the crop is processed off-site, then the trucks that return can easily carry the leftover biomass.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:16 am)There’s the key statement-
“Kruse confirms GM will soon open a large advanced battery lab within their Warren Technical Center in addition to the Volt’s battery assembly plant. That plant he notes “will be the first lithium-ion battery manufacturing plant operated by a major automaker in the U.S., and will create new “green” jobs.”
Please, oh pretty please Mr. Obama, give us some more money. You don’t want to kill all these new green jobs do ya?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:16 am)A tax that fluctuates to keep the gas around $4 is a mistake. The gas companies will just increase the cost till it’s mostly profit for them and little to no tax for public works. While it will benefit the sale of fuel misers, the money will go to the wrong people and there won’t be as large of an incentive for car companies to bring down the cost of alternative fueled vehicles.
Also, don’t expect GM to pay back the loan. They will just default and be forgiven by someone on capitol hill that will “retire” from politics and then get a job at GM where they do basically nothing sitting on some board and getting a fat paycheck.
Large corporations do this often.
By the same token we should focus on the root of the financial mess. Our monetary system. Ask your congress person to support H.R. 1207.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:19 am)#39 Mark Says:
Just a few questions:
Are you really advocating a $2.00 per gallon gas tax? Draconian measures to force vehicle sales?
Are you overestimating how many Volt’s will actually be sold? Cars sales at the moment are at lowest since 1982?
Are you sure everyone can live without taxes on the oil companies and taxes at the pump? How do you replace 2.2 trillion dollars in oil company taxes over 25 years.
——–
I think this was directed at me.
I think a gas tax would work better than the current CARB method. Carmakers would love to build cars and let people decide what they want, but CARB standards force them to build what the goverment wants, then they lose money, go bankrupt, then ask for loans (i know this is debateable BTW). My point is, if you are going to shoe-horn the US into energy efficient cars, don’t force the car manufacturers, force the public. This means gas needs to cost more, so people dont run out and buy H3’s when gas is at $1.50. However, w/a gas tax, if someone who has the money wants to buy an H3 when gas is $5.00/gal, he/she can because it will still be available, because the Government didnt force GM to stop making it.
Not sure what your point is on Volt sales. They will be 10K the first year, going to 60K the next. Market will determine the rest after that. My crystal ball says they will go like hotcakes as gas cost goes up and battery tech cost goes down. Don’t ask me for a year, or I will give you a Nostradamus-ish answer.
Not sure on your point on “living without oil tax”, when i was saying to add one? I could also throw this bone out there… by eliminating foreign oil we could save trillions in war efforts. That one is also debateable however.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:20 am)#38 GLV/39 Mark
The problem is that the price of oil at the pump doesn’t reflect the real price to society. Global warming, air pollution, national security. As a society, we need the price of oil to reflect the real price, so that people can adjust their consumption accordingly.
Additionally, I think that last summer proved how disastrous a rapid change in gasoline prices can be. High taxes would smooth out the fluctuations.
As far as tax dollars being “wasted,” right now, the national government has a massive deficit that’s going to have be paid off. So, at some point, they’re going to have to either a)increase taxes drastically, or b) print money, which will lead to hyperinflation. Do you really think either is a good idea?
Personally, I’d much rather they cut certain services, but we all know they’re not going to do that.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:26 am)N Riley #45
Dave G
“Why spend trillions of dollars on a fast charging infrastructure? Where is the motivation for this?”
—————————–
Since when has proponents of this or other foolish and costly things needed justifications for doing those things? There are powerful forces in government and the environmental movement pushing this idea of charging stations. It will be done because it is costly and is not necessary. No sense in arguing about it. Just bow your head and accept the high cost of building the infrastructure to support it.
__________________________
This would not be as difficult nor take as long as is often conjectured. Gas stations all through N. America are selling a variety of fuels and each of the many thousands that exist is connected to the grid. E 85 is already offered in almost 2000 stations! Some smooth talking sharp operator will put together a pitch with a financing package that makes the prospects look just good enough (for thousands of stations to look at adding a fast charge lane to their mix of fuels). For rural area stations adding a cable to their existing product mix is virtually less than minor, for lack of a better term (trivial? in comparison to the costs of running a business).
The ecological, social, moral and public good arguments are separate from the fact that building out this infrastructure economically is one of the least expensive activities that planned existing gas stations could undertake. That doesn’t even touch on the possible actions of restaurants, shops, malls, cities, counties and states. Employers in urban areas that are having trouble affording rising health care costs would be glad to get a pat on the back for providing a fast charge site for employees here and their within their parking facilities.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:28 am)EV, PHEV-X
If there is a big enough market for an EV-100, EV-200, PHEV-60, PHEV-80, PHEV-20, they will all get built by someone.
The selling price is going to scale approximately by at least $500 but probably closer to $1000 per extra 10 miles of range for a Volt-sized vehicle. If there are people willing to pay that, then they’ll get built.
The batteries are expensive, so you want to use them as much as possible. You want the electric range matched as close as possible to your daily driving. This actually adds an interesting twist to the resale market. Not only will someone need to want the type of car you are selling, but also the EV-only range it has. It may get to be a little more difficult to sell vehicles.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:28 am)In regards to some peoples’ comments about how a range of more than 40 miles for future Volt generations would be nice.
I personally would like a 150-mile range with range generator to eliminate gasoline on occasional trips to the big city, but unfortunately, this kind of customer (and automotive magazines/press) of “give me more, more, more even though I don’t really need it” mentality has led to the ridiculous horsepower wars that got us on this “fuel addiction” in the first place.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:32 am)Dave G
If we want to be as carbon neutral as possible, then we need the most efficient energy source. It seems to me that permamant fast charging infrastructure is a more efficient solution than biofuels and their associated farming, transporting, processing, and recycling components.
————-
I’ll try to clarify my response to your, “Unlike corn and other food crops, energy crops don’t require fossil fuel based fertilizers. After the bio-fuel is extracted, the leftover biomass is perfect for soil remediation”
You take an energy crop out of the ground, remove the mass that you want, and recycle the rest back to the farm field. It is not a closed loop system. Doesn’t the farm field eventually get depleted?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:41 am)Dave @ 44 said, “I’m trying to understand your point of view. If you feel that gasoline will hit $4/gal soon, then setting a tax floor of $4/gallon, and phasing that in over a few years – the proposed tax may never kick in at all.”
My point of view is simply this. Anytime government gets involved, they mess things up. Personal innovation has been, and will continue to be, the most effective method for bringing about positive change in our world. There’s no doubt that governments are necessary, but my experience has shown that seldom will you find a government initiative that is innovative. Sure, government-backed private initiatives can be highly successful, but simply giving more money to a government that is already spending my great-grandkid’s tax money just doesn’t seem like a win-win scenario to me.
Taxing our energy supply doesn’t seem like the appropriate fix either. That idea sounds like an excellent way to turn our country into a third-world nation, and Rick Waggoner’s endorsement only smacks of self-service to me. I believe that when somebody (could even be GM) develops the next great breakthrough in renewable energy (production or use), and can bring a product to market that blows away the competition, then we’ll see the answer to our current problems.
I think we both want the same outcome here…we only desire to take different roads to get there. You’re advocating a Toll Road, and I’m proposing a Freeway.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:42 am)#28 Shawn Marshall
“Otherwise the government will just waste the money promiscuously like all other taxes.”
————————-
One thing we should have learned very early in our adult life is that you cannot trust government with any tax money. They will definitely misspend it on many things the taxpayer would not directly approve. Even when there is a “lock box” provided, government will ignore it and still spend the money as it sees fit. Even highway fund taxes are not spent for the purposes for which it is taxed. I agree it would be good if a tax could be instituted and properly funded to the purpose for which the tax is collected. But, in the real world, it is not going to ever happen that way. Too many greedy politicians and their friends between the tax money and the purpose for which it was collected.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:48 am)The discussion about BEV vs PHEV is not going anywhere at this time. Both will be produced by GM and many other companies as battery technology improves. I would like to have a BEV and a PHEV with a range extender like the Volt. Most of my trips are short ones around town. I have no problem owning either one of them. I would not have just a BEV because I do travel across country several times a year. As I get older, there will be less and less long trips until I get to0 old to even need a short haul BEV.
