The other day I was in my office when my cell phone rang. I picked it up and on the other end heard a strong voice with a slight Texas drawl, “Dr. Dennis? Hi , Ed Whitacre here.”
You could imagine how taken aback I was, caught by surprise, but quite thrilled and honored.
You see I had been trying to reach out to Mr. Whitacre for a while to learn about his perspective on electric cars, and thanks to GM communications leadership it very suddenly became a reality.
I joked with him that we shared something in common, neither he or I knew much about cars before we started these roles, and he agreed. “I don’t know anything about cars, ” he admitted.
But clearly he knows how to run a business.
I asked why he took the job at GM.
“The government called me in the summer, the Treasury Department, and asked me if I would consider being Chairman,” he said. “I had been at AT&T many years and was happily retired and so I said no I won’t, and they called back the next day and the next day and my conscience finally got to me and I agreed to be Chairman of the Board. I did that for about four months.”
Since it wasn’t much publicized I asked about why Fritz Henderson was fired.
“The board had the feeling GM wasn’t moving quickly enough or the right way, so Fritz left,” he said. “He’s a great guy and he left. I’m pretty old but there wasn’t any other candidate at the time. I had been chairman of AT&T for 17 years so I said yes I could be the CEO.”
“I don’t expect to stay in the position long,” he said. “There’s a search committee doing a search.”
As you might know, Mr. Whitacre also sits on the Board of Directors of ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest petroleum producers, and it is of interest to see how he might reconcile that with the mission of GM’s Chevy Volt, to help wean our country off of oil.
“ExxonMobil is very concerned about the environment and the future also,” Whitacre said. The company works towards “finding different sources (of energy) and converting to natural gas.”
“We provide the fuel to a lot of powerplants that generate electricity, and there’s a lot of scientific work as well like growing algae (for biofuels),” he added.
He described ExxonMobil as being “responsible citizens,” and noted there is opportunity for the company in a world of electric cars.
“They’re tuned into the electric car,” he said. “As good as (our electric cars) are, the electricity has to be generated by some fossil fuel.”
That the CEO of GM reached out to me and us, and was genuinely thankful for our work here on GM-Volt.com is a very, very wonderful thing. Stay tuned for some more of our conversation.
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 14th, 2010 at 7:17 am and is filed under Fuel, Original GM-Volt Interviews, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+42
Jan 14th, 2010 (7:23 am)“As good as (our electric cars) are, the electricity has to be generated by some fossil fuel.”
Sounds like something you’d hear from someone working for Exxon-Mobil. I guess hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal don’t generate the right kind of electrons for a car.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (7:26 am)Also from the article,
“ExxonMobil is very concerned about the environment
I still don’t knowingly buy gas from Exxon or Mobile.
I see that company as scum for what they did in Alaska.
+11
Jan 14th, 2010 (7:35 am)The fact that he reached out to you, Lyle, speaks volumes to your/our commitment. I agree ExxonMobil won’t be worried about the Volt and its siblings. The oil being replaced by them comes from far-away places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, where Exxon Mobile is not a player.
And as he says, EV’s still need Gas to generate the electricity to run the vehicles on.
Again another great day at GM-Volt.com, when the CEO of a major company phones up to say hi!
LJGTVWOTR
Has Plug? Have Sale.
+26
Jan 14th, 2010 (7:35 am)I am thinking that you are thinking about the Exxon Valdez shipping accident. Indeed it was a terrible event, but certainly not something reflecting any corporate intent or policy.
+22
Jan 14th, 2010 (7:37 am)It speaks well of Mr Whitacre that he was willing to reach out and respond, not simply through layers of PR, but in a personal call.
+3
Jan 14th, 2010 (7:39 am)I agree it was an accident. It was the aftermath that I am concerned with and their lack of willpower to make good.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (7:51 am)Well, gee, Rashiid, cut ‘em a break. Making it good would have cost them money.
+12
Jan 14th, 2010 (7:51 am)I think it is time to rename Lyle as Volt-Man!!!!
