AND 
GM-Volt.com Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post
On April 29th, Charles Lane wrote a scathing and derogatory op-ed in the Washington Post about the Chevy Volt entitled Volt: Not Ready to Roll. Should you desire you can read the whole story here.
Some choice quotes from Lane include:
“GM wouldn’t be in quite so deep a hole if it had not sunk a billion dollars, and much of its corporate reputation, into a not-very-realistic plug-in electric hybrid vehicle known as the Chevrolet Volt.”
or
“Unless and until gas prices shoot up, you’d be crazy to buy one of these much-ballyhooed vehicles, which will run 40 miles on a single charge if GM can overcome difficult battery-engineering issues.”
and
“the dream of a mass-market electric car remains implausible and probably will be for years.”
He also claims if electric cars “relied on coal-fired electric plants for power, electric cars might simply move the emissions problem around.”
Finally he concludes “The Obama administration should refrain from lavishing public money on losing propositions such as GM’s Volt.”
Compelled to respond to this, I wrote a letter to the editor of the Washington Post.
Strictly confined to a maximum of 200 words, my letter has just been published and you can read it here. And here:
Charles Lane wrote that people would “be crazy” to buy an electric
Volt at current gas prices [“The Volt: Not Ready to Roll,” op-ed, April
29]. However, driving without gas is worth a premium for many people.
Lane asserted that the Volt would not reduce emissions but would “move
the emissions problem around” to power plants. Lane obviously didn’t read
the study by the Electric Power Research Institute and the Natural
Resources Defense Council showing that widespread adoption of plug-in
electric hybrid vehicles would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 450
million tons a year.Glaringly omitted from his argument, in addition, are two critical
items: the national security value of energy independence and the
importance of first-generation technology for future cost reductions.
Consequences of petroleum dependence can no longer be tolerated.
Electrification of the automobile is critical for national security. Our
country is weakened by dependence on oil-rich hostile foreign nations.
While the wealthy and the government may have to subsidize
first-generation Volts, electric car prices will drop substantially with
increasing production volume as economies of scale come into play.
In my opinion and that of many thousands of others, the Volt is the
best idea GM ever had.LYLE J. DENNIS
The writer is the founder of GM-Volt.com, an independent Web site
devoted to advocacy for the GM vehicle
May 7th, 2009 at 5:56 am
AWESOME ! LET THOSE COMMIES AT THE WASHINGTON POST HAVE IT ! #1 !
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:56 am
2nd.
Excellent reply to him, Lyle! Too many people don’t give a shit about the environment, nation, and our people, and only care about themselves and MAYBE their family. It’s pathetic!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:56 am
Well done!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:01 am
Lyle,
Good points made in 200 Words.
There are many who simply hate GM and will never give them credit. Many of these same people would argue that GM killed the electric car earlier.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:03 am
Nice going Lyle, it would be so nice to just cut our oil dependence by 1/4 in 5 years 1/2 in 10 and so on…. It only makes sense to most of us. I just hope that all the big oil money doesn’t knock it down or buy up the technology..
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:03 am
Rock on!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:06 am
Nice one Lyle!
It sure feels good to fire back when you have the facts to back it up.
It’s like firing a canon back at his BB gun!
“Ignorance should not be tolerated”
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:20 am
A very succinct smack-down, indeed. Well done.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Good on you Lyle!
There are many reasons to buy the Volt besides being green. The national security issues surrounding foreign oil dependence are very real. And the concept that all journeys start with a first step escapes many.
It also seems to me that many are inflating the negative issues of the Volt by saying it will cost too much and the batteries are not ready. The reality is that the Volt will cost less than $30,000 and will have a 10-year 150,000 warranty on the battery. Many in the press tends to miss these points…
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:43 am
Lyle I must thank you, disinformation is the beginning of propaganda, and propaganda is the beginning of fascism
Regards JC LJGTVWOTR
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Good job Lyle.
Why is it that the press never seems to realize that you can’t build the millionth car until you have built the first one? They always seem to be late to the party…..
The technology of the Volt is the future of transportation. It is time to let go of the past……
Go GM! – Go GM Volt Team!!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:47 am
Great retort Lyle. You GO Boy!!!!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:54 am
I am always amazed at what the self important uninformed will say. Makes me wonder how unreliable this guy is on other topics of interest. Good article Lyle
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:59 am
#1 Guido – The problem here isn’t Mr. Lanes’ politics. The problem is that he is a journalist and, therefore, stupid. A complete misunderstanding of virtually all technical or complicated issues is a hallmark of nearly every journalist across the political spectrum.
In other breaking news, Mr. Lane has travelled back to 1970 and declared the utter futility of pursuing computer technology. He states “The systems are large, expensive, and fairly inefficient. America would be better served by relying on slide rules into the foreseeable future rather than wasting any more money on this silly boondoggle.”
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Lyle, that is a excellent retort.
I know it is pretty weak to pat a guy on the back in his home site (kind of like cheering for the home team in the playoffs), but if I thought it was bad, or you left yourself open…don’t worry, I would tell you, lol.
You letter was tight, succinct and well formed. There was a million different directions you could have went and made a lot of varied arguments, but you went with the ones hardest to attack and let the others fall by the wayside, all the while keeping your tone level.
ie) a respected report, then a intangible ‘talking point’ of independence from oil (which is impossible to attack/rebut without looking like schmoe) and then put a little ‘Economics 101′ for him on scale and supporting technologies with a future
/beauty, that is the kind of voice electric cars need…keep it up
//also points to the Post for hosting it too
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:05 am
Good for the Post for publishing it!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Isn’t it amazing how the elite (like Mr. Lane) don’t blink at spending $35,000 on a car that they desire for priorities as mundane as style and finish. Yet, spending the same money on a car with exciting cutting edge technology must somehow be financially justified to them? Tell me, Mr. Lane, how’s the return-on-investment coming on your BMW purchase? Have you turned a profit yet?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:06 am
And now…a little sidetrack.
My apologies to the thread…don’t bother to comment on it for a while (if you want to), so Lyle can bask in the glow so rightly deserved…but it is time-sensitive, so I’m putting it up.
——–
GM has a press conference at 9AM (it is about the quarterly results), but sometimes we get Volt-ish tidbits:
You can get the hotlink here if your interested:
http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/earnings/index.jsp
Q1 results were:
Net Income -6.0 Billion
Cash burn: -10.2 billion
Revenue: 22.4 billion (down 20 billion or 47%)
Cash on Hand 11.6 billion
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:14 am
The nations that manage to break free from oil will be the most prosperious, secure and healthy. I’m hoping we will be one of the largest to do it first. I do find it funny that everyone who disses the electric car movement forgets to meantion the importance it has for national security.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:15 am
Right on Lyle.
The basic premise is simple. If there is a need for a product then it is best for the product to exist at the time it is actually needed. If not then the need cannot be satisfied in a timely manner.
The use of oil in it’s current forms is unsustainable. A blunt measuring stick for that is the price of oil. Mr. Lane clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding the product/need relationship when he states “Unless and until gas prices shoot up, you’d be crazy to buy one of these much-ballyhooed vehicles”.
I’m going to guess that Mr Lane would probably also be one of the people screaming about how “someone should have done something back when we had a chance” when gas hits $10-$15 a gallon.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:18 am
Good job Lyle
Now I realize op-eds are supposed to be completely one-sided and play devil’s advocate, but from reading the selected quotes posted by Lyle, I have a few questions for Charles to answer:
-What is $1B on top of a $6B quarterly loss ($10B cash burn), or a $1T stimulus package?
-How much has the “halo” effect helped Toyota with the Prius?
-So it is “shifting emissions to coal plants” but is it easier to reduce emissions at a single central source or at multiple point sources?
-Which type of energy transport mechanism has a more developed renewable source: liquid fuels (biodiesel/ethanol) or electricity (hydro, wind, solar, tidal, etc.)?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:48 am
Lyle,
That deserves an “attaboy!”
I almost wish there was a way to shove all of the facts/numbers into the faces of all the idiots that think EVs are a waste!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:50 am
#18 statik
Sounds like a “successful” government program…the success?…they are successfully spending more taxpayer dollars. GM should be careful to spend all of their budget this year…or the government will lower their budget next year. However, I would guess that GM has a few more things to learn to become a successful government program. They might need to train their management about applying for additional funds. Unlike loans, grants do not require repayment. A successful grant writer could get funds to repay the loans though.
If GM continues to be a successful government program, the Volts should be rolling off the line “pretty much” on time next year.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Great Job Lyle.
And in case Washington Post reads this ….. Stupid articles like this is why I no longer Subscribe to the Post.
Ex wp reader Rockville MD
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Good work Lyle.
You choose the right points for the Post, with only 200 words.
Another point for another time, one that is critical to ordinary people, is that electric cars allow mobility when there is no gas to be found. Gas shortages have now occurred several times here. The price of gas on the average is one thing. Inability to go to work is quite more serious.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Lyle writes: “Glaringly omitted from his argument, in addition, are two critical items: the national security value of energy independence…”
Which has little to with the Volt. To call its impact “negligible” would be charitable.
Want energy independence? Tax oil. See? Simple. The 10K Volts GM will build in the first year and the 50K or so Volts they will build over the next few years will not impace energy dependence the way that a serious oil tax would. Further, a significant oil tax today ramps down oil demand starting TODAY. Timing matters. The more we pump and burn, the less there is.
Further, oil is used for a variety of purposes. The thin sliver of oil reduction that GM’s pitiful quantity of Volts represents will do nothing to reduce the amount of oil used to heat homes or in manufacturing uses.
The public money poured into GM to keep it afloat and, later, to fund individual purchases of the Volt achieves little. If we could increase car-pooling by a smidgen, we could do more today to reduce oil demand than the first year’s production of Volts.
Lyle continues, “…The importance of first generation technology for future cost reductions.”
Nor does the Volt achieve anything significant there.
The Volt is at the mercy of LG for its pricing. The single most expensive component is the battery. GM has no hand in the battery fundamentals (they are just except testing, testing, testing, for PR purposes, so it looks like they’re doing something). GM doesn’t own the chemistry, they’ll have no investment except the relatively low tech task of assembling cells into battery packs. Until cell prices come down or chemistry changes and the performance envelope along with it, GM can’t build a Volt that’s siginficantly better or cheaper (there will be some software advances that will help).
As GM is constrained by the battery, GM can’t even get a significant market advantage over anyone else… batteries will be sold much as they are, by battery companies, to whoever comes for them.
The Volt’s only effect, as Lane points out, is to further push GM into a hole, financially.
Well, and the taxpayer who’s helping to fund this.
Lane’s right, too, about the Volt’s effect on the fuel market… without some fundamental change in the way we price fuel, to whatever extent the Volt reduces fuel demand – and the price of fuel – this will result in less pressure to reduce fuel use.
Further, it’s a simplistic idea, at best, to talk about “energy independence.” Elminating oil imports is not only insanely difficult but it’s foolish. We should not aim to eliminate oil imports, we should aim to reduce our demand enough to lower the worldwide price, stop pumping up OUR oil and buy THEIR oil at prices advantageous to us. This is also difficult to achieve but less so and puts us in a better long-term strategic position.
Lane’s also correct to look at the long tailpipe issue… From a green perspective, switching from a mix of CO2 and H2O emissions in a gas vehicle to pure CO2 emissions at a power plant is not much of an accomplishment. It’s an open question whether or not electric vehicles reduce CO2 emissions at all.
We circle back to the government money lavished on GM and the Volt. Why wait to green up the electric infrastructure? Stop propping up the Volt and make direct investments in green energy production, particularly home rooftop solar panels and local wind turbines. These distributed sources of power also have national security implications of their own and strengthen America.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:12 am
You can’t cover everything with a 200 word limit. That said, I would not mind seeing another 200 word crtique that directly addresses Lane’s consumer perspective argument. His numbers (that Volt only makes sense if oil is $280 a barrell) are so different from what I have seen before, that I suspect there are some serious flaws here. The Post article also cites a report by BCG, and I do recall a number of posts on this cite completely ripping a critical BCG report apart a month ago.
I’m thinking that if one or more of our posters out there has the time and energy, they should formulate a 200 word critique of this aspect of the article, they could post it here. Lyle could then forward the best to the Post as an additional response. Better late than never.
Guido @#1 – Mr. Lane is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Call him what you like, but he is no “commie.” Quite the opposite.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Most people here fanatics, just like Jihad following Osama nin Laden. No difference in terms of fanaticism.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Charles Lane probably does not even own a car. What an idiot.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Lyle, You the man.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:26 am
#26 Charlie H
Taxing oil? That is your answer? Right now, that would completely destroy what is left of our dangling economy. Outside of major cities, public transportation is scarce: in Arkansas, it is abysmal.
Though you you are correct that the 1st and 2nd generations of the Volt will have negligible impact on energy independence, the Volt is leading a revolution to becoming free from Foreign Oil. Meaning that the Volt is leading in a direction that other competition will be forced to follow. In order to transition from Oil to EVs, the EREV is a perfect design to lead the charge (pun intended) for the advancements in Battery technology. Since the technology is not there to “quickly” refuel a large scale battery, the EREV satisfies the “range anxiety” of commuters like me who travel about 100+ miles per day, due to lack of proper public transportation (no rails or even buses to take my route).
So if you want to tax oil, then we need to have other options available. Our options need to include EVs for every vehicle type across the board. Once we have EVs for commuter cars to hauling trucks, then tax the crap out of oil and watch the EVs take over: then there will be a very large impact on energy dependence!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Great job, Lyle. I can’t say much to top the simple fact that statik praised it (jk).
We only have a year and change to do all the Volt education that we can. I’d love to see you debate this guy on TV. It’s sad that so few people read the newspaper (or anything else for that matter), so we need to get you face time or voice time stoked up!
Thanks for all you do,
Tag
LJGLOTR!! (Let’s just get Lyle on the road)
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:27 am
#4 nuclearboy: Well said. He is just an elitist BMW driving ‘American anything’ hater.
I like how he said ‘Unless and until gas prices shoot up’. Ummm, excuse me Mr. Lane, I don’t consider $2.19 a gallon during one of THE WORST recessions since the great depression to be a frickn bargain. Oil is currently selling for 50+ dollars a barrel. That is a very high price for an unrefined raw material of any type.
Any uptick in the world economy is going to send oil on its moonshot ride back to unaffordability. When this happens, who will elitist like Mr. Lane blame for: starvation caused by super high food prices (Remember last year?), gas shortages, and possibly a relapse back into a recession.
Oil (availability and prices) will be the biggest constraint on economic growth in the coming decades. Transportation needs in this country account for about half of all oil consumed and it is by far the hardest use to find a substitute for.
Only in America can somebody as utterly stupid as Charles Lane get a high paying job running off at the mouth. He should run for congress.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:37 am
One more thought.
Now that the word about the Chevy Volt is getting out, we are starting to see negative press from the social elitists. (Charles Lane and David Letterman are the tip of the iceberg).