I look forward to the future containing both types. It will all be good.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:49 am)Statik says “Some people are going to want less range (and pay less), some are going to want more battery, some are going to want all battery (and will pay for that premium). Some are going to want a ‘hella fast’ EV which will also meet these three criteria, some are going to want a ’super eco mode’ EV, very will all require different capacities”.
———————————————————
The Volt accomplishes the bulk of these needs all in one sweet package. That’s why it is the best solution, and the smart people at GM have really got this nailed.
Also, as Dave G says “EV advocates consistently underestimate the range anxiety issue. For most people, life frequently doesn’t go according to plan. You may have planned your trip to get home easily, but a cell phone call could change all that.”
—————————————————————
Yes, and I strongly submit to all the pure EV advocates that they do thought experiments throughout the day or while driving. You will see that there are countless situations where an electric only vehicle just doesn’t cut it, both from a practical standpoint and a psychological one.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:51 am)#43 MuddyRoverRob:
I live in CA, and my wife won’t even talk about a pure BEV, for all of the reasons you bring up. It doesn’t take some clown with no snow tires to clog up our freeways, they do it automatically every day. I might try it to commute to work, but there is no way she is going for it. Pretty typical, IMHO.
#52 k-dawg:
As to the trillions in war efforts, I agree. I don’t think it’s debateable at all. I guess anything’s debateable if people don’t want to face the truth, but come on! Or maybe the lust for empire is in our genes, and it would go on even without the oil factor.
#53 Laura:
Amen. I’ve said it 100 times. Externalized costs rule the world.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:51 am)There is a danger in creating an unnatural and artificial environment by intervening to force the construction of quick-charge stations too soon. By doing so, you are effectively shooting EREV technology in the foot by mandating a preference for BEVs.
Without EREVs, there are no economies of scale to lower battery costs to the point where a BEV is feasible as a general-use vehicle. Early quick charge would in the end be self-defeating.
I’ve seen a few previous attempts to bring out electric cars in a half century. All were predicated on public charging infrastructure (for slow charging at that), which resulted in a few “suckers” getting stuck with useless parking-lot gizmos.
The thing to do, seems to me, is let the market provide this capability; as only the market will successfully exploit it as a paying proposition at the appropriate time: when there are large numbers of EVs out there to create the demand.
Perhaps I’ll put a more detailed scenario in a later comment.
Had one half typed out, making the entry too long; and besides, it’s now lunchtime on the East Coast – !
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:52 am)The Volt technology lends itself very well to BEV development. GM even stated the may very well produce a BEV Volt after Gen 2 or 3 has hit the streets. If I remember correctly, that is. I am sure they will do it and it will be based on much of the Voltec technology. Nearly all of it lends itself to be used for that purpose. It is all good.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:53 am)______________________________________________________
generation-two-after-5-years/
So after the $7500 tax credit, the Volt should be in the high 20’s.
—
It would be a huge additive towards the prospects of the Volt reaching early critical mass if indeed the Volt is offered at the high 20’s net price point AND GM is able to maintain a unit profit margin after generation 2+. BUT…the average consumer will have a hard time understanding the $7500 tax credit thing because it requires explanation and calculation. Most of VOLTEC Heads on this site don’t clearly understand how a $7500 tax credit applies to them. If the VOLT is to be government subsidized then it would be better if there was an option for the GM dealership to be able to directly receive a $7500/unit cash payment from the government (not tax credit) which would allow the dealer to sell the VOLT at the net government subsidy price point. Also this method would make it easier for a consumer to get financing because the consumer does not having to borrow the additional $7500 at point of sale.
With regards to the above batter test crash test….Most Excelent!
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Energy = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:55 am)#52 k-dawg – On the gas tax.
Doesn’t the cap & trade proposal on the table make the gas tax idea redundant? Plus it has the benefit of applying more broadly and being more easily administered.
Moreover, the cap and trade proposal creates decent benchmarks for imposing tariffs on imports from countries (aka China) that may otherwise resist limiting emissions. In this regard, it’s hard for a US manufacturer to compete if it has limit emissions when a competitor in a foreign country doesn’t.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:55 am)Oil is over $50 right now. The only way is up…..
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (10:59 am)#46 k-dawg said:
(in repsonse to Statik quote of)- ” For right now, I’d be more than happy to give my money to GM for a Volt (or anyone else who can let me drive any range pure EV out of a plug)”
———-
Telsa?
Also regarding 40AER. In the future, market will determine range/prices. GM is doing the 80/20 right now, which may hold for 10 years.. who knows. But if everyone and their brother is buying 100AER cars, I think GM would be right in there. Its a big gray area right now, especially w/battery costs changing. I do see BEV as the future, but to conquer my range anxiety and my driving needs, I would need at least a 250mi range in cold Michigan weather. I do not want to have to rent a car for trips over 100miles.
=============================
Sorry, I forget my usual second half ditty….”I’m willing ot buy any EV now, or pure BEV in the future from anyone, provided that it can also be serviced within the electric range of the vehicle.”
In a related Tesla, Fisker, etc vs the Volt story:
Back in ‘the day’ I really wanted a BMW, but refused to buy one because there was no dealership in town, and I wasn’t treking 25 minutes each way for service. BMW actually decided to move their HQ near me, and subsequently a dealersip opened, and I bought a Z4 in 2005…if they never had a local presence, I never would have bought.
I would extent my ‘comfort range’ for service pretty far for a EV, but it certainly has a limit.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:00 am)#51 Johann
Don’t you think that’s a little cynical? At this point GM has to pay back the loan if they possibly can. It would be a public relations disaster if they don’t.
#52 k-dawg
ICAM. IMHO, this is why Rick Wagoner came out in favor of a gas tax. Not because of the Volt. Alan Mullaly and Nardelli also said they would like a gas tax in interviews right after the auto hearings in congress.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:02 am)______________________________________________________
let me add to my above # 65 comment:
It would be good if the same concept could be applied with regards to all the subsidy incentives (Federal + State + Utility Company) so as to further simplify the sale transaction for the consumer…otherwise the consumer will be overwhelmed by the prospect of themselves administrating the various subsidy propositions.
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:04 am)#32 Dave G
“Road and bridge construction, road and bridge maintenance, other road and highway infrastructure costs, tax credits for plug-ins, tax credits for bio-fuels, etc..
Consider that the cost of gas in European countries is mostly taxes.”
———————————
I would never pretend to disagree with you, but in this case I am not on the same page as you. First of all the taxes currently being collected as Federal Excise Tax on motor fuels and is supposed to be funding highway construction and maintenance is going directly into the general fund to fund many other things not anywhere related to highways. Why does congress have to pass bills each and every year to “fund” highway construction and maintenance? If the taxes were going into a fund allocated to that purpose the agency charged with oversight could just allocate the funds as needed based on need. No, congress doesn’t have any funds in that special account. They must pass a bill to move funds from the general fund (or raise the funds somehow) to give it out to the states.
As far as the taxes charged by the European countries are concerned, you are correct. Most of the cost of their fuel is taxes. Those taxes don’t go to support their highways and byways either. Most of the tax money fund the social agenda of the countries. The same thing will happen to the increased taxes here in this country. It will be a big source of funds for spending money on many, many things not related to highways and byways.
If congress wants to increase taxes on motor fuels, let them do it. But, at the same time, let them tell us the truth about how they intend to spend the money and give us a clear report each and every year as to how our money is spent or wasted.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:05 am)#57 ThombDbhomb Says: It seems to me that permamant fast charging infrastructure is a more efficient solution than biofuels and their associated farming, transporting, processing, and recycling components.
————————————————————————————–
To do a fair efficiency comparison, you have to look at well-to-wheel efficiency. For example, how much energy does it take to mine and refine uranium? How much efficiency is lost storing solar-thermal energy? How much energy is lost transporting wind-mill energy hundreds of miles?
And then look at the fast charging station itself. If an EV has a 200-mile range and charges in 5 minutes, then you have 480kW of charging power. Unless the carging cable is 4″ thick, you will have energy losses. Also, the fast charging station will probably require lots of batteries – what about charging/discarging losses of that?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:05 am)#67 santa said:
Oil is over $50 right now. The only way is up…..