You have done the world a real service by helping GM to realize the Volt was seriously needed and wanted by people all over the planet. And by letting us be a part of it, we all have a real connection to this car. GM realizes this as well. For that, I wanted to say thank you!
Now if you can just convince the big boys to utilize your “Want List”, you would truly be a superhero to over 51,000 people!!!!
Can you hear us now, GM?????
NPNS
+3
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:01 am)Alternatives are not going to come online when NG is below $6. Pickens recently scaled back the Texas wind farm by 100%. He dropped half the order for generators and the rest are going to other projects. It is ‘off the table’.
While I don’t generally like what Lutz has to say (because of consistancy with GM’s other managers), he is right about gasoline being too cheap. It’s going to be an uphill battle in my household to ‘sell’ the Volt vs other cars priced similarly.
+7
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:02 am)Wow. It’s not every day that you get a phone call from the CEO of one of the biggest auto companies in the world. Obviously, Lyle’s blog really is a making a difference in the world. No doubt about it, once the Volt gets a foothold in the marketplace, it’s going to be considered THE pioneering vehicle that kicked off the electric car age … like the Model T did when it came out.
Man, I hope the scientists and engineers can make HUGE progress in the next few years with battery technology. Make them smaller, lighter, more durable, more range, and much less expensive. Hopefully, the people working in the IBM consortium on the “Battery 500″ project will do just that and we’ll see GM cars based on Voltec technology that just about anyone can afford. Good enough so that IC engines are no longer needed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmHZhBqI500
The cars of the future are certainly going to be more and more electrified. Little kids growing up right now will probably wonder why anyone would want a car with a noisy, polluting IC engine under the hood. I’m definitely looking forward to test driving a Chevy Volt later this year.
+12
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:05 am)Wow Lyle, I think I would’ve been totally floored by a phone call like that! I genuinely think that was a cool thing for him to call you personally like that and discuss things openly. Was anything else discussed Volt or Voltec-wise that you are able to share?
A big +1 to Ed Whitacre for taking the time out of his busy schedule to call Lyle.
+12
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:12 am)Lyle,
The fact that a CEO of a large corporation like GM would take the time to make a personal call you, demonstrates how important you and this site are.
Keep up the good work!! We’re proud of your efforts.
+5
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:16 am)Ford won Car Of The Year with the hybrid Fusion. The winner for 2011 will probably be an electric drive vehicle. Chevy, Nissan, Ford, or BYD?
Taking this title would go a long way to heal open wounds of the past. Best of luck to the management at NGMCO.
=D~
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:21 am)Lyle – I hope you asked him his thoughts about a gas tax. Wagoner wanted this and it makes cars like the Volt viable, and also stabilizes the price. But I have a feeling this CEO wouldnt be so warm to the idea.
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:29 am)As we strive to leave our past, and work hard to change our attitudes born in the past, we face difficulties. Fritz may have been unable to really walk away from the failed business model of GM, and Ed may be unable to really walk away from the business model of Mobil/Exxon. Mr. Lutz allowed the Volt design to provide inadequate rear seat headroom, just like all the other GM sedans of recent years. We tend to do what we had success with in the past, sometimes not realizing the circumstance has so changed that those models will not work well anymore.
Rather than berate these guys, using 20/20 hindsight, maybe we should applaud their effort to bring a new hope to GM.
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:37 am)A call from Whitacre. That is impressive Lyle.
/I hope he didn’t slip in any suggestion of changes he’d like to see at gm-volt.com.
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:43 am)i worry that once electric cars kick off the price of gas will skyrocket. i don’t see electric trucks in the near future. and where i live, trucks are a necessity. and besides, who doesn’t giggle at the sound of a gas powered V8? Sure the worlds changing, but there is no reason to hate the wonderful things of the past. one day electric cars will be at the same level as gas cars. old, stale, inefficient. Change the world, but love what we have now. thats how we learn as humans.
+13
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:46 am)No matter if you like what he said or not, old coal plants will be refurbished to natural gas and keep burning. Our economy can’t thrive without it.
The transition away from fossil fuels is going to take decades, but at least it has begun – that’s what’s important.