How many here think this bashing would be taking place if it was a Toyota Volt instead??
Charles Lane Op-Ed:
Toyota will be coming out with a revolutionary new car that will change the face of transportation and drastically reduce the world demand for oil.
This new technology, if applied to the entire transportation fleet, could be the key to saving the world from the coming ecological disaster caused by man made global warming……………………
—————————————————————————————————
Stop me when I’m wrong.
Any thoughts on this?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Great job Lyle!
To be fair, it wasn’t idiotic like the op ed piece in the WSJ. That one was embarrassing. This one is reasonable enough, it simply suffers from the problem identified by Jim I and Jim in PA, namely, that all new technology is expensive. They key question is “does it compete on a new axis”. In the case of the Volt the answer is “Yes, it lets you drive without gasoline”. That’s exciting, which Mr. Lane would understand if he paid us a visit and saw all those “NPNS” statements.
OK. The people are ahead of the punditry. Anything else new? LOL
#34 solo – Rather than a change in coverage I’d think we’re just getting more coverage. As the number of news items expands you’ll see more negative pieces. Also keep in mind that the earlier coverage was from more “Green” oriented news sources. Now we’re seeing articles from more mainstream press.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Lyle: Enjoy reading your posts. Keep up the good work you are doing to promote the Chevy Volt. There will always be people who will mock what they don’t understand, but don’t let them get to you. It should only make those of us who beleive in the Volt keep working that much harder to make sure it gets to the market.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:43 am
I’m a little worried about the national security issue. Say that the Volt is tremendously successful and we cut our oil needs (for cars) by 50%.
Logic says that 50% of the oil industry (gas producing) will go out of business. The question is: which ones? Economics would indicate that the ones to survive will be the ones who can produce the product for the cheapest price. Now, is that domestic suppliers?
I don’t think so. Saudi Arabia has no other undustry (to speak of) besides oil, so no matter how low the world price goes, they (the workers) will be willing to take a pay cut and the government will be willing to allow the producers to ignore environmental regulations. Those conditions are not present in the U.S.
I’m afraid that as long as we need gasoline, we will be dependent on foreign oil because the U.S. will never be the cheapest supplier.
You can’t change the laws of economics.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:45 am
#34 solo,
Sadly, you are correct. It will take something drastic, like the Volt, to be able to change the public perception of domestic vehicles.
The media has manipulated the masses enough to where they just assume that Japanese cars (Toyotas and Hondas) are not only much better quality but that they still have better gas mileage (which is no longer true: just look at Malibu vs Camry – both non-hybrids).
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:48 am
The Post proves that today there is just (bad) opinion reporting. Investigative reporting no longer exists. It does not support the cause of the liberal or conservative to do so. They would have t publish the facts and the truth would come out – how would that ever help them?
Good letter Lyle. Now if we can just get you on TV with Jay to smack Dave down a few notches!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:48 am
#32 Tagamet says “We only have a year and change to do all the Volt education that we can”
Hmmmm………. I’m not sure I’m in favor of this. The more people get excited about the Volt the longer the line or the higher the price will be! Can’t we hold off at least until statik gets one?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:50 am
MarkinWI Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Guido @#1 – Mr. Lane is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Call him what you like, but he is no “commie.” Quite the opposite.
——
a) WTF ?? Anybody who is a 1) Journalist and 2) Writes for the WaPo is a commie by association, if nothing else.
b) Looking up Mr. Lanes’ credentials, I see he is a former editor of Newsweek – see point a) above.
c) I see he also was lead editor of “The New Republic”, a liberal rag. In fact, he was in power during the infamous Stephen Glass scandal – he accepted responsibility for Glass’s fabrications. I’m sure you WISH he were a conservative ( like Tom Daschle and Joe Biden, for instance ! ).
Liberal elitists are notorious for eating their young ( note how quickly the liberal media ….lead by the assinine John Stewart – turned on staunch liberal Jim Cramer when he dared question the massive spending bill by Barry Ospenda ).
Note as well how blue-state liberal strongholds on both coasts lead the nation in foreign car registrations, in spite of their “allegiance” to their komrades in the UAW…. while red states in the midwest and south have long been amongst the strongest supporters of the US auto industry. The ignorant UAW leadership ( lead by Ron Middlefinger ) would rather lead his lemming membership over the blue state cliff, however, and continue their march of ignorance.
Sorry for the rant. I’m conservative when it comes to fiscal and security matters, but a tree-hugger at heart ! Again, Lyle – very well done!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:50 am
That’s good Lyle that the website link got in there. 200 words is not enough. Hopefully, this will expose this site to more people, so that they may learn a lot more about the Volt.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Charles Lane is an idiot. His article is so one-sided and biased against anything opposite a gas guzzling, internal combustion engine vehicle that he loses any credibility he may have had.
Your rebuttal was well worded and to the point. We have to keep telling people that having millions of polluting cars on the road is much less efficient than having a handful of electric power plants producing the energy. Those very plants have stringent pollution requirements that reduce pollution though not the CO2 releases.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Lyle,
Pretty good retort. I wouldn’t change one word.
.. . …
. . . … . . . Ok, . . . maybe one word. In the last sentence, I’d change “Volt” to “EV1″.
Oh yeah . . .AND I’d drop any mention of government subsidies (funneling tax dollars into bankrupt companies just isn’t as popular as it used to be).
That’s my opinion.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:10 am
#26 charlie h said:
We circle back to the government money lavished on GM and the Volt. Why wait to green up the electric infrastructure? Stop propping up the Volt and make direct investments in green energy production, particularly home rooftop solar panels and local wind turbines. These distributed sources of power also have national security implications of their own and strengthen America.
==========================
Of course you are right, there are more worthy projects of which money should be spent…and the Volt is a marginal piece of the ‘eco-future’ at best, and has no business, or viable way to come to market.
But this is a electric car site…so that is the angle we come from, and Lyle represented his case about his little piece of the pie about as well as could be done in 200 words (…although I count more)
Your logic is also correct, you are drawing the proper conclusion…and looking at the big picture, they are spot on. The only thing missing is the fact we don’t live in a vacuum, and all things are not done because they make sense.
This is America, where we don’t fund things because it is right or wrong…we fund things because of public perception, or to push the ball further down the road to our children so we can feel the least amount of hardship today.
That is why I complimented Lyle’s rebuttal in #15. He didn’t try to come down to a nuts and bolts level and try to make sense of the project, he whipped out the the platitudes and the points that are unpopular to retort to:
-respected report
-foreign oil
-and stated some basic economics principles
It is what you don’t see in his argument that is the genius…there is no ‘the Volt specifically makes sense because…’ anywhere in his reply.
So sure, there are a lot more things that should take precedence before the Volt is even considered to be funded (and propping up GM to keep the Volt alive is asinine…but there is also a billion projects less worthy too. (*cough* hydrogen *cough*)
End of the day, we are here because we are selfish and self-serving, like everyone else on the planet. I know I am…I can admit it. We want a fricken’ electric car already…and we recognize that GM and the Volt has a legitimate of shot at getting us one, and anyone that is willing to plunk down $40,000 to get a EV from GM is giving their tacit approval to everything that has gone on to get them here. (including myself)
I come here (almost) everyday, not to talk about the world’s problems, or my stance on the environment, or to randomly bash GM (although that is a fun side perk), but inherently to get my daily dose of news that tells me that MY electric vehicle is still coming, whether that be from GM…or news that the iMiev (that DonC hates me talking about so much, hehe) is still coming. In fact, that is why we are all here…and in that regard, Lyle has done us (on a personal level) a service.
Mr. Lane attacked the Volt, fine…I have no problem with that at all…but he also got out the ‘big paint brush’ and attacked all electric cars, which threatens what I want…my agenda, so Lyle defended my interests by learning how to play the game at the highest level.
End of the day, all of this is about a car…and a car never makes sense in the long run, not financially, not environmentally.
Solar panels (which is also part of my own personal agenda), windfarms, hydro, taxation on ’sins’ (I like this one too) and NOT owning a car at all…those are the silver bullets of freedom from oil and a cleaner environment.
So you are right, and your post was informed and well rounded…probably a lot like what the orginal author might respond to Lyle’s comments. However, being right isn’t always (usually) enough, especially when you go against the ‘popular vote’ of the group, for the change you want to enact, you first have manipulate the minds of your audience…and thats what Lyle was doing in his response to the Post.
/just being honest
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Lyle-GREAT JOB!
Back in 1974 when I was working on the same design the attacks came often. They came so often and got so bad that the university forced me to shut down the project. The car to this day sits in a field here on my farm where I left it many years ago.
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Isn’t “The Washington Post” one of those 50-cent pieces of toilet paper sitting next to “The National Inquirer” at the checkout stand?
WGARAWTT
Who-Gives-A-Rat’s-A$$-What-They-Think
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:12 am
#33 Solo
Oil is currently selling for 50+ dollars a barrel. That is a very high price for an unrefined raw material of any type
Sorry, but the above statement makes no sense.
There is no typical or reasonable price for an unrefined raw material. Prices of raw materials are determined by supply and demand. $50 bucks a barrel is 90 cents per gallon, much cheaper than milk.
90 cents per gallon is about 10-15 cents a pound, cheaper than any agricultural product or metal ore I can think of.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:14 am
33 Solo – that’s crazy talk. You have to wait for the problem to surface, then AFTERWARDS you come up with a solution. Thats insane to try to plan a solution BEFORE the problem (sarcasm off).
37 Leon – interesting twist, but i’m not too worried. We will still need to refine all of the oil. And taxing foreign oil would cause us to use domestic. Or we could just save our domestic oil for a rainy day.
41 Guido – your post confuses me. Maybe its your internal struggle. I dont know if i’m liberal or conservative, and I have difficulty labeling others too.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:16 am
One other aspect often over looked with the electrification of cars is the fact that electric motors are FAR SUPERIOR to gasoline or diesel engines. I concede the battery storage issue compared to a tank of gas still favors a traditional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE). But as an engineer, once you break through the battery storage, an electric motor has more power, fewer parts, MUCH greater reliability and lower maintenance then an ICE. The Volt is not perfect, but someone has to step up and take a swing at it. Eventually the mileage will be stretched to 60 miles, then 100 miles and so on. Pretty soon the ICE will be dropped from the unit and ICE’s will be looked at no different than the Steam Locomotive.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:16 am
#34, solo asks, “How many here think this bashing would be taking place if it was a Toyota Volt instead??”
It’s a moot point, as Toyota would not do this. Toyota’s cars have business plans. Risky ones, sometimes, like the Prius, but their goal is to make money and they don’t green-light anything that doesn’t involve a payoff. Part of this is putting the right price on the car and focussing on costs and capabilities, rather than building cars to support massive egos.
Recent reports are, Honda and Toyota are making $3100 per hybrid. That’s actually pretty good. Along with vision, they used discipline and market focus to achieve this.
GM is on Federal welfare and there’s a massive additional subsidy in place to support the Volt. Consequently, the discussion of costs, benefits and business plans goes way beyond GM’s admirers and involves a broader discussion than whiz-bang tech.
If we’re spending Federal money, we must start with what is our GOAL and work forward to what is the best way to achieve that goal? CO2 reduction? Reduction in oil imports? Economic recovery? Pick a goal and then work forward to “how do we get there?” When you recast the question from “We’re doing the Volt, what goals can we claim it achieves?” to “Here are the goals, how can we get there?” then the Volt absolutely disappears from the solution sets.
—
#31, ArkansasVolt,
The Europeans have very high gas taxes and, yet, they somehow survive. Feel free to make the oil (or carbon) tax revenue-neutral by reducing some other tax. Make the gas taxes deductible, as they were when I was a kid (one of my chores in early April was to add up all Dad’s gas tax receipts).
But, without a gas tax or other strong disincentive to sucking up fuel, as Lane correctly notes, reductions in commuter gas use will be offset by purchasing bigger vehicles and more discretionary use of fuel.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Well fellow posters, This just shows how much work we have before the Volt hits the showroom floors. The ignorance is astounding! They always bring the tailpipe to the smokestack argument. The 40-mile-only range is also a common misunderstanding. If only we could sit everyone down, have a one hour presentation followed by a Volt test drive I think things would be fine. Unfortunately, David Letterman-like ignorance is the norm. Good luck and keep on talking. Then again, leading by example by driving your cool Volt around would be equally effective.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:22 am
One more thing…
Charles Lane should be thankful that his brainless piece was posted here since The Washington Post and just about every other newspaper will be out of business by the time the VOLT rolls in to showrooms.
He needs all the breaks he can get ‘cuz he’s probably looking for work on the Internet right now.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:26 am
VERY GOOD LYLE !
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Good retort Lyle. Like the rest have said here; there is lots of ignorance out there about the advantages of automotve electrification, but I guess about the only thing we can do is to just be out there and meet each of their arguments head on as they come. Keep up the good fight.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I’m not so sure Lane is a Letterman-idiot. I think he’s an advocate for the status quo, aka Volt roadkill.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Off topic,
Aeroflex claims their cell balancing circuitry can open up the %SOC window on Lithium Ion substantially:
“…the SOC range might be from 5% to 95%, increasing the use to 90%.”
Achieving cell balancing for lithium-ion batteries
http://ams.aeroflex.com/ProductFiles/Articles/BEUElectronicProductsArticle.pdf
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Let’s watch our wait list over next couple of days to see if there’s a spike. Currently it is at 48,049.
I’ve noticed before when this site has got external publicity the wait list has spiked. Although I wonder how well read the letters to editor section of the Post is.
I think that the joy today is more because Lyle has struck back at the Volt’s detractors rather than got a little main stream media coverage.
Aside: I’ve got my 1960’s house down to net zero energy usage recently (been approaching that target for a while). Now I’ve just got to save another 1600KWh to cover my annual EV mileage. Just one more reason to buy a Volt.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:33 am
I take issue with CO2 to defend the Volt. With global cooling in full swing and no proof human activety has made a temp difference, this is a foolish argument. Argue national security (and throw in a drill here for our own oil too) but global temp change. The is more than enough evidence which can retort any claim of man made climate change.
Also, the post is right. The Volt loses money for GM for 5-10 years. The buyer won’t see a return on investment during the lifetime of the car. Finally, if the only way to buy this through tax credits or tax based rebates, then that is ahuge problem. Sell it as a Buick or Caddy.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:34 am
DOnC re the downside of publicity:
You mentioned something called a, er, Volt? What’s a Volt? I just read the fiction section of the Post (all its pages) and some jerk mentioned a Volt, but he said the Toyota was MUCH better.
(wink)
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR********NPNS
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:35 am
51 Charlie H…
So many things to debate you one.. but so little time. I’ll just pick this one.
You said “If we’re spending Federal money, we must start with what is our GOAL and work forward to what is the best way to achieve that goal?”
Our president set a goal; 1 million plugins by 2015. Now let’s work towards it.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:40 am
51. Charlie H: Recent reports are, Honda and Toyota are making $3100 per hybrid. That’s actually pretty good. Along with vision, they used discipline and market focus to achieve this.