====================
Thats what happened when say your going to go out and buy a trillion dollars in bonds off the cuff…the dollar gets crushed, and commodity prices rise.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:05 am)quick -charging infrastructure is coming down the pike , at 100mph. I had no idea. A bunch of articles here-
http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/Manufacturers/Nissan/
55 and 56, pdt and gary- good thoughts
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:06 am)For people who asked why Buick :
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/19/jaguar-and-buick-upset-lexus-in-j-d-power-2009-vehicle-dependab/
. ON th post :
I was also thinking of safety. Wondering what happens on side impact and rollover tests also.
Second question is why the battery is no designed as a rectangular block sits down the rear seat. This will give space to make a 5 passenger car (like 2 feet ,5 blocks )
Third is why volt is not a rear wheel drive ? was going through the advantages and disadvantages or rwd. As volt dont have any transmission and electric motor is directly connected to wheels , we dont need a drive shaft and electric motor can sit at back.from some posts i learned a tesla motor is only size f a watermelon .Now the range extender / generator can sit under hood and electric motors and regenerative system at back and batteries under the rear seat- This helps to make a 5 passenger configuration ( i know its too much blunder but still valid the think )
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:10 am)Interesting Detroit Free Press article today on the Volt. Doesn’t really say anything that fresh, but news is news”
————————————–
Volt on track to debut in Nov. 2010, despite cuts
General Motors Corp. executives said Wednesday that the Chevrolet Volt is on schedule for a November 2010 debut and that the program is expanding despite companywide cost cuts and a plea for up to $16.6 billion in additional federal aid.
And though GM may run out of cash next month unless it receives $2.6 billion in additional federal aid, the team of engineers and others working on batteries, hybrid and electric vehicles has grown and GM is hiring a small number of people at a time when the automaker plans to eliminate 47,000 jobs globally.
We will need to make a small number of critical hires when needed,” GM spokesman Brian Corbett said. “Technology like this is critical to the long-term viability of General Motors.”
The extended-range electric Volt is expected to be priced around $40,000 but federal tax breaks could lower the cost for consumers. GM says engineers are working on second- and third-generation electric versions that will cost less.
The Volt likely won’t be a mass market vehicle initially because of the price tag, said Ron Cogan, editor and publisher of Green Car Journal.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090319/AUTO01/903190343/1148
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:11 am)LauraM @ 53 said, “The problem is that the price of oil at the pump doesn’t reflect the real price to society… …we need the price of oil to reflect the real price, so that people can adjust their consumption accordingly.”
In effect, what you are saying is, let’s punish the people who use gas so they will not want to use gas… What I am saying is, let’s find a better way to get people from point A to point B without gas. Like I was explaining to DaveG, we both want the same thing…we just propose different methods.
As far as “wasted” tax dollars…I certainly agree that one of THE largest issues we face today is the huge deficit our government seems so willing to burden us with. As you said, cutting government spending is a better solution than printing money or raising taxes.
Ultimately, my belief is this…taxes only burden us further and seldom afford us…those people that pay the taxes…sufficient benefit. In a free-market, capitalistic society, taxes are like the brake on productivity…and consequently, creativity. In my humble opinion, our government would serve our society better by being fiscally responsible rather than charging us to pay for their continued excesses.
A better way to do things is out there…let’s focus our energy on that proposition, rather than the hope that Washington will wisely use our money…after having not done so for the past hundred or so years…
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:14 am)Everyone on this site knows that the #1 importer of crude to the United States is Canada not the war effort right?
Everyone on this site knows that moving any car not less a 40K Volt has crushed the American’s, Japanese, Korean’s, and German manufactures right?
Everyone knows on this site that without taxes on oil your taxes will go up right?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:14 am)I’d also like to know more about the safety of batteries in a crash… sure you can say gas cars crash too but electricity and gasoline are totally different.
I know next to nothing about electricity and batteries – so in layman terms, if the batteries were damaged, would stuff leak out? Would you get shocked if you were touching something metallic?
I guess realistically, with the pack being in the center console, if it was damaged that bad (T-boned and such) you’d probably be dead or close to it anyways.
Thanks to anyone who can answer!
)
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:16 am)#38 GLV
“We don’t need to put more money in the hands of our government…who’ve shown little regard for where or how that money is spent. Government is not the solution…it’s the problem.”
————————-
After my own heart, are you? I totally agree. That is what I have been saying on this web-site since my first few days after joining. My proposal would to reduce the money given to government by 5% each year until we starve out the mis-managed, unnecessary and duplicated programs that have been established over the years by our over-reaching and wasteful government. I would starve it down to where it did what our founders intended. Provide for the national defense, collect tariffs and negotiate with foreign governments. In a truly free society that is all the government the citizens need. (Now comes the screams from opposing view points. Let me have it.)
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:27 am)#78 Mark Says: Everyone on this site knows that the #1 importer of crude to the United States is Canada not the war effort right?
————————————————————————————-
Doesn’t matter. It’s a world oil market. If the U.S. doesn’t buy from Iran, then someone else will. If the U.S. has a tiff with Canada, and buys from Russia instead, then China will buy Canada’s oil.
So importing any foreign oil helps the nations that export oil the most. Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela top the list.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:40 am)#44 Dave G
I work for an oil company. If I had to maintain a floor price of $4.00 per gallon and adjust the taxes accordingly, that would be a paper work nightmare because Uncle Sam would want to see every movement of fuel prices and the result tax charged. The price we are charged by our suppliers of gas and diesel changes every day of the work week. The don’t post changes on Saturday and Sunday unless something really big breaks loose. So, every day we would be charged a different Federal Excise Tax by our suppliers and we would have to pass along that same tax to our customers. Now, to carry this a little further, our service station customers would have to modify their prices every day by the exact tax charged them for the fuel that is being purchased by the customer. Fuel delivered and taxed today based on the tax for that day may not be sold for a day or more. The station would have to keep up with very exact details of inventory levels versus purchase quantities (or in this case tax levels) to be sure to charge the proper price. They do this somewhat now based strictly on purchase cost and inventory levels, but adding another factor would greatly complicate the whole pricing picture for all parties concerned.
And if you don’t think the government would not require to know exactly what tax was charged “per gallon of fuel sold” you may be a candidate for some of my ocean front property in Arizona. At this time Federal Excise Tax is a constant and only changes every few years. I believe it always changes at the beginning of a month. I can’t ever remember another effective date for a new rate except at the beginning of the month. Federal Excise Tax is reported monthly and is based on the rate in effect for that month. With your plan, the tax would have to be reported on each and every purchase made from a supplier on a load by load basis. There would be no other way to do it to satisfy the reporting requirements.
Of course, I am sure there are plenty of people who would love a reporting system like this because it would involve massive employment by the federal government to watch over, collect and audit the taxes. It would be a very expensive proposition, but what the heck would we do with all the tax but pay for the processing and handling of it by the government. Very little of the new taxes would make it down to the states to fund highways. Sounds good to me.
I don’t want to be pessimistic about your idea, but I deal with this very issue daily and I write the computer programs that do the taxing and paying in the current system. I shudder at the thought of the hoops I would have to “jump through” to properly tax and pay this type of taxation. No, a flat tax would be the only workable solution in my opinion and I have 35 years of experience to back me up on this subject. A flat tax that is considerably higher, yes, but a flat tax that only changes at the beginning of a month and not every month at that. Sorry, but that is my opinion on this matter.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:41 am)#72 Dave G
I agree that, to make a decision about biofuels vs. EVs, we need to consider the details and costs of both approaches. I’m not informed enough to decide one way or the other. You seem to prefer biofuels. Maybe you’ve already provided us with a fair well-to-wheel efficiency comparison. Can you point me to it? Does it make controversial assumptions?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:42 am)To unni #75:
Thanks for the Buick link. I’ve been telling people for years that Buick is the highest quality nameplate on the planet, and this article verifies it.
Here it is again:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/19/jaguar-and-buick-upset-lexus-in-j-d-power-2009-vehicle-dependab/
Also, I’ve said this before but I just have to say it again just for fun –
the first Voltec Buick should be called the “Electra!”
Can’t wait for that one! My first car was a Buick.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:45 am)Off topic.
I believe today is the one year anniversary of the first ever VoltNation event. It was a great event to attend, with the chance to converse with many of the engineers and executives from GM who are directly involved with the Volt. A truly memorable experience.
Lyle,
Any chance that a 2nd VoltNation Event will take place this year?
Thanks again for last year’s gathering.