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:47 am)I still see his position at GM and Exxon as a conflict of interest, and whether or not it truly is; just the appearance of a possible conflict of interest should justify his resignation from one of the two companies.I still see his position at GM and Exxon as a conflict of interest, and whether or not it truly is; just the appearance of a possible conflict of interest should justify his resignation from one of the two companies.
NPNS!
-1
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:49 am)Loboc #9
Yes CNG is very cheap now, but if demand rises then its price will go up. So it makes sense to keep investing in wind farms, geothermal and solar tech, because in 30 years these investments will help our poor kids who will be saddled with Obama’s debt, at least we can give them cheap energy.
And gasoline isn’t cheap at $80 a barrel. This is actually an equilibrium point between 2008′s $150 spike and 2009′s lows. The oil companies will not invest at all in new oil at any price lower than $80. What we do not know is if world wide energy demand will rise or fall in the next 5 years, but if it rises oil will be over $100/barrel and possibly much more if the dollar weakens. Plus a major war in the middle east is virtually certain in next couple years.
I really doubt that any BEV/EREV/ plug-in hybrid built with decent quality in the next several years will sit on a lot unless the world falls in to depression.
+20
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:50 am)I’LL go on record here to say that the Chevy Volt will sweep all “Car of the Year” awards next year.
Period.
+3
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:50 am)It’s quite understandable why Whitacre thinks we need fossil fuel to generate electricity, because today about 75% of our electricity is derived from fossil fuels (mostly coal and natural gas).
You can see this from the EIA website. The attached link shows energy consumption by sector (note the transportation industry’s 96% dependence on petroleum). Also note that renewables account for 7% of our overall energy use, but of that 7%, wind and solar only account for 8%, or ~0.56% of our total energy use.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=us_energy_home
Therefore, renewables have a great deal of ground to make up to displace fossil fuels.
Again, the EIA has issued a prelimiary 25 year projection on energy use. Even by 2035, it is projected that fossil fuels will produce 66% of our electricity (and provide 78% of our total energy use). See slides 6 and 20.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/speeches/newell121409.pdf
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:53 am)Here, here…. I want mine in black and by Christmas here in Mid-Michigan
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:57 am)Or we could just leave our children a ton of debt to pay off and an economy still using what in the next generation will be extremely expensive energy. That would be responsible.
I prefer to create jobs now building a new economy for the future where we create ALL of our own energy mostly through renewables and nuclear. Obama supporters say he’ll get to this eventually after he’s done messing up health care even more.
Maybe this will happen, maybe credits and even mandates will be put in place to electify our personal transportation sooner. And maybe congress will move to make sure we are increasing our investments in renewable energy and upgrading our GRID. Our energy policy needs to be more long term in its thinking, then just to think Natural Gas is cheap now so we don’t have to worry about it.
+5
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:57 am)Ed may know some things about Exxon, but his prior business experience is with what is now AT&T. That’s a company involved with moderately high tech and large scale execution. Whatever we might think of him, it does not seem to me to be fair to describe him as a part of the “business model of Exxon”. He is, rather, good at being close to the government, first at AT&T and now at GM. No doubt he has looked after the corporate interests of each, but one can be confident that at each step he is in close touch with his government contacts.
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:14 am)Yes it has begun, and it is unstoppable. But we need to go much faster for obvious reasons. We have high unemployment. We have huge trade deficits. And our way of life is at risk if the oil is blocked coming out of the persian gulf. In my mind these are all unacceptable situations, and we need a president that can recognize and mobiize our country to solve these problems instead of trying to get government control of healthcare. Lets become a socialist country after we solve these other problems first.