======
This is in their 2nd and 3rd generations. What was their bottom line on the first try? Right, they lost money on each vehicle. It is what happens with new technology.
As I said yesterday, Volt is one of the paths to the answers I want (reduced energy dependence, reduced emmissions). I hope GM is financially able to bring it to market. If not, I believe someone else will. It just makes too much sense in the short term. The Honda and Toyota (et al) vehicles are another path to the same ends.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:42 am
57 add,
Aeroflex company profile:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:eckXBuONqN0J:www.humbugpr.com/aeroflex/ATSCP.doc+aeroflex+company+profile&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:57 am
You know..GM has its troubles with the union…The Toyota approach is much more direct and simple…
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2311587/
(BTW I am just joking…)
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Great response. I don’t understand why the same people who are more than happy to bash GM over the EV1, then criticize the Volt as being “too expensive.” I haven’t heard anyone bash Tesla.
#26 Charlie H
I agree with you that we need a gas tax. But you’re contradicting yourself. First, critiquing the Volt for making gas cheaper because that reduces demand, and thus reducing pressure to reduce fuel use, and then saying we need to find ways to reduce the our oil usage and bring the price down because it makes us more independent.
Also, the US government is not propping up GM because of the Volt. They’re doing it because of the economy. Why else would they have thrown away billions on Chrysler? (So far the newly promised 9 billion brings us up to $16 billion and counting.)
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:00 am
#45 statik
I could not say it better…nice job. Anybody that pays taxes has the right (they should make it their duty) to offer an opinion on the Volt and GM since they are paying to help.
The best government programs for alternative energy are the ones that foster a self sustaining, growing, profitable industry. Does the Volt qualify? This is arguable…but this is the pro-Volt website.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:03 am
I have no idea who Charles Lane is, other than obviously someone who knows very little about either electric propulsion or the attractions thereof. I don’t swallow the implausible arguments against carbon emissions one iota these days, not after seeing evidence that contradicts everything that was originally brought forward in pro arguments by Gore and others. I think global warming scare will be seen as this generation’s Piltdown man. people are buying into it enthusiastically in almost toalt ignorance as to the science, or lack thereof. However, CO2 aside, making oil a non-wealth producing material for unsavory nations is the big objective here and no one can dispute that not using oil to power cars will
ruin oil’s financial power. It will, of course, take WAY WAY more Evs on the road than that “envisioned” by one who must be considered short-sighted (Obama and his dream of a million cars). A million
EVs won’t affect ANYTHING. We need tens of millions before the effect can even be measured. I just read one reallystupid article that proposed that the money being “spent” to save the auto makers (they are actually being LOANED, not given, money, which right off the bat tells you the article was written by a moron) instead
be spent to build an electric car. EVERYBODY is building an electric car these days. We have known how to build electric cars for the
past 100 years, and you might notice that electric cars and gas powered cars are 99% the same from the driver’s viewpoint. The problem is building the battery. I defy anyone to find a major media article about ANY technology that is , in fact, accurate enough to get better than a C+ in any college science class. Most deserve D minus or F grades. And the internet news grapevine is often worse : those articles are often written by complete amateurs.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Guido @ #41 – I think your rant illustrates my point quite well. We cannot have a reality-based conversation about what is happening in the world economy today when 30% of the poulation is still using Cold-War terminology and paradigms to view a world that has changed alot since 1950. “Communist” China is on the verge of saving interational capitalism. “Capitalist” Japan is running a nationalistic, government-supported, industrial syndicate. The old labels are not working. Our terminology and thinking need to evolve, or the U.S. will be left in the dust, wondering what happened. It’s not the 1950s anymore. The only McCarthy with a public profile in Wisconsin is coaching the Packers, not sitting in Congress.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:08 am
#62 Steven u
From our good friend John1701a…
http://john1701a.com/prius/prius-history.htm
Prius generated no profit until 2002, 5 years after its introduction, took 3 years to devellop before hitting the market (1995-1997) and sold in Japan exclusively for the first 3 years (which is typical of japanese companies to sell at home EXCLUSIVELY until they make the western versions good…all problems stay at home ina captured fleet)
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:10 am
#62, StevenU, “This is in their 2nd and 3rd generations. What was their bottom line on the first try? Right, they lost money on each vehicle. It is what happens with new technology.”
Toyota claimed the Prius was making money back in December of 2002.
Let’s also look at this in historical context, the Prius was an absolute pioneer, there weren’t any other gas-electric drivetrains on the road. The wide-angle view of the Volt is that it has a gas-electric drivetrain and is 13 years behind the Prius. With a late start like that, it should be more profitable because so many things about the market and the technology are known. An unprofitable vehicle this late in the game is a serious handicap.
—
#45, statik,
I see your point. If this was just about electric cars, I’d be posting mostly positive remarks. But we’re here about the GM-Volt, with a $7500 subsidy that can’t be separated from the vehicle. Every time I think about the car, I think about it in light of, “What else could we be doing with this money?”
—
#61, k-dawg, “Our president set a goal; 1 million plugins by 2015. Now let’s work towards it.”
I voted for Obama. I like Obama. And, while I have a fair amount of confidence in him, he isn’t perfect and I’m not accepting his goals without question.
If you are serious about this goal, then I suggest you embrace Toyota, Ford and Honda, because there’s no way GM is going to get us to 1 million plugins by 2015, anyway.
GM plans just 10K Volts by the end of 2011 and who knows whether or not GM will encounter problems that derail that timeline. Go back to the recent discussions of how the ICE will work… there’s a lot of unexplored territory there and the public may well end up not liking the way the Volt drives. A significant chunk of the discussion on GM-Volt is about the engineering challenges. This vehicle isn’t a ‘gimme’ by any means.
Toyota and Ford are working on what they consider to be more cost-effective strategies for shorter-range vehicles that will still have the potential to dramatically reduce daily fuel consumption for many commuters but are likely to be more saleable and, as extensions of existing platforms, more likely to work satisfactorily right out of the box.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Great response Lyle!!
Keep up the good work!!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Static @#45 – I agree and I don’t. The major problem I see with not addressing the “nuts and bolts” of whether the Volt will be able to make sense for the individual consumer is that we need more consumers to buy them in order to get the ball rolling. The data used by Mr. Lane seem exaggerated. Negative publicity given by Mr. Lane and Mr. Letterman have the effect of discouraging potential consumers from even examining the Volt as a possible purchase, and so they need to be challenged on a “nuts and bolts” level as well.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Personally, I don’t think that hybrid or BEV vehicles will make a significant impact on the amount of oil that we import during my lifetime. The sheer number of vehicles that need to be replaced and the number of replacement vehicles (or conversions) simply argues against a significant impact in the next couple of decades. Having said that, I’m thrilled with the emerging multiple versions of gas sipping vehicles scheduled to hit the driveways in the near term.
First (of course) Lyle and statik need to get their Volts, but then millions, or tens of millions of vehicles need to be built, converted, and retired. We can’t get to where we need to go without that first car.
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR********NPNS
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:24 am
#45 Statik
I agree with you that a car doesn’t make sense in the long run financially, or environmentally. And I live in NYC, where we have great public transportation, so I really don’t need a car. At least, not right now.
Unfortunately, in most of the US, that’s not the case. Most Americans need cars just to get to work or even to go food shoping. And its that’s not just suburbia. Most of our cities don’t have decent public transportation.
Of course, the best solution to our environmental and oil usage problems would be a viable public transportation system. But there are two major obstacles. First, it’s very expensive, and the US government still doesn’t seem to feel the need to spend enough money to get us there. Second, it would take at least 10-20 years to have one up and running. Electric cars can be on the road much faster than that.
Besides, even if we did have decent public transportation, people would still want to drive. Or they wouldn’t sell any cars in Europe. And electric cars are a great way of minimizing the impact on the environment.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:26 am
When I drove up at work today, a construction worker was smoking a cigarette by where I parked. He noted that my electric vehicle was “fast”, “kinda quiet” and “pretty cool”, but mostly seemed to think it was no big deal. He certainly didn’t have anything bad to say about it. This kind of attitude is healthy in that widespread acceptance goes hand in hand with widespread adoption.
I’m starting to get surprised by the folks who think my ride is something different or brand new. It’s just my registered daily driver that goes like snot and leave a huge smile on my face every day that just happens to use electric drive and have a lithium based power pack.
Folks around here think our few years old new baby bullet commuter train is really, really, really cool (and convenient and fun and interesting). 99.9% of them have no idea that it’s electric drive with a diesel engine for electric generation, but the smooth stops and starts, and massive smooth acceleration and deceleration is something they frequently note out loud and like (how do they think it can do that? certainly not with gas and gears).
Electric drive is gaining ground like a (electric drive) freight train and nothing can stop it (not that it wouldn’t benefit from massive advertising and marketing campaigns (get ‘em out there – malls (hey, you can race ‘em inside the mall (no pollution or fire hazard in EV mode) and you can recharge them in the food court while you’re inside slurping on a frozen drink listening to tunes, fairs, block parties, shows, convention events, in front of city hall, etc. (NOT as pace cars, which always suffer when compared to 200 mph race cars (remember the segway?)). While you’re all waiting for the Volt, if you have a motorcycle endorsement on your license, why don’t you buy something a lot cheaper, a motorcycle that uses electric drive and a lithium power pack right now, in the meantime? They’re available now (order on the internet and have it shipped UPS) , extremely fun, high performance, and low cost relative to a car. That’ll help the Volt, as it creates demand for and consumer awareness and acceptance of lithium power packs and electric drive, both directly and indirectly as other commuters see you and start taking electric drive for granted. I’m not going to mention brands, ’cause there are several US and foreign makers which manufacture off road motorcycles, on road maxi-scooters and full motorcycles, all electric, (not to mention all the low end scooters and e-bikes, like A2B) and I don’t want to take sides. You can look them up on the internet easily, though. hint: (Q (Swiss), V (US) , Z (US) are my favorites).
The Volt will be the latest, greatest but is certainly not the first. Jump on the electric drive freight/commuter train now and get some electric drive experience under your belt in preparation for using the Volt.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:27 am
@carcus1 57
Off topic,
Aeroflex claims their cell balancing circuitry can open up the %SOC window on Lithium Ion substantially:
“…the SOC range might be from 5% to 95%, increasing the use to 90%.”
——————————————————————
Aw man, that’s taking the cells to NDE.
(N)ear
(D)eath
(E)xperience
But I’m going too look into it……lol
Sounds interesting.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:31 am
RE Kent #67
Quote:
It will, of course, take WAY WAY more Evs on the road than that “envisioned” by one who must be considered short-sighted (Obama and his dream of a million cars). A million
EVs won’t affect ANYTHING.
——————–
The dream / target is a million by 2015.
So in 2011 maybe 10,000 from GM, maybe 5,000 or 10,000 all others combined.
2012, maybe 100,000 from GM, and 30,000 from others
2013, maybe 200,000 from GM (if gas price is up) and ?? from all others
2014, Some in GM have said “sky is the limit” or something like that.
2015 — could be 1,000,000 cumulative of prior years, but likely it will be a few more years before that target is met.
The point is that you have to start somewhere. I didn’t hear Obama say, “We only need 1,000,000 plug in vehicles”. If he said “I want all vehicles to be EV” or off gas he would be called a fool, but that’s a goal for maybe 2040 (pick your own date).
He set a tough but possibly reachable goal / dream, don’t take that as an end target! When eating an elephant eat it one piece at a time!
I would view the 1,000,000 by 2015 as far sighted, because it is an interim target, and I believe he has a much higher target beyond that.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Good points overall. My only question is with the line: ” Our
country is weakened by dependence on oil-rich hostile foreign nations.” Since when are Canada and Mexico (where we get the majority of our oil) hostile nations?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Statik @ 45,
Probably one of your best posts.
But I take exception to your “perception” .
Why do we have to play the media’s game? Why does everything have to be about image over substance? Wouldn’t honest solutions be a lot better than manipulation?
If GM was working on a low cost BEV (like the imiev) then Lyle wouldn’t have to play any games at all. Lightweight BEV’s are truly economy cars and when the mass commuting public realizes their savings in fuel as well as maintenance, the cat will be out of the bag. Any car company that hasn’t got a BEV to compete is going to be left searching for excuses and more financial support while they retool.
/trying to keep it real
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:42 am
According to the latest reports from the Energy Information Administration, the price of a barrel of crude oil will be above $85.00 by 2011, over $95.00 by 2012, and in 2013 will pass $100.00 never again to drop below that benchmark. They could be wrong, but it is their job to make the most reliable estimate possible. So gas prices may well be back above $4.00 a gallon just as Volt’s and competitive products begin to enter the marketplace.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Fact #1: The electric car is here to stay. #2: The Volt is coming along – maybe too slowly for some … but nevertheless coming along.
#3: We are on the cusp of a one-battery technology for the life of the car. #4: GM is more valuable to the United States, in industrial contribution, security, employment and GNP than BofA and Citi banks combined. A few billion to bailout GM is a small price – particularly given these lost jobs cannot be replaced. GM can’t be replaced. BTW Lane: Have you noticed all the finest U.S. papers are quitting, reorganizing or in Chapter 11?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:50 am
79 add,
The biggest market for electric cars may very well be those who truly want to save money. How odd would it be that if all this “top down” electric car acceptance philosophy was turned on it’s head? If battery prices fall like some are predicting, the BEV sales could come in volume from the bottom up.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:55 am
While Lane’s cookie-cutter collection of historical and passe’ theme; “there’s no such thing as advancement” cliche’s might be excusable for a closed mind in 2007 or 2008, he should publish an equivalent of a retraction in these exciting and well-advanced times of 2009.
To Mr. Charles Lane: Sir, have you since learned anything of the battery advancements and other aspects about this technology for the responsibility you have as a writer at the Washington Post?
If you have cared enough to pay attention to this valuable site, you likely would send an amended story out from your publication ASAP, as very many areas of society are converging toward making Voltec technologies, and EREV in particular, a valuable part of their governmental and private business objectives and plans.
This is one thing that is frequently seen in major publications where the writer who is not as technical, is unable to understand the extremely high technical merits of an unstoppable public drive toward these goals. (And, anchors the publication into an historical technical rut).
I see the Voltec technologies as a way for all vehicle manufacturers to strip away all the the excessively compound-complex technologies required to make high runtime-hours Internal Combustion Engines serve the public efficiently for 12 years per vehicle. (In addition to all the other far-reaching benefits).
In addition, the Voltec “clean sheet of paper” design-wise offers and outstanding set of opportunities to cut out the most financially-offensive technologies of the last 100 years. (The very nastiest being that forty pounds of g-d 12 volt lead-acid battery, that has been proven to be just far too much trouble for motorists.)