Regards,
BillR
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:46 am)Dave G,
I don’t think that fast charging infrastructure requries trilions. How do you calculated that?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:46 am)#77 GLV/ #80 N Riley
I realize that a gasoline tax would hurt some people more than others. But it’s the best way, most efficient way, to get people out of those SUVs and into fuel efficient cars. If it also gets people to move closer to their offices, and telecommute more, that’s a good thing.
Yes. The government absolutely wastes money. And, our current government wastes more money than most.
Unfortunately, as a society, there are many things that only a government can provide. Air traffic control, highways, etc. The US government still spends more money on R&D than anyone in the private sector. This is critical to maintaining our competitiveness in a global economy.
A functioning legal system is critical to maintain an environment in which business can operate. A funtioning regulatory system is crucial to maintain the markets. Especially the financial markets. I think the current crisis has proven that if nothing else. All of this costs money. I could go on. Some government spending has gotten out of hand, but that’s an argument for reforming government spending, not eliminate it altogether.
Also, the private sector wastes money too. What else would you call John Thain’s office decorating expenses? And our “private” health care system is so disfunctional, it makes a government solution look good.
My problem with government, is not with the idea of big government. It’s that our current politicians all seem to be completely incompetant. And I haven’t seen any evidence that Obama’s any better than Bush in this regard.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (11:49 am)Mark Says:
March 19th, 2009 at 9:43 am
“Are you sure everyone can live without taxes on the oil companies and taxes at the pump? How do you replace 2.2 trillion dollars in oil company taxes over 25 years.”
Cut government spending. Practice government belt tightening.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:13 pm)Battery news on the Volt is no big deal. We all know the bat is fine. Not much news to give you a hard on.
I’m with statik, first company to get a freeway legal up to 70mph BEV 40AER or EREV get’s my $$$.
Most people cuncurr as I have asked a few folks that make a shltload more money than me why they don’t trade in their cars for a new one. Some of these guys drive either older SUV’s or older sedan’s. They said they are looking for more efficient and less expensive cars. Most indicate the Prius while the others mention the Ford Fusion Hybrid or the Honda Insight. Only two of them knew about the Volt and they didn’t really know much. They just thought it was a 40 mile BEV and you had to let the engine charge the car. WTF? So I had to educate them. My point is, there is little to no advertisement of the car and it’s technology and people are “Holding out” for something better. There’s money out there for GM but where’s the marketing?
I also agree with statik on GM maintaining the 40AER. That’s a crock of shlt for GM to do. When/if BYD brings their product over, it will have a 62 AER. Most of you will come out a flame on the car but that was the same thing that happened with Huyndai and all the other car mfgrs. In time, they got better and domestics got beat. To stand fast at 40AER is to grasp for future disaster.
The ICEAge is over, Embrace the VoltAge.
I’ll take my Volt with No Generator, No ICE, ShAkEn not StirreD…
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:15 pm)Broadly,
“government is bad, always ” mantra put forward initially by reagan administration, now popular among the right-wingers and nay sayers on this board, is falacious. And constantly bashing the democratically elected body is bad medicine. Governments can do good, be good, competent. Good government rescued us for endless poverty in the thirties, government landed a man on the moon, government fought the cold war, and won, government developed the internet. government has the capacity to do good things the private sector can only dream of accomplishing. Dudes, , give credit where credit is due. Have a little faith that the current administration can save us from the economic meltdown resulting from 30 years of trickle-down economics and free-market thinking..Trust that infrastructure development by government fiat will serve us all in the end…
(I paraphrase a Counterpunch article)
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:19 pm)fyi, fast charging is not needed.
Also, the electrical infrastructure at every Gas station has enough juice to, in the future, for fast charge. When the pumps are not running, there’s 3 phase 480VAC 200A there that the pumps run on. Why do you think there’s a big a$$ XFormer at every station in the back?
DUH!
So why all the “We need this…..We need that for fast…..?”
The ICEAge is over, Embrace the VoltAge.
I’ll take my Volt with No Generator, No ICE, ShAkEn not StirreD…
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:21 pm)#82 N Riley
I agree with this. A flat increase in the tax is a much better idea than a price floor. Although harder to pass politically. Otherwise, all you’re doing is increasing the profits of the oil companies. And probably OPEC. I’d much rather see the US Government get the money.
And, you’re right. It’s a lot cheaper to administer.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:31 pm)It looks like Jay Leno’s comment was heard by Autobloggreen….
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/19/jay-leno-i-think-you-ll-find-that-the-volt-will-be-a-superior/
The ICEAge is over, Embrace the VoltAge.
I’ll take my Volt with No Generator, No ICE, ShAkEn not StirreD…
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:32 pm)#15
“Batteries won’t work for planes, ships, trains, and 18-wheel trucks.”
=================================
To the contrary –
hybrid locomotives are already in real world testing at GE, Peterbuilt just announced their hybrid 18 wheeler and electric driven ships with hybrid features are already in the world fleet . GM and Daimler have been making hybrid buses for years.
Not to mention that most submarines have had electric drive for over a century, and the diesel ones are most definitely hybrids and still a big part of the fleet – Germany is selling a lot of them, even to the US.
Going even further is a German Type 212 hydrogen fuel cell powered sub with near silent propulsion…even quieter than nuclear subs.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:34 pm)Now here’s one of those “Why didn’t I think of that idea” idea…
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/19/paris-launches-online-map-of-ev-charging-stations/
Or you can paint them bright green and illuminate at night and just “Look around”. Or is that too simple to do to ask someone to do that?
The ICEAge is over, Embrace the VoltAge.
I’ll take my Volt with No Generator, No ICE, ShAkEn not StirreD…
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:41 pm)LauraM @ 87 said, “My problem with government, is not with the idea of big government. It’s that our current politicians all seem to be completely incompetant. And I haven’t seen any evidence that Obama’s any better than Bush in this regard.”
On that…we are in complete agreement!
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:43 pm)“Tesla Model S will cost under $50,000 after tax breaks”
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/19/tesla-model-s-will-cost-57-400-just-49-900-after-tax-breaks/
But are they going to come back to you after you put your deposit down and say….
“Our bookeeping sucks and we need $50000 more for the car….”
The car looks nice from what little I can see in color and silhouette shape.
Funny how the price is just there to make it “Under $50,000.00″.
One has to now ask, what is really the price of the car if there were no incentive? It’s starting to look like the incentive is NOT for the buyer but for the seller/mfgr to jack the price up for THEM.
This is getting disappointing. I need a beer…..
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:45 pm)PS to #94:
there is also work being done at NASA’s Dryden center on a hybrid drone aircraft that would use electric driven props. Basically a very large long duration semi-satellite that would fly at 100,000 plus feet.
Other groups are working on electric passenger prop aircraft powered by fuel cell or small, but very powerful, cryogenic generators with battery buffering.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:46 pm)Great news about the batteries. Thanks Dr. Dennis and GM for the rumor control. I remember being flabbergasted when Toyota announced the 70K mile warranty on the Prius batteries. It was clear that it was the only way to get people to buy the cars, but I thought that Toyota was taking an incredible risk. Having seen how that has worked out, I feel much more confident about the Volt. I know they’re different batteries, but still the concept has been proven.
BTW, did y’all (yawll?) see the Yahoo piece on $5 Billion of TARP money being made available to parts suppliers to the Big 2.4? Evidently to pay for parts which have been shipped but not paid for, LOL. Somehow it all reminds me of the famous Revolutionary War poster of the raggedy, shot up, soldiers marching proudly along with what, the flag and a fife and drum? I know that the thing has a title, but it escapes me at the moment.
Finally, I’m not totally comfortable with agreeing with Rick Wagoner, and less still Bob Nardelli, but I have to put in with them on this gas tax idea. Even if it does go into the general fund. The national debt doubled in the last 8 years guys, and it looks like it’s on track to do it again. Somebody’s gonna have to pay that back someday, aren’t they?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:47 pm)#48 ThombDbhomb
“Another anti-government and anti-environment rant today? I guess you buy into the biofuel “solution” and don’t like investment in fast charging infrastructure.”