+4
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:15 am)Liquid carbon-based fuel doesn’t have to be fossil fuel; it can be biodiesel or ethanol. While not yet financially advantageous, there is much good progress being made in the two most promising versions of these biofuels; cellulosic ethanol from waste crops (corn based ethanol is a boondoggle) and biodiesel generated from algae. Given the brilliance of the EREV approach, and the limitations of BEVs, I see biofuels research as a natural complement to advanced battery research for the further development of EREVs. By the way, GM agrees with me:
http://gas2.org/2008/05/01/gm-announces-new-cellulosic-ethanol-partnership-with-mascoma-corp/
In my opinion, the big inconsistency for Mr. Whitacre isn’t Volt vs. gasoline (since it is an EREV with a fuel tank, after all), but rather GM’s support of biofuels vs. gasoline.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:23 am)I’m with Rashiid on this one. We avoid Exxon stations to this day.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
-2
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:24 am)Given AT&T’s and Mr. Whitacre’s willingness to illegally wire tap millions of our phone lines starting in 2001, it makes me wonder if I want OnStar after all
And yes it was illegal, which is why Congress had to pass a law in 2008 giving AT&T and others retroactive immunity from these actions.
That comment isn’t meant to start some ridiculous right/left politcal argument with all of us pointing fingers. It’s meant to highlight that the man in charge of GM believes that none of us have any right to privacy. I think that’s a concern that all of us should share as we prepare to purchase a car whose location can be tracked at any given time, and is equipped with a system that can easily allow you to be literally eavesdropped upon in your own car. I am not a conspiracy nut. Mark my words, sooner or later OnStar will be used in some criminal case just in this way. It also has the potential to be used for signficant privacy violations.
Having said that, Mr. Whitacre sounds like a pretty decent guy on a personal level. I am not slamming him as a person, just his view on a specific issue.
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:26 am)Amen! I can’t see how it WOULDN”T fit the criteria they use.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+10
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:27 am)Congrats Lyle, your name will go down in electric automotive history! I called GM yesterday to see if they had any stuff they could send me on the Volt, which they didn’t, but said to go to the GM-Volt website! How cool is that.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:29 am)It has begun AND it’s accelerating. Granted, it’ll take time, but the Volt is a great step in the right direction.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+8
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:31 am)Is there a way to power my EREV from cadmium-laced children’s jewelry? There seems to be no shortage of that particular resource. Maybe the BYD folks will make that breakthrough…
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:31 am)My sentiments exactly. That’s a HUGE compliment to Lyle and his efforts. It’s also an indication that GM *does* recognize this site and its potential.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:38 am)If you are seriously concerned about privacy issues with OnStar, then simply don’t buy a Volt – or any other GM car. Problem solved.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+5
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:49 am)I can’t avoid all stations yet and I feel it is more important to avoid Citgo. I would rather support an American Co.
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:53 am)I went online (live chat) and asked about Volt allocations and subsequently asked for a call back from a Chevy dealer. Nothing happened.
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:55 am)Having a rough day Jim?
Here’s a hug…
(H)
+3
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:56 am)When it comes to energy I am in the “all of the above” camp. Drill, drill, drill so that as much oil as possible is domestically produced. But also drill for thermal, natural gas and put up wind mills and capture hydro. And bypass some of those geological middle men and capture energy directly from the sun though solar panels, either for heat or electricity.
Or just remove the antennae!
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:59 am)Yeah, I agree with some others. The Exxon guy gives me the creeps. I’m not crazy about an oil man overseeing one of the biggest breakthroughs in green automotive technology. While his little quote about needing “some fossil fuel” to power electric cars may have some merit, his mind remains closed to the idea that solar/wind and other sources of energy could become more popular.
Whatever though…his direction won’t influence the volt at this point,…so I say just ignore the man, and continue the long wait for the Volt.
+14
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:01 am)______________________________________________________
Mr. Ed Whitacre gets +2 for personally calling Lyle and for Mr. Whitacre’s straight talk to Lyle’s questions.
Lyle gets +2 for having earned the moment of Mr. Whitacre personally calling him and for Lyle’s no-fear direct questions.
______________________________________________________
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:04 am)LOL, we avoid Citgo too!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:09 am)In large part I agree for the short term, except that you omitted nuclear (on which we are way behind the curve). JMO.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:09 am)Getting in the cross-hairs of a major corporation can also be a bad thing.