(If junior wants to have a 90 ampere stereo amplifier in there, let him be the one to buy an approved $900 power converter for his Voltec vehicle, not the rest of us who just want a nice CD sound every once in a while. And, we refuse to alter **anything** in our Volts).
While aftermarket marketing departments tend to serve the superlative interests of what is the “latest and the greatest” sensational “anything”, most people just need dependable and green-energy-powered transportation. Consumer-selectable “green energy” is available right now from Austin Energy at a penny-a-mile for a Volt (with smart electric meters being installed city-wide here in Austin, TX, and, that “green energy” soon to be reduced to a fraction of a penny-per-mile from Austin Energy.
Yes, many of us are the ones who will pay more likely what we ought to afford, but, on the other hand, it is these first buyers who ought to be very highly praised for being the financial pioneers who financially pave the way for the rest, instead of getting shot in the back with arrows from “fixed-viewpoint” writing such as Lane’s past story.
But the first buyers of Voltec will indeed be very highly regarded no matter who they are.
Dan Petit Austin TX
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:55 am
GM needs to sell just the BEV Volt. We know it works, it’s been tested. Building it will be easier. You won’t have to mount the Genset o radiator or fuel tank or exhaust….etc….
I think it’s a major Loss not doing this. Build a BEV as a prelude then release an EREV as well as offer an upgrade package for the EREV for those who already bought a BEV version. The dealers will make additional $$$ that way.
I am soooo done making my deposit to the OPEC fund.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:58 am
#76 CaptJack,
Sounds too good to be true. But the product is coming from a company that’s been around since 1937 (and been to the moon).
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Now we know why this paper and many others are on the brink of bankruptcy.
With writers like this what else can you expect.
Great job Lyle !!!!
Tom M
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Lyle:
Nice letter. Thanks.
Some may say that the investment in the Volt actually saved GM, or at least posponed the inevitable by several years. Without the promise of the Volt, President Obama would have a lot less motivation (some may call it cover) to try to save GM.
#10 Jean-Charles Jacquemin:
Well said. Thanks.
I have just been reading “The World is Flat” by Thomas L. Friedman. Tough going, but I’m about through it. It puts a whole new perspective on your insightful comments about the internet, et al, tying all of us together.
#17 Jim in PA:
Amen!
#18 statik:
There is a complete story about the GM financials you cite up on the Yahoo site now. Scary stuff.
#23 Tagamet:
“The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.”
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 11:03 am
@carcus1
“Sounds too good to be true. But the product is coming from a company that’s been around since 1937 (and been to the moon).”
I know, but one could dream though…lol
That’s an ideal rollout plan. BEV as the prelude then EREV. You have now covered a good portion of the demographics that want electric drive. Like me the BEV is all I need. There’s plenty who will buy but don’t price it out of range. Ithink it just makes too much sense, that’s the problem.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Good job, Lyle!
You will have to brush up your resume to include not only neurologist and blogger, but also a teacher of Elementary Education.
Of course, since some other these writers and celebrities think they are so special, maybe we should call it Special Education.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Whoa, GM burned $10.2 Billion dollars in the last 3 months. They are burning it faster than we can bail them out, and they now want another $11.6 Billion! Clearly whatever they are still doing isn’t viable. As important as the Volt is, when do we say enough is enough?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124169438005795681.html
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 11:14 am
@Brian 90
“Clearly whatever they are still doing isn’t viable. As important as the Volt is, when do we say enough is enough? ”
I am seriously starting to question that now. As a tax payer funding this, what do I get out of this deal except for paying full price to a company partially owned by the Govt (aka tax payers) and run by the UAW, that I have no decision making in how much is given to them to blow.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 11:23 am
#80 MarkH:
I don’t doubt it for a second. We are on a temporary stay of execution, and we had better make the best use of it.
“In time of peace, prepare for war!”
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 11:42 am
ditto.
Go Lyle!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 11:48 am
#26 Charlie H – The purpose of a gas tax is to reduce gasoline demand, just as you state. But how is demand reduced? Will people move their home or their job to reduce commute time? Nope. They’ll buy a more fuel efficient car. Like the Volt. So in my opinion, a fuel tax is a great idea, but should be coupled with investments in fuel efficienct technologies. That way you are creating the problem (high gas prices) and consumer solution (fuel efficient cars) at the same time.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Straw man. n. See Charles Lane.
Most of the lies written about electric drive is to play devil’s advocate, to provoke clear minded reasons in response to explain why it’s superior. It’s impossible to quell all the FUD and outright lies about electric drive vehicles. It does provoke some debate and public notice, which is good for electric drive. The real danger is if people don’t buy them when they’re offered, so having folks shout “the automobile can never happen – it’ll make your blood boil if you go over 20 mph” from their horses, as Mr Lane does, is a double edged sword. BCG is uninformed, out of date and unreliable if you want predictions that have stood up to test of reality (all auto analysts two year old prediction of current auro markets have been completely wrong relative to reality – this is a tipping point, which way it goes depends on your (look in mirror) personal actions and spending over the next two years – will you get an electric drive vehicle to keep your fuel dollars in the US economy or keep funding overseas terrorists?).
Many of the comments on this thread are negative towards electric drive, so why are you here on this site?
#2: Electric drive also provides superior performance, serving sef-interest. No altruistic motive required. Greed is good = high performance electric drive.
#4: GM did crush EVs. We still hope that GM will redeem itself with the Volt and the 2009 plug in Saturn, as promised by GM in 2007. (1 fail so far on the Saturn plug in for 2009, last chance for GM redemption, going, going,…)
#5: Consumers are far more powerful than big oil. You do something about it right now. Get off your a$$ and buy an electric drive vehicle today (lots and lots of two wheeled choices – do some research – ask the informed if you aren’t sure about the results). The solution is found in the mirror. Now do something to make sure you get the outcome you want.
#21 – even if an electric car is fueled 100% by coal, the overall poulltion is less, but no, its NOT “shifting emissions to coal plants.” My electric vehicle is 100% wind powered by local commercial wind farm, so no pollution at all and minimal transmission losses. Reality beats lies and incorrect generalizations (the US doesn’t use 100% coal, and regions have different mixes (large amounts of hydro power in NW, for example) every time.
#26 You are wrong. Information is critical to human behavior. When people see that something is possible, and goes like snot off the starting line, they reach a mental tipping point. After that, adoption is gradual but inevitable and ramps up (we still have 9 million horses in the US so the automobile is not fully adopted yet). But people have to see it first. That first one is critical, as the all the other millions have to follow. A reduction is reduction, no matter how small. Regardless of your rant, less money to violent regions opposed to us will occur with less oil used, even a tiny amount, as the price goes down. Hybrids have already saved millions of barrels of oil and kept millions of dollars from going overseas top volatile areas and made gas cost less than it would have otherwise. The Volt is a simple continuation af that. Energy independence with electric drive is real, as any energy source (such as hyrdo, wind, solar, domestic, compressed air, domestic natural gas, etc.etc.) that can make electricity can be used with it, while with existing gassers you are stuck with only oil. The power packs simple carry the electricity in the vehicle. Whatever is cheapest/easiest/most energy for smallest weight can work. Maybe lithium today, tomorrow whatever else works best. Plug and play chnage your power pack to a new, improved energy carrier any time. Try that with a gas tank. What’s the point in more wind farms if we don’t take advantage of them with electric transportation at the same time. That’s a simple chicken and egg – solution, do both at the same time.
ok, I’ll leave the rest alone. Too much negative, wrong misinformation about electric drive, grid, etc. in this thread to swat at one time. It’s like smack-a-mammal (not TM).
The Volt specifically makes sense because you have to start somewhere, sometime. What’s possible in the first generation is good enough to produce them right this second and be competitive against full gassers, and in many ways superior. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. Otherwise we would have no automobile, no electric lights, no other millions of modern products that work just swell, none of which is perfect.
As an electric vehicle owner and daily user, I have to say, electric drive vehicles are so falling off a log obvious that folks who naysay them must not own and use one daily, so they don’t know what they’re talking about. More personal experience with electric drive and less yammering is what’s called for now. Charles Lane can go out and buy one, use it properly for a year, then report his successes (I don’t care to hear if he’s incompetent with it) to us, and then maybe I’ll listen to his semi-informed opinion at that point.
Talk over. Act now.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
#95 EV owner,
I’d like to act on a sub $25k BEV with air conditioning, highway speed capable, and at least 60 miles of range. (some kind of battery warranty from an established manufacturer would be highly desirable, as well).
Suggestions?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
carcus1 Says:
#95 EV owner,
I’d like to act on a sub $25k BEV with air conditioning, highway speed capable, and at least 60 miles of range. (some kind of battery warranty from an established manufacturer would be highly desirable, as well).
Suggestions?
———————————————————————
Ditto here. Although 40 range will be more than adequate, freeway is a must. I’ll hack into the DC rail to add my additional packs later.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Charlie H #26
________________
Although strategically buying their oil at lower prices seems to put us on a better footing, actually displacing oil could have a more profound effect. Displacing the use of their oil means any conflicts in the region would have no strategic effects on us in the first place. Therefore your argument misses a fundamental flaw. To which…
If there was no market for their oil because we led the way in economically providing sustainable substitutions, geography dictates their lands revert back* over time to providing a subsistence economy for sparsely located nomadic populations, insuring we would not have a strategic reason for sending land based troops there again, as well as maintaining what’s left of our own strategic oil.
The pertinent questions are then what to use to substitute for oil and is it too late to try effectively?
*Much like portions of Russia are depopulating now.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
In other news, Fiat is offering GM stock in its new company in exchange for both Opel and GM’s Latin American operations.
I still don’t understand what Fiat is bringing to the table here. Am I missing something?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124170522501296103.html#articleTabs_comments%26articleTabs%3Darticle
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
#95 Electric Vehicle Owner
#96 carcus1
#97 CaptJackSparrow
and anyone else that has input…
I drive 50 miles one way each day. If I have errands to run on the way home, I may drive about 110-120 miles. Like carcus1 and CaptJackSparrow, I need about a $25k BEV with air conditioning and highway speed capable, but also I need about 120+ mile range.
What would you suggest for me?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
OK I know nothing of Charles Lane. But I’m familiar with the America hating Washington Compost (er Post). I’ll do a bio on him. But I’m willing to be a month’s pay that he has no technical background at all and he is operating from a set of assumptions generated from poor information. Solo is correct. If it were Toyota coming out with this vehicle he would be asking why an America company isn’t doing it. I’ll bet also that Lane knows nothing or next to nothing about automobiles- EREV, All Electric, ICE, or Diesel. Well I’m off to go find out about this clown Charles Lane.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
70 Charlie H.
Key word is “towards”. I do not believe we will hit the 1million by 2015, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
I will embrace the Asian, Euro, Russian, etc automakers as well as the domestic ones. BUT, I will embrace the Volt more because IMO, it’s the best design. I think series hybrid is the way to go and its what I’ll buy. I could have bought, or can buy now, other hybrids, but I want a truely electric car, not electric assist. Now you may say buy a BEV, however I dont think the tech is ready, for my criteria anyway. I also think the series hybrid is the gateway to a mass produced BEV for all markets.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
#78
James T Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Good points overall. My only question is with the line: ” Our
country is weakened by dependence on oil-rich hostile foreign nations.” Since when are Canada and Mexico (where we get the majority of our oil) hostile nations?
_______________
Exactly, they’re not, so Lyle must, prepare for a big surprise, ta daaaa, be referring to nations that fund or enable terrorism. You left off Venezuela which currently appears to be only verbally hostile, which really doesn’t count, and Russia which seems to be only collaterally hostile.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
#94, Jim in PA, in re gas tax and its effects: “Nope. They’ll buy a more fuel efficient car. Like the Volt.”
Or, not like the Volt. Like the Yaris. Or the Prius. Or a Focus. Or a Civic. Or they’ll car-pool (preserving the value of their car, reducing maintenance and, very likely, insurance expenses). Or take the bus. Or walk (health benefits). Or cycle (ditto). Or move (yes, some will but more likely, those that intended to move anyway will make different choices). Or plan their trips better. Or ask their boss to let them tele-commute.
In our neighborhood, there’s a large class of people who are ignoring a free mass transit option in favor of driving… high school students. When gas hit $4/gallon, the parking lot at the local high suddenly had a lot more spare room in it and the busses suddenly had a lot more students in them. Getting teens out of cars and onto the school bus makes more sense than giving them a Volt instead of an old Pontiac Grand Spam.
A gas tax is pressure on ALL behavior involving use of the automobile and there are many solutions.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Off the track,
Last day i got an idea to make ICE more efficient ( 120 mpg cars)
http://yankandpaste.blogspot.com/2009/05/np-stroke-engine-and-active-stoke-cycle.html
Wondering how blunder it looks
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
96 carcus and 97 CJS
Sure, they’re two wheeled electric motards (off road street legal motorcycles with dual sport tires and fully highway capable) as you might expect based on your price demands – the highest performing, longest range, lowest price ones I know about are the Zero S (US) and the Quantya Strada (Swiss). They exceed your speed and range requirements, cost much less than half of your price requirement, even before the tax credits and any state incentives, and are light enough that you should be able to get permission to toss it on the train and strap the tires in the bicycle areas. The air conditioning comes from closable vents in your helmet and from vast quantities of fresh air rushing at your happy face. I think Vectrix is coming out or already has out a higher range version of their maxi-scooter (street legal and highway capable, speed meets your criterea) as an option, but I don’t know the details.
Don’t expect to go 60 miles at freeway speeds. Indeed, I don’t suggest freeway travel at all – it’s for military and commercial hauling. Take the scenic, interesting route instead.
You can order any of them online and have them shipped UPS or other carrier and/or get at a local dealer, in the case of Quantya and Vectrix.
Other benefits vary, but in my area include free city parking in parking garages, free use of any city/state electric outlet I want, etc., etc.
They all come with warranties but proper use is a billion times better than a piece of paper. I suggest doing 30 foot jumps with them daily just be be sure they can take the pounding.
CJS – Freeway is a must means I don’t like how you think. I hate boring, ugly freeways and think they should they should be restricted to their original designed use – military and heavy commercial hauling vehickes only.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
@Electric Vehicle Owner 106
Why is it when such questions as we rose asking for a vehicle with the specs carcus1 and I imposed, it’s always a 2 wheeler that is presented to us.
I will have to add that I need to take 2 kids to school as well so puttin one on the handlebars and behind me will not work. I wonder where in this we ever mentioned a motorcycle?
There’s really only one I can find relatively close in price range…
http://www.hybridtechnologies.com/reserve_wave?id=Wave
I dunno how many it seats though.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
#99
LauraM
In other news, Fiat is offering GM stock in its new company in exchange for both Opel and GM’s Latin American operations.
I still don’t understand what Fiat is bringing to the table here. Am I missing something?
_______________________
Cajones!
Fiat brings a steel pair and a swagger, but no cash. I don’t get it but sometimes it’s said to work in finding a suitable suitor. I have yet to see anyone in Govt or industry smitten, maybe Statik has the latest news on the effects the offer.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
107 CaptJack,
“. . . take 2 kids to school as well so puttin one on the handlebars . . ”
____________
At least only the one up front ends up with bugs in his teeth.