——————————-
Well, not exactly an anti-government rant. I am some what of an anti-government person only because of the government we seem incapable of electing and the stupid things they do. But, no, I don’t “buy into” the bio-fuel solution. I do think there is a place for bio-fuels. it is not the answer to all things. Yes, you are correct about the investment in charging infrastructure as most proponents are proposing today. They want the taxpayers to pay for all of it. I am more of a private enterprise sort of guy who thinks it could work like cable TV franchises. A local, state or national private enterprise could enter into a contract with a local government or private business (like a mall or shopping center) to build the charging stations and provide the infrastructure along with the local power company. The consumer would gain access to the charging stations and the people who actually use them would be the ones paying for them. Or do you propose having every Tom, Dick and Harry pay to have the infrastructure built so a privileged few (those lucky enough to afford a BEV or PHEV) could enjoy the fruits of their taxes? The lowly taxpayer pays enough taxes now. This could and should be handled without direct taxpayer involvement except in the local government and over-sight. IMO.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:48 pm)We get what we vote for. We’ll never reduce government excess until we get term limits – something Newt & Friends promised and never delivered.
There is a complete lack of support on this site for domestic drilling so I guess we are mostly greenies who want the drilling done elsewhere.
We need more taxes or Cap & Trade, a misnomer for a hugely punitive energy tax, like another hole in the head.
Without attribution, have seen figures that if every tillable acre in the US was put in corn for ethanol, it would supply 12% of our gasoline requirement. Algae working on coal shale might be a massive source of energy but I wonder how much fuel can be generated from “waste carbon”.
We should just harvest the forests – that’s carbon neutral – and use wood heat at home and use wood/steam to run a home generator to fast charge our spare lithium battery packs when our solar output is not high enough. And my wife can fast charge her 40 AER car after a 10 mile trip to the store so she can visit her mother in the afternoon, a 40 mile round trip. Oh, but honey, you can’t fast charge your car and you can’t charge in the daytime dear. “What the frup are you talking about, Leroi?” “I’ll charge that dang thing anytime I want.Git outta my sight.”
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:49 pm)My last post on this subject.
It is obvious that we the people choose who to vote in and vote out. What may not be obvious are the publics reactions to stimulus such as the World Trade Center, $4.50 gallon gasoline, and a real estate bubble.
It is obvious that when we cut out Canada, cut government spending, do not replace lost tax revenew, etc. we hurt ourselves. Taxes wasted or not go to us.
It is obvious that Importing foriegn oil at present helps the United States the most or we would not do it.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:50 pm)Statik: “Hella Fast”
You must be up here in NorCal as well. Lol.
I personally think GM is correct in sticking to 40 AER and focusing on price drops…for now at least. I’ll bet eventually they’ll offer a range of ranges (lol) for different prices. Right now I want them to focus on getting their cars to the masses.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:51 pm)#94 DocM:
Good points. The US military is also working on hybrid trucks. Somebody figured out that diesel fueldelivered to the “front lines” in Iraq costs $24/gal, once all of the externalities are factored in. Externalities include, but are not limited to, the cost of security, dead and wounded soldiers and “contractors”, blown up trucks, and the simple cost of hauling the stuff several hundred miles from Kuwait.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:54 pm)Meh. Pack manufacturing is not exactly the high-tech part. Cell chemistry is where the action is. GM is just doing light assembly.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:55 pm)#51 Johann
“H.R. 1207″
————–
Sorry, too many republican sponsors. Bill will never make it. That’s politics today. Lesson learned already. Next lesson, please.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (12:56 pm)Noel Park #99
Rick W. wants the gas tax to level out the future picture for vehicle demand by type. People are making their choices of vehicle in part based on gas prices right now. When gas prices shift on a dime like the past year and a half or so, car makers have no idea what mix of vehicles they will be marketing and what proportion to manufacture and send through channels. If Rick W. can get the govt. to stabilize, gas prices with taxes then that’s one potentially bankrupting variable he can stop losing sleep over and spend more time developing cars for the market at that level gas price.
New models replacing old ones by the teens every few years, with several in the mix not even conceived of as being in the US months before they are announced, because the market changes dramatically has to add a few gray hairs.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (1:06 pm)#66 DonC Says:
Doesn’t the cap & trade proposal on the table make the gas tax idea redundant? Plus it has the benefit of applying more broadly and being more easily administered.
Moreover, the cap and trade proposal creates decent benchmarks for imposing tariffs on imports from countries (aka China) that may otherwise resist limiting emissions. In this regard, it’s hard for a US manufacturer to compete if it has limit emissions when a competitor in a foreign country doesn’t.
————————-
The cap & trade could do that (however, i thought it already exists in some forms. I know my friend in Minnesota sells all of his carbon credits to industries, for the acres of land he lets go ferile.)
Cap and trade will limit polutants during the mfg processes, and I dont see a direct connection to a product that produces pollutants, like the CARB of a car fleet addresses, which is good. If the cap & trade causes the price of gasoline to go up due to extra refinery cost, that would serve the same purpose as a gas-tax. I’m for it, as long as it doesnt limit the cars companies produce, but instead, what the market will buy does.
The reason I like this idea better than the CARB, because it still gives the consumer a choice, even if they have to pay more, the choice is still there. For example, what if the government said butter was too unhealthy and banned it, or, instead, they still allowed it to be sold, but it cost twice as much now, and the extra butter-tax money goes towards research on heart-disease. Which option would everyone prefer?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (1:08 pm)We interrupt this increasingly political thread for a breaking story:
Batteries (energy, power, fast-charge/discharge)
Capacitors (super, ultra, EEStor & nano)
NOW THERE’S A THIRD CATEGORY:
Spin Batteries
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/03/universities-of-miami-tokyo-and-tohoku.html
“The secret behind this technology is the use of nano-magnets to induce an electromotive force. It uses the same principles as those in a conventional battery, except in a more direct fashion. The energy stored in a battery, be it in an iPod or an electric car, is in the form of chemical energy. When something is turned “on” there is a chemical reaction which occurs and produces an electric current. The new technology converts the magnetic energy directly into electrical energy, without a chemical reaction. The electrical current made in this process is called a spin polarized current and finds use in a new technology called “spintronics.”
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (1:14 pm)@75 Unni
Personally, I dont want a RWD vehicle. They aren’t practical in the winter for me. Even if all the weight was in the rear, i dont think I would be able to keep the front end on the road.
Now if you want to talk about putting 4 small motors, one in each wheel, for an AWD experience.. that I would love.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (1:18 pm)#15 Dave G
For me, the ‘promised land’ is being energy independent, and EVs alone will never get us there.
U.S. 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.)
The United States imports around 2/3 of the oil we consume. Batteries won’t work for planes, ships, trains, and 18-wheel trucks. So its pretty clear that energy Independence will require bio-fuels.
—————————————————————-
Dave, I love it when people do fact based analysis. Nice job.
I continue to be skeptical about the proposition that cheap biofuels are already invented, and will be for sale in the next couple of years. So my conclusions partly agree, and partly differ from yours.
44% gasoline. Neither batteries nor ethanol can provide economical family transportation at this time. So it will be a race–which conquers the cost barrier first? Batteries cost roughly twice what they would need to to make E-REVs practical, and 4-6 times what they would have to to make BEVs practical. Ethanol at $1-3 per gallon would be the hands down winner, but this still looks like hype, not fact, to me.
17% diesel. Here I disagree. Trains will be electrified not with batteries, but by running electric service above, beneath or within the tracks. This is mature, 100 year old technology. If batteries become cost effective for cars, they will work just as well for tractor-trailers. An over the road tractor would require a very large, very heavy, very expensive battery, but they have plenty of power and space to haul the battery, and the fuel savings would be immense. Ships use a lot of diesel as well. In the future, there will be very few small and mid-sized diesel burning ships. Almost all ships will be very large and nuclear powered.
5% Jet fuel. If we acheive everything else on this list, there will be plenty of petroleum around to support aviation for centuries. When the petroleum runs out, I agree bio-fuel is the only real alternative. But if we do not acheive $1-3/gallon ethanol, air travel and air cargo become luxuries.
15% Fuel oil. Biggest no brainer of all. Nuclear electric heat. Peak demand is at night when it is coldest and powerplants are coasting. Also replace gas heat the same way. Sorry, Boone.
19% chemical feed stocks. This will be a mix of the petroleum saved by all the other items on the list, natural gas, and bio.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (1:23 pm)#107 Jeffhre:
Right. I understand that. A good example is the roller coaster ride of hybrid car sales. A year ago I was commenting here about how our local Toyota dealers were advertising Priuses at $2K+ off sticker. A few months later, when gas prices peaked, you had to get on a 6 month waiting list and pay full sticker, if you were lucky. People where buying them and turning around and instantly reselling them at a profit, LOL. Now, 1 year later, we are back to the dealers discounting off sticker. I saw a story somewhere this week about a lawyer in NorCal buying a fully loaded Prius for 5K off sticker.
So I feel Rick’s pain. And our grand goal of energy independence will clearly never happen under these conditions.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (1:25 pm)@ 68 Statik
Sorry, I forget my usual second half ditty….”I’m willing ot buy any EV now, or pure BEV in the future from anyone, provided that it can also be serviced within the electric range of the vehicle.”
==============
Isnt there a Tesla office/shop in Ann Arbor? Is that too far from Toronto, right?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (1:27 pm)#75 unni
Most braking in a vehicle is done by the front wheels. Rear wheel braking is applied mainly for stability during a stop. This is why lower-cost cars may have discs on the front wheels and drums on the rear; the rear wheels have to deliver less force, so the cheaper drums are are more than adequate.
If the object is (even in part) to recover braking energy for re-use, then front-wheel-drive is almost mandatory.
I predict that when in-wheel motors are available, they will appear on rear wheels first, optimized for higher speeds (when rear wheel drive offers most of it’s advantages); leaving the front-wheel system optimized for lower speeds (where more power tends to get used getting the vehicle up to speed, and recovering braking energy when coming to a stop). The controller would gradually vary which end gets the most power as speed changes.
At highway speeds, you’re mostly overcoming aerodynamics, so the in-wheel motors wouldn’t have to be extremely powerful, just ‘geared’ in the right range.
How’s that for simplifying a 4WD transmission?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (1:32 pm)#27 Statik
GM stubbornly holding to a 40 mile electric range and holding it up as gospel for this car and “future generations” packs is a mistake…
———————————————————————————
Statik provides good arguments for future Volts with AERs both greater than and less than 40 miles.
IMO, sticking to 40 mile AER is a good short term strategy for Volt ! and Volt II. GM needs to keep their offering simple. The Volt is a 105 mpg car with better performance than any car in its class, lower maintenance, better trade in value. Well worth the extra cost.
Dont complicate it with 20 AER, 40 AER, and 80 AER cars.
But eventually, as battery costs improve, they can offer bigger batteries in Volt 3, and probably will do so.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (1:35 pm)105 Don Says:
March 19th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Meh. Pack manufacturing is not exactly the high-tech part. Cell chemistry is where the action is. GM is just doing light assembly.
———-
I disagree. All of the “brains” are in the pack.. not the cell. I dont have time to find threads on all the technology in the pack, but its a lot more than you would think.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (1:38 pm)Too late for edit:
You could also integrate the rear wheel drive motor into a differential case, and not wait for in-wheels to demonstrate resistance to vibration and temperature extremes.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (1:44 pm)D #90
Governments can do good, be good, competent. Good government rescued us for endless poverty in the thirties,
——————————————————————–
Wrong. In 1937, Roosevelt had been in office 4 years and the depression was worse than ever. The depression was ended when the Western Democracies ramped up defense spending to counter the Nazi threat.
government landed a man on the moon,
Yes, but a ticket still costs tens of millions of dollars. Not the same thing as providing economical family transportation. If you want to move 7 people and dont care what it costs, call the govt. If you want to move 300 million at affordable prices, you need the private sector.
government fought the cold war, and won,
One of the few legitiamate functions of govt.
government developed the internet.
ARPANET was a laboratory curiosity until the private sector got ahold of it.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (2:02 pm)#52 k-dawg – On the gas tax.
Doesn’t the cap & trade proposal on the table make the gas tax idea redundant? Plus it has the benefit of applying more broadly and being more easily administered.
Moreover, the cap and trade proposal creates decent benchmarks for imposing tariffs on imports from countries (aka China) that may otherwise resist limiting emissions. In this regard, it’s hard for a US manufacturer to compete if it has limit emissions when a competitor in a foreign country doesn’t.
—————————————————————————
Cap and trade is a $2 trillion dollar tax on electricity and fuel. If you want the current downturn to exceed the Great Depression in length and severity, cap and trade is the way to go.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (2:05 pm)#107 Jeffhre
I think you are correct in your assessment. Stable gas prices are much better for all concerned. Having higher prices due to higher federal taxes are one way. Better to pay the money to the government and hope it is spent wisely than pay the oil company who will not spend it wisely. Good thinking.
I am not a proponent of charging higher taxes for the sole purpose of forcing people to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. This smacks of environmental elitism to me. I know a number of environmental elitist who say do what I say but don’t do what I do. They come to meetings and talk about conservation and the need to reduce pollution. They tell us to use energy efficient light bulbs (I do) and provide us with a long list of do’s and don’t’s. After the meeting they drive away in their large SUV or limo size sedan. At home they ramble around in their 5,000 square foot homes and mingle with others like them who live in 10,000 square foot homes and fly around the world in private passenger jets capable of carrying 25 passengers.
But, yes, I follow their instructions as much as I can because I know it is the best thing I can do to keep my footprint on this world as small as possible so I can provide more resources for those like my environmental friends who really know how to properly utilize it. It works out pretty good. It is a good system. I recommend all of you adopt this system. You will find that it really helps out those most in need of additional resources. They really do need help. I plan to give them as much help as I can possibly afford. I will do my part. All I am doing is asking each of you to do your part. Their world depends on your sacrifice. it is for the better good, after all.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (2:07 pm)Did they get the photos above from Jay Leno’s crash during his test drive?
Can anyone make out the size of that gas tank?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (2:07 pm)I still believe that biofuels are a dead end. The land that we can’t spare to keep in a natural state should be reserved for food production. If all of the corn produced in the US were converted to ethanol it would displace 17% of the current consumption of gasoline (as I recall). I know about cellulosic etc. (I even did some consulting with a startup that is looking to produce hydrocarbons directly).
The electric car will turn attention toward electricity generation. As electric cars (buses, trucks, etc.) become viable there will be a downward pressure on oil prices—biofuels will not be able to compete (unless we want to continue huge subsidies). You might as well burn the cellulose (wood) in a power station (we have one in my state) as turn it into ethanol (or methanol or …).
I’ll get on my soapbox again and say that Nuclear is the answer. These issues are too complicated for a blog debate. But, if anyone would like to learn more about Nuclear, the World Nuclear Association website has tons of technical information. I don’t think this is a propaganda site, but judge for yourself.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/
Or, you might pick up ‘Power to Save the World’ – Gwyneth Cravens (a book written for a popular audience).
Despite what some might believe all the real money and lobbying power is on the ‘renewables’ side these days. Unfortunately I think it is largely a scam. One of the founding fathers of the environmental movement, James Lovelock agrees: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/james-lovelock-you-ask-the-questions-1640175.html
Originator of the ‘Gaia’ hypothesis (doesn’t get any ‘greener’ than that), very concerned about climate change, 90 and going strong.
I really believe (I guess I’ve become a fanatic) that:
Nuclear Power + Electric Cars = Bright Future for the World.
Which, along with that great article in the Atlantic Monthly is why I got so interested in the Volt.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (2:34 pm)#119 Tom H
“Cap and trade is a $2 trillion dollar tax on electricity and fuel. If you want the current downturn to exceed the Great Depression in length and severity, cap and trade is the way to go.”
—————————–
I tend to agree with you on this one. It is a dog and pony show presented to us by the environmental lobby. It is their way of punishing us for energy use. I don’t mind paying higher taxes for energy and I don’t mind better restrictions on pollution, but I want it all to out in the open and above board. This cap and trade gig is going to cost many trillions of dollars per year and cost many thousands of jobs per year. And just where does this cap and trade tax go. It goes straight into the treasury general fund to be dispensed to the friends of our congress. Very little will benefit reducing pollution or improving the transportation needs of the average citizen.
Just add $10.00 per gallon tax on motor fuels, if you must, but don’t hide the intent behind a smoke screen. I think that anyone who wants to purchase a Hummer or any other large vehicle and is willing to pay the additional cost of the vehicle and fuel should be able to do so. Tax the hell out of everything you want. Just be truthful about your intentions. Be out in the open and don’t hide behind lies.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (2:37 pm)#121 k-dawg
“Can anyone make out the size of that gas tank?”