—
On EVii : that’s the company that had the full page add in usatoday a couple weeks back. Wonder if GM’s ever gonna want that name back?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
MarkinWI Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Guido @ #41 – I think your rant illustrates my point quite well. We cannot have a reality-based conversation about what is happening in the world economy today when 30% of the poulation is still using Cold-War terminology and paradigms to view a world that has changed alot since 1950. “Communist” China is on the verge of saving interational capitalism. “Capitalist” Japan is running a nationalistic, government-supported, industrial syndicate. The old labels are not working. Our terminology and thinking need to evolve, or the U.S. will be left in the dust, wondering what happened. It’s not the 1950s anymore. The only McCarthy with a public profile in Wisconsin is coaching the Packers, not sitting in Congress.
————
Who the hell are you, Keith Olbermann ? If your idea of “evolving” is picking up everybody’s bar tab and printing endless supplies of money, you are probably a leftist.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Ever notice you are damned it you do and double damned if you don’t? Like #26 can’t seem to fathom that you have to start somewhere. Like the Volt will be the only EV in the world? On the other side you get bashed by the how dare you kill the EV crowd. Come on, give me a break! Ya can’t win for losing in the world of public opinion.
So BRAVO Lyle, keep up the good work. Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead, and as Robert Heinlien once wrote – Always listen to experts. They’ll tell you what can’t be done and why. Then go do it.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
As I said, you have to start somewhere, somehow, sometime. Don’t make perfect the enemy of the good. These are plenty good enough for many people and many situations.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Arkansas Volt
Telecommute.
Live and work closer together. You are the definition of sprawl, the land use equivalent of US obesity.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
@carcus1 109
“At least only the one up front ends up with bugs in his teeth.”
A little Saran Wrap on his face for a few minutes and he’ll b alright…
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
CJS
‘Cause a two wheeler using any power gives you the most energy efficient form of moderately quick land transportation for an individual, at least in the physics reality of this universe, until very high speed aerodymanics intrude.
For four people, get anything with motive electric drive, such as any existing full hybrid vehicle. It can be converted to a plug in at your whim as you spend the coin on it. Indeed, if you already have a Prius or Ford Escape hybrid you can have a plug in power pack professional installed right away. Info also available online.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
CJack @ 114,
There ya go.
Just don’t forget to be a responsible parent and cut a couple air holes.
(sounds like some scene from Malcolm in the MIddle)
p.s. I think the Aptera 2e’s got a kid seat. So that might work. Just gotta stunt their growth somehow so you can all fit in their for several years.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
#108 jeffhre
Well, it worked for Chrysler. Although at least there, they are bringing technology to the table. Personally, I’d rather Chrysler leased Ford or GM’s small car designs. And I still don’t see why that’s worth practically giving them the company along with an additional $9 billion dollar loan.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
@Electric Vehicle Owner 115
“if you already have a Prius or Ford Escape hybrid you can have a plug in power pack professional installed right away. Info also available online.”
I have been looking at the Ford Escape Hybrids and since the cash for clunkers came up, I am highly considering the trade in for my piece of crap, buttons falling off hunkajunk 2002 Ford explorer for it. There apparently easy hacks……uh, I mean mods to make it a plugin from LionEV ( http://www.lionev.com/DIY_Escape_PHEV_Hybrid.html ), however, this car has a heavy premium still and the furlough I have been hit with kind of makes it “Cost Prohibitive”.
I also forgot to mention there’s a solar roof for the Escape: http://www.solarelectricalvehicles.com/products.shtml
It looks from the size like a 200-210W panel. Still, better than nothing but expensive as well.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Well done Lyle and Thank you!
NPNS!!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
#45 statik says “Of course you are right, there are more worthy projects of which money should be spent…and the Volt is a marginal piece of the ‘eco-future’ at best”
Ah, how wrong you are. At every juncture in technology you need a major player to validate what is technically feasible but not accepted. Before IBM released its personal computer there were plenty of PCs around but their traction was limited. Before Apple released its i-Pod there were plenty of MP3 players around but people weren’t buying them. For expensive hardware you frequently need a major player to move things forward in a significant way.
Toyota and Honda did it for hybrids. GM can do it for EVs.
#104 charlie h says “A gas tax is pressure on ALL behavior involving use of the automobile and there are many solutions.”
Funny how that works. OPEC understands but we can’t seem to get our head around it.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Washington Post simply outlined well known problems with Volt most people on this forum preferred to ignore. It would be ok if GM would pay for its curiosity with money from stupid private investors. But it is not ok to throw tax payers money into the Volt’s money pit. Common sense is becoming a rarity nowadays.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
LionEV
I checked them out a year or two back. They had gotten a bad rep for not delivering on their “turnkey” electric ford ranger conversions. Maybe things have changed.
If my math is right, they’re pricing their batteries (200aH) at about $812/kwh now.
Looks like they’ve expanded their product line substantially since I last saw. Good info.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
#113 Electric Vehicle Owner
Dang. That is a little harsh. You must not be a land owner: I have 10 beautiful acres in Central Arkansas.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
#113 Electric Vehicle Owner
Not everyone has the option of telecommuting, or living close to their workplace. There are plenty of jobs that require physical presense. And, for many people, it’s too expensive to live closer to their jobs. And, right now, given the real estate crisis, even people who had a choice will find it too expensive to move.
Yes. A gas tax will influence people to try to live closer to their jobs. And more people will telecommute. But that’s a long term trend. Not something that can happen overnight. Which is part of the reason why big fluctuations are bad for the economy. A gas tax would help make prices more predictable, so that when people and companies make investment decisions, they have a better idea of what they’re dealing with.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
@Electric Vehicle Owner
Just curious, on you EV, is it a DC Motor or AC Induction? Your batt pack, what’s the nominal voltage and 1C current draw and max C rating? Lastly, at a ruising speed of say 60-65mph how much energy is required to maintain?
I am curious because at one point I was considering converting my Saturn to Electric but I kept getting the “Automatics are a little more difficult because of when it shifts…” kind of reasons.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
The claim that EVs simply run on coal is very misleading. Let’s face it, most early users will be in areas like CA and the pacific northwest, with a rather green powerplant mix. And even if they run on coal, they save pollution (or if you don’t believe that) shift it away from cities and people who will be breathing it in. The direct health benefits of pure EVs, *even if they don’t* reduce overall pollution (which is a crazy thing to say) will be immense because they will shift emissions away from population centers. And if charged at night mostly, they cause little to no increase in peak demand, so you won’t need any more expensive “peaker” plants. The general technical ignorance of reporters (and politicians) is absolutely stunning. How they feel justified to make asinine comments about things they clearly don’t understand in the slightest is beyond me. That’s like me thinking my engineering degree qualifies me to lecture journalists about interview strategy.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
@carcus1 122
I dunno how much their single cell 200AH LiFePO4’s are but JungleMotors has theirs at $310.00/ 3.2v 200Ah per cell. They’re the same Thunderky cells as LionEV.
http://shop.junglemotors.com/product.sc?categoryId=2&productId=3
Yeah, I heard about their delivery issues…..lol. They had a rebutal but essentially all the issues reported were form the same guy making it look like more than one person. Whatever….
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
122 (me) add,
Ok. Battery prices change quickly I guess. The LionEV link has China HiPower LifePo4 for $430/kwh.
http://www.beepscom.com/product_p/ba-lb-200-3.2.htm
- that’s pretty darn cheap. If they last for a couple thousand cycles that would be awesome.
Usually if you see prices like that and then read for reviews you find a lot of bad news. Haven’t tried to research these. (wonder if it’s different from “thundersky”)
Add- Ok. Yeah. If you get serious on a DIY it’s probably best to join a club and get some better info.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Even if you ONLY care about costs and the finances, the Volt still produces compelling numbers compared to an ICE car, regardless of oil or energy independence (not to say those aren’t important).
$7500 credit brings the price to about 30k. Same 10 year value loss as an ICE car, because the Volt’s warranty is JUST NOW expiring, and they wouldn’t design a battery whose life is designed to only last until right after the warranty expires at 150,000 miles, that would allow lots of people to treat their Volts just a little too rough and cash in on the warranty. GM wouldn’t make a warranty if they knew that the powertrain was designed to last JUST that long. It wouldn’t be good for business to have that kind of insurance risk, so you’ve still got 5-10 years more battery use. A 10 year old Volt will be worth 15k best guess, it still works like new, really. Maybe 20k? It was 40k brand new and nothing is wrong with it…Whereas a conventolal ICE car like mine went from 20k brand new to a value of 4k over 7.5 years. I would have been better off with a Volt over my 20k ICE car, and that doesn’t even factor in the gasoline or maintenence cost savings. This seems clear as day and should be to the writer of that article, IMHO.
The Volt still shines if all you care about are the financials.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
@carcus1 128
China Power OEM’s from the same vendor as Thindersky. Just label names really. Prices are falling and some will say quality is something to look at but in my experince, the BMS is the key to longevity of your batt pack. That’s why GM has “Doubled Up” on the batt pack.
Kind of like RAID for batteries if you wil….
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
@Mike D 129
“Whereas a conventolal ICE car like mine went from 20k brand new to a value of 4k over 7.5 years.”
funny you mention that. A Rav4 EV that sold new $45,000 (maybe?) sold on eBay for $38K. I don’t recall the year though but they’re not that recent and, they held their value.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
What I find most amusing is 4 days later another journalist at the Washington Post writes a glowing report on the Volt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/01/AR2009050101604.html
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
CptJack,
Thundersky practical test verification and fun for the whole family
You could do your own test with child slave “labor”.
Build a scooter with a couple of thundersky’s in it. Make your kids ride it every day after school for 5 hours. The only other requirement is that they keep a battery log.
“Get out there and ride that scooter, dang it!”
– or better yet, a lawn mower
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
@Marc Lee 132
“What I find most amusing is 4 days later another journalist at the Washington Post writes a glowing report on the Volt.”
I think it all depends on which one got laid before the writing.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Lyle,
Congratulations for the reply!
This is sad to say, but the true is that in America today, most of those who call themselves newsmakers just don’t deserve to bear this name. This guy is just one of them. Saddly, it is not the only one.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
@carcus1 133
Build a scooter with a couple of thundersky’s in it. Make your kids ride it every day after school for 5 hours. The only other requirement is that they keep a battery log.
AHAHAHAH!!!!
You friggin nerd! I already did that!!! But I used TEnergy LiFePO4 15AH pouch style packs on a aBladez 250 scooter, the pack lasted for 2.5hours and his friends had to take over a few times becuas it got monotonous.
When I got on it though……..
Well, let’s just say I should start walking.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
#136 CaptJack,
Funny.
Maybe you should get a trainer. (from China)
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_03/bearG0205_468×551.jpg
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Don’t forget, most people unfortunately think of electric cars as slow, uncomfortable and slugish”golf carts”. Another problem is also caused by NOT reading the entire story and thinking the VOLT will have a 40 mile range PERIOD! It’s unfortunate those people have a voice that can be heard by thousands. It’s hard to change percetions by the general public since they are not that interested… But don’t worry folks, someday, when their neighbours start showing off their (new) electric cars, they’ll get it.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Lyle,
I think it is probably not a tenable proposition that electric cars will give us energy independence, even if we had surplus of cheap electricity. The issue is that markets are not static. If enough electric cars were on the road, we’d start to see a shift in the energy market towards cheaper gas and more expensive electricity.
Nevertheless, this is not a bad thing. What it means is that the gasoline market becomes much more elastic with an electrified transportation sector, since people can react to rising gas prices with a shift to electric cars.
Andrew Grove has a term for this, and it’s spot on: Energy Resilience. It captures the idea that once there is more than one option for fueling transportation, the transportation market becomes more resilient to spikes in the oil/gas market.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
#117
LauraM
Well, it worked for Chrysler. Although at least there, they are bringing technology to the table. Personally, I’d rather Chrysler leased Ford or GM’s small car designs. And I still don’t see why that’s worth practically giving them the company along with an additional $9 billion dollar loan.
________________________
With Chrysler being on life support at the time, one would surmise that even the appearance of there being a possibility of Chrysler having a shot at getting off life support someday, could have been be interpreted then as a step toward removing the threat of Cerberus having to open the purse strings and throw good money after bad.
Since Cerberus has money, power and connections but no auto resources, the Govt doesn’t, cough, know what to do except try to hook them up with Fiat and bless them w/ a 9 billion dollar dowry, as it saves American jobs and bankruptcy costs to the Treasury that, cough, no other solution will.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
” I’m a big girl…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYNFX2QLGWM
you tell me why Joe Average is *uninformed*
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
@90 “Whoa, GM burned $10.2 Billion dollars in the last 3 months. They are burning it faster than we can bail them out, and they now want another $11.6 Billion! Clearly whatever they are still doing isn’t viable. As important as the Volt is, when do we say enough is enough?”
My breaking point has been reached. I just can’t in good conscience buy a Volt from GM now no matter how good the car is. I can’t continue to support selling my kids down the river by pumping billions into a company that loses it almost is fast as we can print it. I’m a huge EV and Volt supporter, and I’ll continue to visit this site daily. But when it comes to buying, I’ll be looking for other options. Ford maybe? Sorry GM, you lost a lifelong customer.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Can you say sensationalist? I mean really last time I checked, the Washington Post, like most papers are a dead dinosaur.
I’d be less worried about GM and electrics and more worried if I the writer will still have a job in 6 months. The US Gov will gladly let newspapers go away, but they won’t let GM or any of the remaining domestic automakers go quietly in the night.
This article is a futile attempt to grab attention to a dead paper. If GM is so far off the mark, then why are Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota and Tesla all working toward similar goal of electrification of the automobile?
Answer:
GM is not way off the reservation. It is true the first gen may be a bit less refined than say the 2nd gen or even the 5th gen, but the bottom line here is that electrics, in whatever capacity are or will be here to stay. Yes, GM has one way to do it, and it does make sense, particularly with Gov incentives and there may be other ways. If we took this clowns advice, we’d never have made any progress in any field out there, we’d all have tucked tail and never come out of our caves way back in the stone ages.
Thankfully schmucks like this are in the minority. Perhaps he and David Letterman might have a flag burning BBQ while there at it.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
#142 James T
Don’t blame GM for taking BILLIONS of dollars from the US Government. If you did not want the US Government to bail them out, you should place your vote accordingly.