——————–
I looked but could not tell. What was the thing behind the battery pack towards the rear of the vehicle?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (2:43 pm)#123 N Riley:
I don’t believe that “cap and trade” is a creature of the “environmental lobby”. The “environmental lobby” would much prefer to just put statuatory limits on emissions. “Cap and trade” is the response of industry, which is slowly coming to realize that something is going to have to give with carbon emissions. Better to put your own system into place than to have strict regulation shoved down your throat by the “environmental lobby”. “Cap and trade” at least offers opportunities for gaming and making money.
“Cap and trade” is anathema to the environmental orgianizations I belong to. Politicians embrace it as being hafway between the two camps, and thus having a chance of being implemented.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (2:51 pm)#122 SteveK
I agree with nuclear energy being our best answer for the near future. What the more distant future holds is subject to the future and we have no way of determining that. There are a lot of powerful forces against nuclear fuel. Some because of fear. Some because of an idea that solar or wind is the ONLY answer. I am one of those that believe we need all sources of energy, but the only one that can carry us into the future and provide for the full electrification of our homes, plants. offices, vehicles, trains and what not is nuclear. Solar and wind have much work to do to produce even a small fraction of what we need. There are down sides to all energy technology, but we have to balance those with the needs of our nation. Government and groups who are anti-whatever needs to step aside and let us get on with providing adequate energy for our future.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (3:00 pm)#125 Noel Park
Thanks for your insight. I must admit I know much less about the subject than I should personally. I have heard arguments from both sides about what it will do to our nation and I felt the arguments against it out weighed the pro arguments. I guess my main objection is towards the lack of understanding just how it will work and how open it will be to understanding if it is working properly. As I have said before, I believe in things being open and above board. It is much easier to understand and watch over that way. Cap and trade seems like a behind the scenes dealings between companies with the beneficiary being the government in the form of taxes. The poor consumer is going to get soaked in any situation that government, industry or the “environmental lobby” comes up with. And don’t tell me that the “lobby” doesn’t have the “ear” of the congress in making out legislation. Nothing wrong with that. Many different groups lobby congress. Some good, some not so good.
But, again, thanks for your comment. I need all the help I can get and I don’t mind being reminded of it. I trust your opinion more than most here. (Not talking about you, Statik.)
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (3:09 pm)My current prediction is that GM will offer a fully electric version of the Buick Electra in model year 2015.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (3:20 pm)OK, just where is the gas tank in the pictures? I still can not tell. I can see the exhaust pipe for the ICE. Looks like it was slightly bent after the crash. Anyone else think so?
Edited: Well, you can’t really tell about the exhaust pipe in the above pictures. I looked at the link provided and enlarged the pictures some.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (3:27 pm)#121 k-dawg
“Can anyone make out the size of that gas tank?”
If the Volt gas tank is anything like the Prius gas tank, you can’t tell it’s size from its size. The gas tank in the Prius has a bladder inside of it, which changes size and elasticity.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (3:31 pm)About that crash test…Did the front crumple zone crumple (see “during compression” photo), then uncrumple (see “after impact” photo)? Maybe the crumple zone is a bladder.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (3:37 pm)#131 ThombDbhomb
I had also thought the front zone looked “funny” during the crash. With the color of the battery pack and the restricted view, it is a little hard to tell exactly what, if anything, is going on. But, kudos to GM for providing the photos and the update. And big time kudos to our Lyle for presenting them to us to review.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (3:39 pm)Steve K,
I read the James Lovelock article-excerpted one q and a which should dull your zeal for nukes in the US(see below).
“Why are you so hostile to renewable energy in general and wind power in particular? Norma Jones, Halifax
Mainly because they do not work under north European conditions and because they have become, through the abuse of subsidies by the greedy, a scam. I like the idea of solar thermal energy in nations with sunlit deserts, and wind energy in places where the wind blows constantly and few people live. ”
Turns out, US has sunlit deserts, places where the wind blows. Ergo, renewables are the way to go here, especially considering costs for renewables are falling, prices for nuclear energy are rising. Staggering Cost of New Nuclear Power- http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/01/nuclear_power.html
You might also be interested in this article
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (3:40 pm)#127 N Riley:
Thank you for your statesmanlike response. I think that I am just agreeing with you when you said, at #123, “I don’t mind better restrictions on pollution, but I want it all out in the open and above board.”
I also agree with you about the lack of understanding of how it will work. I think that the whole intent is to make it so complicated the the likes of us will never understand how it will work, and to facilitate exactly the sort of backroom dealings you mention.
Better IMHO to do it as had been done for cars. By year “X”, you can emit “Y” pounds of CO per KWH, or whatever the parameter is. You figure out how to do it. End of story. KISS also operates in this arena.
I understand that some sort of a cap and trade initiative has already been tried in the European Union, with arguably disastrous results. They somehow got their sums wrong as to how much the credit were worth and how to allocate them. The result seemed to be that a few traders and companies made a lot of money, CO emissions did not go down, and the governments got ziltch. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. The more complex the system, the more opportunities to game it.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (3:51 pm)I highly recommend Dr. Dennis’ other blog, “allcarselectric.com”. He has a really interesting post there today about testing the plug-in Prius in France, and the efforts of the French electric utility to establish public charging stations in Strasbourg (home of the great Bob Wolleck BTW) to support same.
He also had an extensive post recently on the “spin battery” technology mentioned by Jackson at #109. It sounds like science fiction but, if it works, it will leave EEStor and all the rest in the dust.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (3:52 pm)#134 Noel Park
It seems we in the U.S. are doomed to repeat Europe’s mistakes only after we find they had disastrous results with the very same thing. Funny, but you would think we would learn. The European model does not work for us here in the states or in Canada. We can’t just adopt their failed policies and expect a different result here. We have a lot of brilliant people in this country and in Canada. Seems like we should be able to figure this out with out it becoming a “gold mine” for speculators. That policy of not following Europe’s example would apply to a wide range of things. Some things are workable while others are a waste of time.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (3:59 pm)#135 Noel Park
I have been meaning to check out All Cars Electric, but I have too busy on this site bashing government and such. No, I am kidding. I did take a quick look and liked what I saw. Returned here to thank you for the link and of reminding us of the site. I think we all would find it interesting.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (4:17 pm)Does the site seem to run slooooooowww…..
Or is it just me?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (4:21 pm)It does seem a little slow at times. But it is still OK for me. Maybe those beers are affecting you again, Capt Jack. Say, that brings up another revenue avenue for the government. Along with adding a couple dollars of tax to motor fuel gallons and packs of cigarettes, they could add a couple of dollars of tax to beer, wine and whiskey. Not that would really generate some income for Uncle Sammy. What do you think of that? Sounds good, doesn’t it?
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (4:23 pm)Well, I am off for a long weekend. Enjoy yourself while I am gone. Won’t have to read through my rants (unless I find some time at home). Really, have a good weekend.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (4:39 pm)The new JD Power reliability survey is out, and Dave G will have to update his posts about car reliability. After three years of ownership, the brands fall out as follows:
1. Jaguar and Buick (tie)
3. Lexus
4. Toyota
5. Mercury
6. Infiniti
7. Acura
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (4:51 pm)#140 N Riley
Well, I am off for a long weekend. Enjoy yourself while I am gone. Won’t have to read through my rants (unless I find some time at home). Really, have a good weekend.
==================================
I like reading through your rants…but have a good weekend just the same. (Where the heck do you go that doesn’t give you some internet face time? lol)
For my weekend…I’m going low rent I think. My big plans are to maybe go slumming at fashion week downtown Toronto tomorrow, then hit up the big, BIG screen at the Paramount (Scotiabank) theatre on saturday to see Know1ng.
(disaster/doomsday movies are my cup ‘o tea…go figure).
Trailer for Know1ng:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th_d5wUuuEM
(alright…its a little too much ‘national treasure’ I’ll grant you, but what can you do?)
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (4:59 pm)Tom H #118
______________
Governments can do good, be good, competent. Good government rescued us for endless poverty in the thirties,
——————————————————————–
Wrong. In 1937, Roosevelt had been in office 4 years and the depression was worse than ever. The depression was ended when the Western Democracies ramped up defense spending to counter the Nazi threat.
_______________________
You may want to check the two ideas for inconsistency before others add further comments!
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (5:34 pm)#139 N Riley:
Legalize marijuana and tax it says I. Raise billions of dollars in taxes, save billions on the “war on drugs”, instantly put half of the murdering drug cartels out of business, and save the Mexican government from our out of control consumption. That’s at least a win, win, win, win, the way I see it. And it won’t cost me a dime!