Maybe they should have had better management, maybe they should have filed chapter 11 in December: we will find out soon how this current choice will play out.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I am late to the party. Lyle, great letter to the editor. You have to wonder where Charles Lane’s loyalties towards auto companies lie. Or is he just one of these idiots who want everyone to walk or ride bicycles. If so, maybe Mr. Lane will decide to walk to New York for the Auto Show or even to Detroit. That would prove to be a very “eye opening” experience for Mr. Lane.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
OP Eds are like opinions and arsecal orifices, everyone has one. Doesn’t mean a thing. You should see the drivel they print locally in our Beloved Roanoke Times. (I cancelled my subscription to the Post at least 4 times because of their ultra-liberal agenda)
I dunno where CDavis et al are today but it was a comfort Lyle to see you dump the greenie approach to the Volt and assert the strategic impetus of developing alternative transportation. Very good for you.
Nukes + (X)EVs = the dawn of a new age in US.
There is no problem with folks like Statik ‘wanting’ an electric car for greenness even if I think it’s absurd; that’s their business, but the strategic initiative is real and necessary.
A gas tax is absurd; it will be misappropriated. A gas tariff on foreign oil is reasonable and strategic and helps encourage domestic production. Proceeds from the tariff should be allocated by law to energy, battery and transportation R&D and production.
The Gummint should be giving GM grants of 10B to do the Volt and its batteries instead of ‘lending’ them into submission. If Lane has a point it is ” Is there any way GM is gonna make it through this?”
Hey you guys, Carcus1 & Capn, Statik and me and others, get your hot new BEV from Ford, but you better check with you know who first.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
carcus1 et al,
The reason you can’t find what you seek is because NO one knows how to do what you want.
No its not a CONSPIRACY. Mankind just has not perfected what you want. Despite GM spending a $ billion dollars on a real attempt to produce a BEV, they couldn’t produce one that actually met almost all your wants. They were barely road-able, the performance stank.
The REAL problem was they cost a half a million dollars a piece, or more. As soon as the CARBite idiots called off their stupid threats, EVERY SINGLE auto manufacturer who build an California EV ceased doing so. Toyota, Ford, Chrysler, Honda etc. Even if some of their entries resembled the back yard hack job of a few grease monkeys.
Someday you will be able to purchase what you want, but it wont be for half a decade or more.
By then Series EREVs will be ubiquitous and far superior. And might even be cheaper.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
147 Stas, You better straighten out those fuels at FOMOCO.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
ArkansasVolt
I have a big, big spread in the northern interior western US that I ranch. My herders use mountain bikes or go on foot, which has lowered costs, raised the value of the stock and improved my land productivity relative to Hollywood/corporate hobby rancher methods. Have fun with your 1.56% of a section of land.
@ LauraM – nice FUD.
I was responding to ArkansasVolt, who asked for suggestions. I was not telling everyone what to do. Though everyone that has a computer and internet connection at home can in fact telecommute (which might also help minimize pandemics, go figure). If their employer doesn’t allow it, they might consider changing to a higher paying cleantech job that does, such as Congress. What, Congress doesn’t telecommute, when all they do is communicate, trade information and make votes (you can click a radio button on-line, right)? What a stupid security (and health) risk, making them physically assemble together in one known location at known times. There are plenty of employers looking for employees who bother to find out what’s possible now (telecommuting is a two century old innovation, you Luddites) and act on it.
” And, right now, given the real estate crisis, even people who had a choice will find it too expensive to move. ”
What? You are tripping. Housing prices are DOWN, not up, more than 20%, due precisely to the real estate crisis, in many areas, especially well developed ones. If there ever was a time to move closer to work and get a great deal in doing so, this is it.
CJS
I just know they go like snot and work great with no maintenance. If I put my head down and was going downhill at speed they’d take no throttle at all to maintain speed. If I rode one like like an absolute hoon it’d lower the range, sure, same as with any vehicle, but I don’t ’cause I like staying out of jail, so I can get all I would need for my 26 mile commute. I’ll let you look up the technical specs on the power pack and motor online for the electric motorcycles. The info is publicly available for those who bother to do the research, lazybones (recall I suggested actually doing things about making your dreams a reality – as if a little web surfing is work).
Also, CJS
The tiny step from a F Exploder to a Ford Escape hybrid is soooo easy, it’ll be one (one, the most powerful number, when you, the most powerful person, do it) more motive electric drive on the road and the next transition to the plug in (have it done by a pro installer – why reinvent the wheel – it’s pretty much at cost and warranteed). If your F Ex is 2000 or older , grab that voucher, get the hybrid and don’t look back. It’s action you can take NOW. Get a used Ford Escape hybrid if you think a new one cost more than you want to spend or talk the dealer down. It’s not like they don’t need to sell some vehicles to avoid going down in flames.
Last, vehicles include motorcycles (two and three wheelers) and they are an obvious low cost, high performance application for electric drive, as well as lithium based power packs, so whoever said we weren’t talking about motorcycles and a bunch of other motive objects every time we see or say the word vehicle. Talk about blinders. Welcome to the real world, all.
The best thing about this site is that everyone gets their brain stretched. The level of talk on the engineering is getting good enough (less so on the consumer/vehicle interactions and way less so on marlketing except for one brilliant bit a few days ago (not from me)) that I actually don’t understand everything that’s said immediately and sometimes have to spend days figuring out some of the details expressed here so I can see if I agree with analyses and suggestions. Well done, all!
All
Fight laziness, everyone. Actually do something positive that helps others about what you care about. Strangely, that’ll get you what you want. And I want a Volt, so I bought a vehicle with electric drive years ago (I now have two) to show GM that there is demand. Any of you other slowpokes here going to step up to the plate with me?
If I seem to be harsh or enthusiastic at times, it’s because I actually care and I know we can do this (the Volt and electric drive). The only one that can hold us back is the person in the mirror if they fail to do something towards their dreams every day. I’ve realized mine and the Volt will make that easily possible for ArkansasVolt (AV), even if AV hauls CJSs kids in it and runs errands all over the US. I chose to act before having the Volt handed to me on a gold platter. I’ll act again, then.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
132 Marc Lee
LOL
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Question:
What percentage of GM’s budget is going towards the Volt?
(i know they said they spent 1 billion over the last 2 years)
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
@ Noah Nehm – nice FUD.
“I think it is probably not a tenable proposition that electric cars will give us energy independence.”
You are completely wrong, no probable about it. Electric drive allows for frictionless substitution between any energy sources that can make electricity, such as, but not limited to, domestic hydro, wind, solar, compressed air and natural gas, as I recently just noted in this very thread. That is independence from an imported demand price inelastic energy source (foreign oil) in our daily transportation.
Internal combustion engines using gas from imported oil do not give us that.
Combining the two, such as the Volt does, is at least prgress towards electric drive providig that energy independence.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
/paradigm shift
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
CaptJackSparrow,
If you look at DIY Electric Car forum there’s a recent thread on the thundersky batteries at the prices we discussed.
There’s some pretty (shall we say very) techy dudes on there (senior members, etc…) and there isn’t much of any cold water being thrown on the purchase. I think if these batteries were of poor quality there’d be plenty of warning on that thread. (most of the talk is just like you mentioned, BMS) It’s just one data point, but . . . .
So, basically . . that’s potentially great news. And I might have to eat a little crow on what I thought battery prices would be. I’m happy to do that.
I’d looked into an EV conversion project a couple of years back, but got discouraged on the price of Nimh and didn’t want to build a Lead acid car with such limited performance and a pack that would have to be replaced every three years.
Looks like I need to revisit this option. (I’ve got a snap-on roller cab full of tools just gathering dust in the garage). Probably be a lot more productive than an internet addiction, anyway.
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/thundersky-bulk-order-next-week-30637p8.html?highlight=battery+price
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Now fox news is reporting GM hosted lavish events at a luxury resort/spa in Arizona. That’s almost as good as flying the corporate jet to washington to ask for more money. This is how the new leaner meaner GM is blowing through our $10 Billion? Does anyone in management have a clue how this looks to the public who is paying your bills?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
My God, is the Volt getting based from all sides or what?
Of note most recently:
The idiots at Transport Watch pushing the ‘Longer Tailpipe Argument’, an argument proven wrong over & over:
http://gm-volt.com/2009/04/19/study-calls-environmental-benefits-of-electric-cars-fiction/
Letterman, bad mouthing the Volt during Tesla CEO Elon Musk guest appearance:
http://gm-volt.com/2009/04/30/dave-letterman-bashes-the-chevy-volt-on-national-television-wvideo/
And now, Charles Lane, a so-called editorial writer specializing in economic policy, trade, energy and globalization saying the Volt is “Not Ready to Roll” as well as positing the “Longer Tailpipe Argument” again.
If this does’nt seem like a concerted attack on the Volt, I don’t know what does.
May God bless you & keep you Lyle Dennis, and the uphill battle all of us here at gm-volt.com fight on what now seems like a daily basis.
Americans have a taste for things that are new & leading edge, I’ve never seen what seems like an almost concentrated effort to prevent the Volt from being brought to market.
Big oil must be really shit scared right now, that’s the only reason I can think of for this.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
#79 Carcus1 said:
“Statik @ 45, Probably one of your best posts. But I take exception to your “perception. Why do we have to play the media’s game? Why does everything have to be about image over substance? Wouldn’t honest solutions be a lot better than manipulation? ”
—–
/I wish
I’ve said it before, the thing that motivates people are greed and fear, very few people in this world do the ‘right thing’ because it is the ‘right thing’
==================================
==================================
#87 noel park said:
“Statik, There is a complete story about the GM financials you cite up on the Yahoo site now. Scary stuff.”
—–
I read a couple of those articles today (including the yahoo front page one you mentioned to me), I guess it is a popular article to writetoday. For me the scary part isn’t how bad it is now…it is, how much better post GSB will GM really be?
Nobody in any of those articles are looking past the event. Is a post GSB GM going to be streamlined by 25 billion dollars a year in operating expenses? I think not. However in about 80 days, that will be the only subject on anyone and everyone’s mind–”ok, we did the GSB…now what?” and everyone will be saying, “Well, we all ‘knew’ that GM still couldn’t make it even if we bailed them out”
=============================
=============================
#74 LauraM
I agree with your statements, and submit there is no, easy or eloquent solution to this problem…I was just throwing it out there as I see it, (=
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
CJS
Since you seem waaaaaayyyyyyy into DIY, here’s a kit Volt knock off kit alreday out that you can make yourself with multiple interior seating. It uses diesel, so it gets props from me:
http://www.rqriley.com/xr3.htm
As for me, I strongly prefer actual already existing production electric drive vehicles with proper OEM paperwork that can be instantly registered with your state DMV on the spot, such as I those mentioned earlier in the thread.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
154 (me) add,
$352/kwh
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
#99 LauraM said:
In other news, Fiat is offering GM stock in its new company in exchange for both Opel and GM’s Latin American operations.
I still don’t understand what Fiat is bringing to the table here. Am I missing something?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124170522501296103.html#articleTabs_comments%26articleTabs%3Darticle
=====================
The only thing I can see they are bringing to the table is a willingness to relieve GM of some of its responsibilities…and the burden of putting some of GM’s corporate girth on their shoulders.
It is a ‘hail Mary’ type play they are running here, if they catch the ball in the endzone it could be touted as one of the greatest corporate maneouvers of all time…but it probably just ends like most proposed (or realized) ‘uber’ mergers, a disappointment.
/if only they wanted HUMMER too…
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Things keep getting scarier and scarier every single day. The closer the Volt gets to production, the scarier the stories will get. There are many GM haters in the press and TV media. They love foreign vehicles over anything that comes out of an American company. They had good reasons at times in the past, but not for the past several years. But like other haters we have discussed on this site, these GM haters can never let go. They will always hate GM. Even beyond GM’s death. Which gets to more believable every single day. If you believe some of the stories circulating. Do you?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I want one because I want one. Why would I buy life insurance? That’s crazy – I’ll be dead when it pays out. Why would I donate to a charity? I get no benefit from curing someone else’s problem? Why would I tip a waiter/waitress in a restaurant I’ll never visit again? Screw ‘em.
Well…gee…some things can’t be justified on the basis of economics. I just really like the idea of plugging in my car and never buying another drop of that …stuff…
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Fiat sees a chance to pick up pieces of GM with out much cost to them. They are like buzzards circling, just waiting for the final spiral down to pick the bones clean. Keep your eyes and ears open, my friends, there will be more buzzards circling soon enough. Fiat is just the first one to go public with their desire.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Laura M 74 and statik 157 Nice FUD
Stop spending public money on interstates all together and on Amtrak in low population areas. Enact sprawl cost equalization of housing build permits with fees exponentially raised with decreased population density, distance from city hall, county seat and state capital (this is justified as sprawl creates negative externalities where those free riders who create the problems caused by sprawl don’t currently pay for them) and we want folks to live close to where their legislators gather in order to have democracy funtion again.
Those two things would instantly end the fall in housing prices, create incentives for more efficient public transportation, for people to work and live closer together, telecommute, as well as minimize the risks and costs of pandemics
Simple and elegant.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
After reading Charles Lane’s article in full, he doesn’t take into account market manipulation by governments. All Federal and local governments should impose heavy taxes at the purchase of any non electrified vehicles if were ever going to get out of the morass of Global Warming. Gas fuel taxes should also be increased to pay for the development and rebates on quality electrified vehicles like the Volt.
Also heavily polluted cities like Los Angeles should not permit the sale of gas cars only. This may sound draconian but if we want a better life, it may be the only way.
The technology is here for better air, less noise and less dependence on oil, its time to drag the American drivers kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
#149 Electric Vehicle Owner
I didn’t intend my post an attack. And if you took it that way, I apologize.
However, I stand by my statement that not everyone can telecommute. What about doctors? Nurses? Teachers? Janitors? Construction workers? UAW workers? People who actually operate machines for a living. Even some research scientists needs labs. Yes, a lot more people commute to work han actually need to. But there are a lot of jobs that require physical presence.
And most people like to sell their old houses before buying a new one.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
“September 16, 2007
2009 Saturn Vue plug-in hybrid is a go
General Motors is planning to start selling an electric plug-in version of its 2008 Saturn Vue compact SUV sometime “in 2009,” Detroit Free Press is reporting citing Saturn’s general manager Jill Lajdziak”
Ok, it’s 2009, where’s my plug-in hybrid?
What, GM lied to us? Again? Ya, it’s always “in just two years”, regardless of the current date. Meanwhile, GM keeps shoveling mostly inefficient, old technology cr@p onto failing dealerships instead of showing consumers what they really want at dealerships.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
@carcus1 154
Yeah, I frequent that site and post occasionally. Some sr. members there a A$$Wipes but I think it’s because they got burned at some point and question/batter anyone on there….lol
I went in on a group buy for TS Cells in the small Ah range to play around with.
EV Owner, I’m surprised you don’t know the electrical specs of your vehicle, as a matter of fact you never even mentioned what make/model it is. I was just curious at what some EV’rs average power consumption was to maintain their speeds because I am considering a design for a DC Generator in a very small package to the tune of ~20KW.
Yeah, I’m a lazybones. I admit it. Imma go gettanother beer…..
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
… and what is an Op-Ed, anyway?
Here’s what H. Swope (the creator of the first modern op-ed page) had to say back in 1921:
“”It occurred to me that nothing is more interesting than opinion when opinion is interesting, so I devised a method of cleaning off the page opposite the editorial, which became the most important in America… and thereon I decided to print opinions, ignoring facts.”[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed
/1. . sixty-nine, . . nice.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
LauraM
I don’t feel attacked at all. I simply pointed out your logical fallacies and incorrect assertion that I said that everyone has to telecommute. I was responding to a specific request for a recommedation with a recommendation to one person. However, very, very many people can telecommute but aren’t probably due to sheer status quo laziness. It’s not all or nothing, as you suggest.
Since you insist on making the logical fallacy of generalization from an individual response not made to you, I’ll bite and check your latest assumptions.
I added up all the folks who fit into those employment categories you mentioned except for teachers and it adds up to less than 0.1% of the current work force.
Doctors? Nurses?
Demograhics tell us that populations will be more centralized and baby boomer bulge will pass through the medical system in the next generation, so in both cases there will be fewer medical specialists will less travel related to their work, but by themselves and their clients. Distance medicine already occurs and will only increase. Or you’ve never heard of e-mail, faxes, data files, etc? Doctors and nurses use such things when appropriate. When a doctor or nurse is on call, they are telecommuting. They can often deal with minor issues and questions and most patient interactions by cell phone without leaving the golf course. Telecommuting.
Teachers?
On-line and distance teaching learning. It’s happening now and accelerating big and fast. This lowers capital costs for schools, lower support payroll, and improves health risks and costs.
Janitors?
With fewer buildings and less building space due to more workers telecommuting, they’re be fewer janitors. They’ll have to change to higher paying cleantech telecommuting jobs for employment, which will improve the economy. Bummer, huh? With fewer building, energy use will go down, so energy will be a cheaper input , so poducts will get cheaper with the same workers, so workesr can buy more products, so the standard of living increases. Bummer, huh?
Construction workers?
They will shift from sprawl building to more centralized construction, due to less buildings from increased telecommuting and close commuting so less travel (an indirect form of telecommuting).
UAW workers?
There are some left? There won’t be very many of those when the carpocolypse ends. What a shame that Detroit didn’t start building energy efficiecny vehicles sooner so they wouldn’t have seen the massive erosion of market share they saw over the last 35 years, starting with the 1973 oil crisis. Who to blame? Who could have seen it coming, after repeated oil shocks and finite non-renewable cheap resources?
Telecommuting has been steadily increasing over the last 200 years. I’m only pointing out an obvious trend to those who can’t be bothered to look. Workers displaced by it will use it. Those remaining who commute will continue to centralize and commute less, overall, a form of indirect telecommuting.
Thanks for helping me think of a new term. I’m going to call all physically contrained workers indirect telecommuters from now on. A decrease in commuting distance would be an increase in (indirect) telecommuting.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Well…
GM Missed this little boat.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/07/minneapolis-and-ford-want-66-electric-plug-in-hybrid-cars-local/
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
______________________________________________________
Lyle,
Excellent response letter!
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Energy = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Only 66 Minneapolis plug- ins?
I vote they add 3 Tesla S Models. That’d make it 69.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/tesla-model-s-in-nyc/1528305/
/mmm . . another Rockstar and vodka, coming up.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
#154 Cascus 1
Looks like I need to revisit this option. (I’ve got a snap-on roller cab full of tools just gathering dust in the garage). Probably be a lot more productive than an internet addiction, anyway.
_______________________________________
Looks like a good option. If all 48,000 of us put the Volt waiting list on a low priority and started building, we’d have a lot of knowledge and purchasing power to pool together.
_____________________________________
#164
Electric Vehicle Owner
Laura M 74 and statik 157 Nice FUD
Stop spending public money on interstates all together and on Amtrak in low population areas. Enact sprawl cost equalization of housing build permits with fees exponentially raised with decreased population density, distance from city hall, county seat and state capital (this is justified as sprawl creates negative externalities where those free riders who create the problems caused by sprawl don’t currently pay for them) and we want folks to live close to where their legislators gather in order to have democracy funtion again.
Those two things would instantly end the fall in housing prices, create incentives for more efficient public transportation, for people to work and live closer together, telecommute, as well as minimize the risks and costs of pandemics
Simple and elegant.
________________________
All except for the simple and elegant part. Destroying parts of the existing economy to get to a more rational state is neither simple nor elegant in practice, but then I imagine Schumpeter would agree with the sentiment about eggs and omelets.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
#100 ArkansasVolt
I may drive about 110-120 miles. Like carcus1 and CaptJackSparrow, I need about a $25k BEV with air conditioning and highway speed capable, but also I need about 120+ mile range.
What would you suggest for me?
________________________
Rent out your 10 acre place and make the tax code work in your favor. Get a place closer to work, within walking distance preferably. Rent at a great rate or perhaps even buy it if it’s a bargain, and mortgage rates are at historic lows now. Turn your commutes from money and time wasters into a capital building opportunity.
Personally if I was driving a BEV I’d want 30 to 50 percent range capability beyond my normal driving as a reserve.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
CJS
“EV Owner, I’m surprised you don’t know the electrical specs of your vehicle, as a matter of fact you never even mentioned what make/model it is.”
I never said I didn’t know my vehicle specs, but the truth is, I don’t really care what they are, so long as my electric drive vehicles go (accelerate from a dead stop) like a b@t out of he!!.
I’m not saying what I have (make/model), ’cause it’s not important. I have, however, left plenty enough information over my hundreds of posts from many months that anyone can figure out exactly what make/models I have and find the exact specs of both of my commercial (emphatically not DIY) electric drive vehicles (no, I’m not counting the commuter train when I use it).
What is important is that I have two commercially produced OEM vehicles with electric drive, I have a 100% plug in electric vehicle that’s street legal, registered and highway capable and each and every one of you on this site could get you some of that smoking off the line torque goodness if you bothered to do some research, find out what’s out there and spend not very much money and time to get you some.
Why do that, if it’s not perfect for all travel situations and never will be (nothing is perfect – automobiles can’t do many things that horses can)? In my case, it gives me actual experience with an actual plug in electric drive vehicle in real world transportation settings around full gassers, which very, very, very few people who spout all sorts of nonsense and gibberish about electric vehicles have (a short test run around a course don’t cut it in my book. Buy one, own it and try using it in daily commuting for more than a year, as I have). Bu!!shit writes media articles, while owners and users of plug in electric drive vehicles walk their talk and know what they are talking about.
Mostly, though, I got it ’cause it’s got maximum torque off the line, so it’s very high performance relative to full gassers on the road and very, very, very fun.
Hey, CJS, what’s the molecular stress structure specs of the foremost bolt holding up the exhaust on your last century pure gasser?
20 kW capable small generator package. hmmm… Just order what you need from an electric motorcycle manufacturer and you’ll get a quality, ready built product, if they agree. The specs are on line. I suspect their minimum order for pieces/parts/one-off runs is a thousand or more units plus the cost of setting up a new division, though. It’d probably be cheaper for you to just buy their product whole and cannabalize it for just the bits you want. Most of them, if you buy one whole, you can then purchse separate components for it as plug and play replacement parts, so that way you get the parts you want PLUS a fun, inexpensive new electrc drive vehicle. I’m just doing your thinking for you. Why reinvent the wheel? I’m not sure you’re up on what the OEMs of light electric vehicles have been doing the last few years, and not just in China. It’s a brave new world, I’m already part of it and you’re not – yet.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
______________________________________________________
#28 GM Fanboy Said:
“Most people here fanatics, just like Jihad following Osama nin Laden. No difference in terms of fanaticism.”
——–
Comparing Lyle’s enthusiasm to promote the Chevy Volt to Osama’s enthusiasm to promote suicide bombings is void of any shred of parallel relevance.
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Energy = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
@Electric Vehicle Owner
“Telecommuting has been steadily increasing over the last 200 years. I’m only pointing out an obvious trend to those who can’t be bothered to look. Workers displaced by it will use it.”
I agree. In times of financial crisis for the undisclosable govt agency I work for, the majority CAN telecommute as well as I. It has been mentioned with the benefit of not having the lights on in the building, and not required to heat/cool. But for some dumbphuk reason the high mucky mucks said no.
Man I could be VPN’d in from my laptop in my neighbors hot tub with some Craigs List girls….
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
With a little innovation and not much cash, you too can have your own hot tub.
http://www.foundshit.com/poor-mans-hot-tub/
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
jeffhre
“Destroying parts of the existing economy to get to a more rational state is neither simple nor elegant in practice.”
This happens all of the time, everywhere around you. It is simple and elegant, so much so that you apparently don’t even notice it. It is also ugly and brutal when you look at what we left behind (I give you the full gasser Cdillc Escapade, The Frd Exploder and Expiration and VEBA due to decades of failed national health policy), which I suspect is your real complaint. This is everyone’s chance to jump on the electric drive freight train before everyone slow and backward gets runs over by it. Welcome to progress and reality, brought to you by nothing fancier or complex than consumer demand.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
#178
CaptJackSparrow
Man I could be VPN’d in from my laptop in my neighbors hot tub with some Craigs List girls….
_______________________
Yeah you nailed it, they’re scared to death what happens when your hot tub ends up on the front page of the LA Times. Probably sure they’ll be called on the carpet for supporting that intranet/world wide web thing that’s dumping a bunch of tax dollars into that immoral Craigs List!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
First hugely mainstream adopters of personal electric drive transport – wheelchair jockeys. Thanks for leading the way for us other, deficient humans. Irony, it’s great.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
#180
Electric Vehicle Owner
This is everyone’s chance to jump on the electric drive freight train before everyone slow and backward gets runs over by it. Welcome to progress and reality, brought to you by nothing fancier or complex than consumer demand.
___________________
Good observation, but where do you get your information on what I “apparently don’t notice”. Have you been talking with my mom. That’s so duplicitous!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
CJS
Grunt workers have been show to be more productive when telecommuting as there are no supervisors slowing them down and wrecking their work. The muckymucks who disaprove of telecommuting are out to save their own completely unneeded skins/jobs and continue to be higher paid for being lazier, at massive, massive, massive costs to the entire economy and society.
Single agent swarms (no, staff meetings do NOT count) make the best, most informed, quick to grab an opportubity or respond to a risk corporate decisions. That’s not in any current, stupid ideology, though, so few businesses use it.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
@carcus1 170
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I saw something like this before. It was a picture of a small boat in the ghetto filled with water and kids playing/cooling off in it.
lol….
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Lyle, Thanks for a great reply!
The war has just begun.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Electric Vehicle Owner:
Be careful you don’t wear yourself out here with your posts…you have to pace yourself.
/slow and steady to get to the end, lol
——————
Side note and totally off-topic…like way, way out there (but c’mon we are almost at 200 posts anyway)
I just won $50 in my ‘Who is on Steroids List”…it is kind of like a ‘death pool,’ but more humane…and for baseball fanatics. Six of us, everyone pays $10 to the person who gets a name right.
“Manny Ramirez has tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs and will be suspended for 50 games”
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4148907
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Electric Vehicle Owner
For someone who claims to know so much about an EV you seem to know how do dodge answering questions about your “Electric Vehicle”. You only produce driving experinces and nothing else and when asked you throw a bunch of garbage nonsense because cahnces are you know nothing about your alleged EV. You were asked direct questions yet you flame on the person for asking. IF the EV you boast so highly about is as you claim then there’s no reason to hide it and I’m sure the manufacturer wouldn’t mind the advertisement. If you want to help in the EV movement then why hold back? All your rants are nothing but full of air and sh!t with no substance or data to back it. Your diaria of the mouth/text is getting irritating. The fact that you refuse, or better yet can not answer anyones question directly brings you to what others call a Troll.
Everyone ignore this inept Troll.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
@statik
“I just won $50 in my ‘Who is on Steroids List”…it is kind of like a ‘death pool,’ but more humane…and for baseball fanatics.”
RANDOM!!
AHAHAHAH!!!!
Dude you crack me the he11 up….
Aren’t they all on the juice? I mean cmon, look at the highlites from 8-10 years back and see how much smaller (thin really) they were.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
185 CappyJack
Yeah I like that one. All it needs is a caption where one guy’s asking the other, “What’s cooking doc?”
5:45 into this classic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U9GpaXnGiA&feature=PlayList&p=6168BC23D451F608&index=1
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
@ carcus1 190
Reminds of a Gilligan cannibal scene……lol…..
Is that a Mr. Bubble container on the left of the tub?!?!?!?!?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I’m just glad football is a “clean” sport.
——
CaptJack @ 191,
I’d rather NOT thinks it’s a bubble bath. Sort of changes my perception of the whole party.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
#170 Electric Vehicle Owner
You’re completely right. I didn’t realize it was meant as a suggestion for one person. I thought you were critiquing commuters in general. It’s none of my business, and I won’t discuss it further.
Again, I apologize. This is the first board I’ve ever posted on, so I’m not familiar with the etiquette.
Re #164–that was addressed to me, so I assume I can respond?
I don’t really understand how eliminating urban sprawl would automatically result in good public transportation. Most cities in this country don’t have good public transportation. So how would moving everyone there solve anything?
If you’re implying that everyone should be able to walk–I live in NYC which has a very high population density. And I can’t walk to work. I take the subway to work, but that’s an option because I live in Manhattan. A lot of people who work here can’t afford to live near their jobs. Or have easy access to the subway. And you want to penalize them for that? And I’m pretty sure it’s even worse in other cities.
Aside from that, a gas tax would encourage telecommuting more than taxing people for living further from the city center. And it would also decrease urban sprawl. If people wanted to live further away, then they would pay the actual costs. And, honestly, your top-down approach to enacting social change strikes me as a scary use of government power.
And, by the way, increasing population density increases the risk of pandemics.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
#144 Arkansas Volt –
Exactly what was the “right vote” to keep GM from getting government funds? Please do tell. I can only assume you are fantasizing about a free market GOP. Unfortunately for that argument, the Bush administration made the first cash infusion to GM in late 2008. Obama then followed suit with subsequent infusions.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Excellent reply to an outrageous OpEd. The WaPo deserves this response.
But … I disagree with Lyle’s last sentence (” … the Volt is the best idea GM ever had.”). IMHO the best idea GM ever had was the EV-1. And GM’s worst idea ? Yes, you guessed it. Crushing them.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I dont want to live in NYC. F’ that.
My “city” is between 100K and 200K people. Big enough for me. I drive 10 miles to work. Sometimes i take my scooter which gets 100mpg. I could telecomute maybe 1 or 2 days a week, but not more than that, and I’m supposibly a desk-jockey engineer.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
No one answered my question from earlier. Maybe one of the bean-counters here can figure it out later. I”m just tired of hearing the phrase “GM Bailout (loan)” associated w/the Volt. Even if GM didnt have the Volt (maybe even more-so) they would have got the loans. It was based on jobs and preservering a manufacturing sector in our economy. Not on a hail-mary electric car that is years out.