So sorry if that’s a bit off topic!!
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (5:38 pm)Static
looks like a good movie
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (5:43 pm)@noel park 144
“Legalize marijuana and tax it says I.”
YeeeeeHaawwwww!!!
Lets giterDone!
That’s funny, an unmentionable person was just talking about going in to buy 10acres of land to legally grow the stuff. I told him you’ll spend more money protecting it than anything!!!
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (5:51 pm)#109 jackson and #135 noel park — Spin technology
Interesting cites. What is also interesting is how the quote “while what we have can’t even power an LED light” turns into a quote that could be interpreted as saying the car could be driven by a spin battery the size of a human hair!
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:04 pm)Edit to #135:
It’s actually Wollek. Shame on me. It’s the late, great Bob Wollek, alas. One of the greatest endurance racing drivers ever. I remember him for having the most God Almighty crash I have ever seen, in a Porsche 962 in Turn 1 at Sears Point. Made those NASCAR “Big Ones” look like the bumper cars at the carnival.
#146 CaptJackSparrow:
Buy 10 acres? Here in CA they just hike up into the National Forest and grow the stuff on free land. They do carry a lot of firepower for sure. So another fringe benefit is to stop making huge messes on public land, and keep people from getting shot. Even if they’re crooks, we end up paying for their medical treatment in jail. Taxes being a fair subject on this thread, right? Hehehe.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:26 pm)The picture shows what seems to me to be a blue tank toward the rear. Based on my experience in changing out an electric fuel pump in my 1986 Pontiac Fiero (which had a 9 gallon tank, and was the most fun vehicle I’d ever had), if that is indeed a fuel tank, then it would be consistent with an 8 gallon capacity with a 15% fuel expansion capability if indeed that is a gas tank.
I am not in great favor of a concept of quick charging facilities, as there might likely be huge battery arrays (storing overnight capacity) needed which would price up the cost of the service too greatly. (Unless these were cost-offset by distributed-power needs of utilities, which I don’t currently believe would be cost-viable).
For apartment and condo residents, the property management could easily absorb the costs of the electrical lines off of the outside breaker boxes, and, the owner would have a pro then install the plug-in in a designated parking spot.
These costs ought not to average as unreasonable, and, if one is indeed able to move after a lease is fulfilled, then the next apartment could be chosen based on reasonable installation costing.
The cost of gasoline was the last nail in the coffin of our current economic situation (in addition to all the jobs being hauled overseas, the regulatory “store given away”, and bad mortgagors, it seems to me. In several more years, the cost of any motor fossil fuel, and even hydrogen, will begin to become passe’.
While improvements to the Volt batteries would be toward longevity, it seems to me, it would not surprise me at all that there might be tiny, and small incremental sorts of improvements overall to be able to “gentle-drive” it to around 43 or even 45 miles range, but that is just an optimistic guess right now.
What really has me highly positive is the fact that a tremendous amount of highly-costly-to-service-after-120,000-miles parts, systems, and technologies just won’t be in the Volt at all.
In addition to that, the extremely gross interdependency of emissions systems to damage, say the catalysts and the transmissions, just will not be a factor in ownership of the Volt.
(Just wait til the end of this Summer when you start to hear about all the horror stories regarding electronics-software losses and transmission damages, if you do not perform transmission fluid changes on time, and, you choose a cheap discount 12 volt battery and/or someone puts grease between the post and the clamp!!)
The concern about the Volt’s battery pack power in a crash can very very easily be anticipated to be monitored 4 million times a second by the battery management module in that if there is anything NOT absolutely consistent every microsecond, then the system could prepare to disable just like a ground-fault-circuit-breaker in your house. When I scan an vehicle computer, the sample-rate of a Genisys scan system, which I use to teach GM advanced-ICE-systems diagnostics (which has the GM logo appear in it when scanning everything in a GM vehicle) can “see” 4 million samples (of measurements) per second.
By the way, GM automotive computers provide EVERYTHING that us independent auto techs need to properly understand a GM vehicle. PERIOD. GM is so generous with access to its PCM datastreams (which are THE best-of-help) and sub-processors regarding the vast numbers of “datastreams”, that I require at least 4 GM vehicles to be the first ones presented for “live repair diagnostics” training of independently-owned shops.
All other makes fall far short for teaching advanced L-1 computer systems. This is another reason why you can always trust that GM has always been the very best in regards to providing everything possible in order for us all to satisfying the owner.
Dan Petit Austin TX.,
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:30 pm)Remember thos flying cars we were always told would be in 2000?
Well, here it is!
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/19/video-fuel-sipping-flying-car-flies/
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:37 pm)To the commenters on the proportions of oil usage that is for all oil. Of the usages the only GROWING usage is in Transport. Land, air and maritime combined.
Electrification of Ground Transport is coming in a few years. It has the prospect of substantially reducing oil consumption when in large use by capping growth and reducing gasoline consumption from 44% to 12%.
Diesel consumption is also subject to large reductions but not as quite much as cars. GE has introduced a hybrid diesel electric locomotive that reputedly saves 25% on fuel on long hauls. HEVs diesel trucks can cut consumption by 20-25% in long-haul and with PHEV 30-40% in intra-city trucking. OTH there is a substantial hidden savings possible in long haul truck-stop electric powered re-charging ABS systems. Rather than running the main truck diesels to provide HVAC overnight use the Plug In ABS instead. The reason for lesser fuel reductions is that long haul trucking with lots of highway usage has less of an opportunity for hybridization fuel economy than stop and go city fuel economy. So the overall effect would be a lesser reduction in fuel usage. A best guess about 25% overall. Still that reduces the 17% diesel to 12% percent.
Aviation engine improvements for continuous combustion jet engines hold the prospect for some substantial fuel economy improvements estimated as high as 40%. So Aviation needs can reduce to 3%.
I don’t think there is much fuel economy improvements to be made in marine shipping, but there is in CO2 emissions. Two stroke OGV diesels already are 53% efficient, and that is pretty close to the the best you can get theoretically. Running stack emission into the Ocean instead of the atmosphere will cause a substantial improvement in CO2 sequestration into the Ocean. Unlike you, I don’t think commercial shipping is going nuclear any time soon.
Residential Heating and Commercial will remain stable and the about same.
So total oil consumption would be a total reduction in use of some 39%. Similar savings would happen worldwide as Electrification of Ground Transport is happening everwhere not just here in the USA.
If President Clueless doesn’t screw it up as he shows signs of doing, US Coal consumption will decline from just over 60% to just under 50% of total electric generation by about 2016, as 35 committed new nuclear electric generation plants, and a one percent of so-called renewable facilities join the fleet meeting a growing demand. Nuclear will expand from 19% to 34% of electric generation and with hydro’s 7% contribution will represent about 40 percent of electricity generated without any CO2 emissions. Add a minor percent or two for so-called renewables,if you wish.
For all you pining for a “stable ” oil price, please recall that there have been exactly three oil price spikes since 973. About one in every 12 years or so. Cut consumption by 39% overall and its price will plunge and remain stable, permanently stable.
For you CO2 hoax buyers, CO2 reduction removes a potential problem of 100-200 years from now, if then. But you apparently can’t wait 1.5 years to widespread introductions to electrification to begin, and 5 years more for half the car fleet to turnover.
Why ? I would be quite happy to wait to have it solved naturally by the market forces driving people to cheaper cleaner electric cars 190 year before it is possibly needed, why aren’t you.
Please Grow up.
(Quote)
Mar 19th, 2009 (6:39 pm)#24, Guido: “Charlie H. the Toyota troll, always happy to distort the record. Of course, he didn’t bother to mention that Toyota and Nissan have “already failed” when measured by this same yardstick.”
In November, Toyota’s bond rating was AA. GM’s was CCC- (a/k/a junk). GM was, in fact, downgraded to junk status in 2005.
Toyota’s market cap is $97billion. GM’s is under $2billion. GM’s cash flow in Q4 of 2008 was -$10million AFTER a gigantic infusion of Welfare dollars.
There is no comparison. Toyoa is under pressure from the sagging economy. GM is a walking corpse.
I am not a Toyota troll… I am a realist. I want realistic, cost-effective transportation options, a reduced oil dependency, lower GHG emissions. Counting on a dead company to help with any of that is nothing less than insanity. And propping up GM does nothing to help the economic health of the country.