Since people are posting totally random things now, I’m going to end with GO WINGS!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
My 2 cents on the negative Volt publicity and the many more to come.
It will be easy to say the Volt is a bad idea.
Its costing GM too much.
The consumer will never get his moneys worth.
Lets not worry. Many of these negative stories will come out. Especially when GM starts really hyping the Volt during the summer of 2010. I could write one myself. Its like shooting fish in a barrel.
The bottom line is that the Volts will sell and most owners will love them.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
#197 kdawg
I couldn’t find your question.
But, yes, GM would have gotten the loans even if they had never developed the Volt. Chrysler is getting what seems like unlimited funds (so far the count is $16 billion from the US government–and 2.5 billion from Canada.) Even though the chances of them becoming viable are about the same as GM turning a profit next month. Hey, it could happen!
And, even if this one in a million shot works out, we’re giving the upside to an Italian company. Along with the ability to cherry pick what they want from Chrysler if it doesn’t.
And, in order to do it, we’re risking the credit markets, not to mention the whole idea of rule of law in this country.
Don’t ask me why. I still haven’t figured that part out yet.
But, presumably, if we’re willing to throw away that amount of money on Chrysler, we’d also be willing to invest in GM which actually has the scale and the product to function as a standalone company if they actually make the sacrifices necessary in ch.11. (We’ll see if that happens.) This means that, unlike Chrysler, a restructured GM could keep jobs in our country long term, and preserve a manufacturing sector in the US.
The only difference that the Volt makes is that, if at some point, Henderson goes to the government and says I need $200 million more to keep the Volt program on schedule–the government would almost certainly say yes.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
196 kdawg
Same here (cubicle dwelling engineer, seeking same, well ok, I am married, happily, but I like the sound of it).
Telecommuting sounds dandy, but do you want to be the person at home, “out of sight, out of mind” when the next round of layoffs take place?
I have telecommuted occasionally, but my job, and most people I work with, do actual “physical” work (like solder a wire or two). Telecommuting works for a small percentage of the working population.
I may be wrong, but not likely!
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I wonder how much the WP has recently gotten in ad money from companies like Chevron, Exxon and other oil companies?
On a side note: why would gasoline prices not go back up to where they were? I mean has the world population dropped? NO. Has the number of petrol-consuming vehicles dropped? NO. If economic development is in direct connection with petrol consumption the world will see sharp price rises as soon as the credit crisis is over.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
#152 ECO
I think you missed my point. I don’t argue that it electric cars are unable to to provide energy independence, it’s just that they won’t.
Free markets will react to the lack of demand in the case of an increasing market share of electric cars, making their operation less economic relative to cars powered by ICEs. There will be some equilibrium, with some consumers choosing electric, others gas, based on their preferences and economics. Since oil is a fungible commodity sold on the world market, with some countries being able to produce it really quite cheaply, there will always be some importation of oil, barring any legislation to the contrary. This is why I contend that widespread adoption of electric vehicles will not produce complete energy independence.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
@ LauraM etiquette on a blog. n. See Warren Peace and statik.
I’m sorry that my actual real world user experiences with an electric drive vehicle adds no value to all the wild conjecture and abstract thought on this blog.
I urge people to find out something about electric vehicles themselves by buying an inexpensive one now and regularly using it for at least one year. It won’t be perfect but they’ll learn a lot so they don’t have to take my word or anyone else’s about electric drive. That’s way more important in your lives than what my vehicle is.
@ Noah. I didn’t miss the point at all. I pointed out that electric vehicles do move us towards energy independence. No one said complete was the goal or even possible. Stop making the perfect the enemy of the good.
I swear, if I ever see anything written on electric drive that doesn’t contain a logical fallacy (not to mention bald faced lies), I’ll faint.
@ Raymond – The last thing electric drive is, is sluggish. You are obviously thinking of old fashioned pure gassers.
This site purports to be an advocacy site for the GM Volt, an electric drive vehicle, but frankly I see way more FUD in the threads about electric drive than anything else. How come no one gets all weirded out about electric blenders or electric washing machines but they do about electric vehicles?
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Lyle – surely your website’s success can partially be measured by the duration of some daily threads – 5:56 AM to near 9:00 PM, 200+ posts and counting.
Nice job on the response to Charles Lane.
Thanks again for the dedication and high quality.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Lyle,
Way to go! Now, we need to see you on Letterman, if he will allow it. And, just before launch, Leno would be a kick!
=D~~~~
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
#142 JamesT
I agree. No matter how much we want the Volt, at some point is it irresponsible to continue to support GM. I think that point has come. One car company is not worth bankrupting the entire country with endless bailouts. Especially when then continue to blow it throwing lavish parties at the taxpayer expense. Even the most ardent Volt supporter should find this inexcuseable. If people don’t think $10.2 billion a quarter is too much, they dont understand math.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Lots of good comments today.
-Gas tax brought up again. Phase it in at $0.10 increments/qtr up to @$1.50. Either use the tax proceeds to feed in alternatives with fixed life (e.g. Tax credits for first x number of vehicles) or pay down national debt. Don’t fund entitlements. Phase out once gas reaches @$5.00 in today’s $.
-The real value and what is worth supporting is not so much the Volt as it is Voltec. Distortionists like to affirm GM’s claim of $1B to develop the Volt. If there is to only be a Volt Gen I then this program will be failed waste of $. But what will be the Converj, Volt II, etc development cost. Those vehicles look a lot better profit-wise if voltec development costs are assigned to the Volt. Quit bemoaning that GM only plans to produce 10k Volts in 2011 and encourage them to move forward with more Voltec models that will meet market demands.
-The government rightly or wrongly is not just bailing out GM because of the Volt. The are trying to hold onto a significant portion of a major american industry and preserve as many jobs as they can in a hossible economy and in one of the areas worst hit. It is a no win proposition. Spend $ to try to make them viable, peserve jobs, preserve an important industry, and perhaps recoup the $ down the road or spend a lot of $ for unemployment, a lot of $ retired worker expenses, lose a lot of the industry, and never get the $ back.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Noah Naem #222
“Free markets will react to the lack of demand in the case of an increasing market share of electric cars, making their operation less economic relative to cars powered by ICEs. There will be some equilibrium, with some consumers choosing electric, others gas, based on their preferences and economics. Since oil is a fungible commodity sold on the world market, with some countries being able to produce it really quite cheaply, there will always be some importation of oil, barring any legislation to the contrary. This is why I contend that widespread adoption of electric vehicles will not produce complete energy independence.”
Perhaps but prhaps not. Fossile Oil is a finte resource for practical purposes and more relevent is that the easier to access sources are dried or are drying up first, for the most part. Additional there is plenty of demand growth outside of the US and/or outside of the automobile industry that will greatly or completely offset any demand destruction from electrics. In short, it is irrelevent whether EV’s make us 100% energy independent by themselves. What’s important is how much can they reduce our energy dependence. We are looking for relative independence not absolute, anyway.
(Quote)
May 7th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Electric Vehicle Owner……. I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing. I agree with most of what you say. But some things, as others have pointed out, like telecommuting, cannot be done by all. Yes, doctors, etc. may actually do some telecommuting, as in your examples but not all can do it completely, and unless you work in medicine, you cannot say that they do. (But I bet you work in medicine too because you are infinitely knowledgeable on all things) Instead of just admitting that it’s not possible for all, you have to give asinine examples of how it could possibly be possible some of the time. Why FUD when it comes to electric drive? Because it is just not that common. Yes, for someone as worldly as you who has some knowledge and experience with such things it is understandable. Most of the people in the real world have experience and own blenders and washing machines, but do not own or have experience with electric drive vehicles, therefore they are “weirded-out” by them as you say. Human nature….. I’m sure you can understand that.
(Quote)
May 8th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Thank-You for your efforts Lyle , you are appreciated very much .
(Quote)
May 8th, 2009 at 4:29 am
______________________________________________________
RE: Static #45
——-
Statik Said: “He [Lyle] didn’t try to come down to a nuts and bolts level and try to make sense of the project… It is what you don’t see in his [Lyle's] argument that is the genius…there is no ‘the Volt specifically makes sense because…’ anywhere in his reply”.
Response:
Lyle, despite a ~200 words response limit, covered three nuts and bolts reasons why the Volt Project makes sense:
1) “Electric Power Research Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council showing that widespread adoption of plug-in electric hybrid vehicles would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 450 million tons a year”.
2) “Electrification of the automobile is critical for national security. Our country is weakened by dependence on oil-rich hostile foreign nations”.
3) “While the wealthy and the government may have to subsidize first-generation Volts, electric car prices will drop substantially with increasing production volume as economies of scale come into play”.
Statik Said:
“End of the day, we are here because we are selfish and self-serving, like everyone else on the planet. I know I am…I can admit it.”
Response:
Many of us are here to help ignite the Electric Car Revolution because we believe Electric Cars will help improve the environment and help improve America’s energy independence.
Statik Said:
“manipulate the minds of your audience…and thats what Lyle was doing in his response to the Post.”
Response:
Statik’s asserts that Lyle’s was manipulating (aka deceiving) his audience with his letter. I disagree. Lyle in his letter set out to provide coherent perspective and argument as to the value of the Voltec Program.
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
May 8th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Statik is a hard number man. Hard numbers can not evaluate a Volt purchase properly. Statik ‘wants’ a Volt for emotional greenness. Many of intuit that the Volt is a smart strategic move for personal and national reasons.
flaws in economic consideration of Volts:
1) What is the Expected life of the vehicle? If used largely in EV mode is it 2X a normal ICE? Change your figures.
2) What is the expected reliability and lifetime maintenance cost? Will it be considerably lower than a normal ICE if the vehicle is used mostly as an EV?
3) What is the projected cost of gasoline? 2 or 3 times present cost or more? Would the looming war in the Middle East affect prices?
4) Are the old battery packs salable or suitable for home use with a solar cell system?
5) What is the resale value of a Volt? May it not be considerably higher than a normal ICE?
6) What effect would a vigorous program of nuclear power plant construction have on an economic future supply of unlimited electricity at stable and affordable prices?
There are so many indefinite terms in any economic analysis of a Volt purchase that it may be fuelish(sic) to draw specific conclusions. If the batteries perform well, The Volt may turn out to be an economic choice. To many of us, the strategic need for X(EV)s is compelling.
(Quote)
May 8th, 2009 at 8:57 am
#206
BobbyGA . If people don’t think $10.2 billion a quarter is too much, they dont understand math.
_________________________________________________
GM is reported as losing $6 Billion in Q-1
Toyota is reported as losing $7 Billion in Q-1
( http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/market-overview/update–toyota-sees–bln-annual-loss-sales-slump/ ) or $ 7.7 Billion ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30637861/ )
In kind, you are also suggesting that Japan should end all of the direct and internecine support of Toyota as well, correct?
(Quote)
May 8th, 2009 at 10:57 am
#203 EVO
I think we’re talking about the same thing, but just talking past each other. We both agree that cars like the Volt move us towards energy independence, although EVs, by themselves, won’t get us all the way there.
My point was that even without energy independence, any significant adoption of EVs in the US will lead to a great deal of energy resilience, meaning, less exposure to the vissitudes of the oil market. Which is a good thing.
Now, how is that making the perfect the enemy of the good?
(Quote)
May 8th, 2009 at 11:23 am
#208 Koz
I completely agree. I would just add that Andy Grove’s term “Energy Resilience” and your term “Relative Energy Independence” are pretty much the same thing.
(Quote)
May 8th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
The fact that so many reporters choose to criticize the Volt (regardless of their knowledge on the subject) is a sign that people are interested and are reading articles on the topic.
As we already know, there is truely a ground-swell of interest in EREVs, PHEVs, and EVs and many people (like ourselves) are eager for real products and are hungry for information. And until a real product is on the market, it’s easy to criticize in order to create a stir.
(Quote)
May 8th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
It’s unfortunate that today’s media is entirely profit driven because controversy often sells better than accurate analysis.
None of these negative articles on the Volt will mean much if the Volt is released to the public on time, meets expectations, and sells well — and it WILL sell well when gasoline prices are high. (It is not a matter of “if they will catch on”, I believe it’s a matter of “when”.)
I hope we keep track of all the nay-sayers so we can remind them of their words 2 years from now.
(Quote)
May 8th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
#217 Mark Wagner
Keep a spreadsheet of them and what they said, and bring it back up in say about 3 or 4 years from now. That will be fun.
(Quote)
May 8th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Noah – I agree with your #214, so you stopped making the perfect (complete) the enemy of the good (relative improvement of any amount to start). Please tell Breathe Easy. Since this site is about an electric vehicle, I’m happy to keep the blinders mostly on for that. That already gives us more than enough to gabble over, without topics like optimal high population density municipal size for efficiency and transportation policies to maximize overall energy efficiency, yet to minimize pandemic risks in an energy optimized context. See, now I just sound like factless, baseless hot air and sh!t. ok, Off for a ride on my electric vehicle for lunch. Weeeeeee!!!!!
ArkansasVolt – I did that with GM’s 2007 public promise of a plug in SUV in 2009. No one on this site laughed.
(Quote)
May 8th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
As a foreign sports car driver I used to not take a second glance at most US auto brands. Chevy change all that when I first discovered the Volt. I am now subscribed the all news feeds I can find, extremely excited about its release and will gladly trade my sports car to be amongst the first Volt drivers. Chevy you guys are on the right path, never give up, find a way to accomplish this vehicle, no matter what the haters say. If you changed my point of view – you have a very solid market!
(Quote)
May 9th, 2009 at 8:05 am
#138 Raymond said
Don’t forget, most people unfortunately think of electric cars as slow, uncomfortable and slugish”golf carts”. Another problem is also caused by NOT reading the entire story and thinking the VOLT will have a 40 mile range PERIOD! It’s unfortunate those people have a voice that can be heard by thousands.
————————————————————–
Well said. The homely slow and sluggish idea is particularly well entrenched Maybe when there are some real Volts people will see that it is time for some new ideas.
(Quote)
May 9th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
The guy at the Washington Post has a valid point.
E-REVs are NOT affordable. Fuel cell cars if they
are mass produced are affordable and unlike BEVs
and E-REVs fuel cell cars don’t use any gasoline
at all. Forget 450 tons of CO2, think no particulate
pollution and practically no CO2 emissions.
Mercedes has said that it will market a fuel cell car
for $30k in the near future. If that is true, a series
hybrid that costs $40k+ just doesn’t make sense
from an environmental and energy independence
standpoint.
Go nuclear, the electricity for electric cars whether
they be hydrogen cars or BEVs has to come from
somewhere. Go advanced solar technology. Yes
to hydrogen pipelines.
If $40k is what an eco friendly car is going to cost,
then there is no excuse for not making that car a
fuel cell car. An eco friendly car should be as close
to non polluting as possible. Gasoline is out of the
question. If GM has spent a billion dollars to market
a series hybrid instead of a fuel cell electric vehicle,
then it has made a humongous mistake.
(Quote)