Lyle did actually ask for an interview. The CEO (instead of a PR person) calling sounds like a way to squelch some noise.
Hope I’m just paranoid this morning like the wire-tapper guys.
BTW, I don’t buy Exxon if I can avoid it. The problem is that even though the station doesn’t say ‘Exxon’ they may still be selling Exxon products. There’s no way to know.
Doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of competition in oil since the price at the pump(s) are pretty even. It seems to me that gasoline near a refinery shouldn’t be anywhere near the national average price.
I can’t wait to stop buying gasoline. These guys really pi$$ me off.
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:11 am)Absolutely, and it sounds like there was more information that Lyle will share (soon I hope).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
-4
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:15 am)“The government called me in the summer, the Treasury Department, and asked me if I would consider being Chairman,” he said.
Yep, that about says it all. Now we know who owns GM in the new USSA.
+12
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:18 am)AT&T was asked by our government to do that. We had just come under attack by terrorists. For National Security reasons, they wire tapped people. I don’t begrudge that one bit and I support AT&T for doing it. I am Arab, and I have nothing but extreme hated for the people that attacked.us.
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:19 am)Well done Lyle!
It’s good to know you are aware of us Mr Whiteacre.
———————————————
Wow is the mood negative here today, I’m leaving before that brings me down.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:22 am)I disagree. The captain was a known drunk, and they let him back in charge anyways. Dumb move. Then the aftermath… Lack of responsibility. I haven’t been to an Exxon or Mobil since.
Fishmahn
+8
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:24 am)I would have asked him thoughts on a 2-pronged approach to energy independance… How does he feel about the U.S. increasing its offshore drilling in addition to electric/hybrid development? (yeah, I know many of you won’t like that idea)
China and other countries are increasing drilling in the Gulf, but we do not. (insert your ‘oil spill’ argument here: blah, blah – but I haven’t heard of China having any of those problems) How long ago was the Exxon Valdez incident? 20 years? Does anybody think that technology has not improved since then?
Would he approve of additional rigs in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of California if they were legally approved? I am all for keeping American dollars in our own economy. Other nations are drilling in our own backyard and then SELLING IT to us. How stupid is that?
And, someday, when electric cars ARE the mainstream… we can always turn the spicket off on an oil well if it is no longer needed. Right now, they are needed. We could be energy independant a lot sooner if the NIMBY’s would shut the hell up.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:26 am)If all the positives leave, it lets me here alone! (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:29 am)about the issue of costs…
i bought a hybrid Ford/Mercury Mariner hybrid even though it cost more (much more) than the regular gas fuel only version. i wasn’t too happy about it but wanted to support the technology growth as it ramps up. costs in this area. i like the idea of sourcing fuels from domestic sources, and having a battery option for the vehicles.
also, it should be added, i prefer a more user friendly vehicle if the truth was known. the auto industry ought to offer a simple product line for people who like to tinker with cars and trick them out.
most ignore the do it yourself buyer and that is a marketing decision from the top….. maybe Ed has a different vision?
and as to the issue of what fuels or power source is used,… i suggest everyone buy a solar array or a wind power system for their home use and contribute if you aren’t happy with the oil industry.
i also suggest to the auto industry that any car with a battery and a motor ought to have the ability to function as a emergency backup generator. case in point… my hybrid has a puny 120 V 1.5 amp outlet in a car with a 70 KW electric power unit. if they added the option to tap this power and convert it to AC when needed, it would be a real benefit in emergency situations, winter blackouts, etc.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:29 am)This is fantastic what Lyle has been able to pull off and a phone call from the CEO of GM pretty much cements Lyle’s position as a serious and important journalist in the automotive media. However, wouldn’t it have been wild if Mr. Whitacre dialed Statik by accident?
Thanks once again to Lyle for his work here and thanks to Mr Whitacre for taking the time to recognize this little blog and the people that faithfully read it.
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:31 am)You’re not *totally* alone on this. I agree. Except that when we no longer need the oil, we could become an exporting nation again.
(ducks and covers).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:38 am)Unfortunately, Mr. Whitacre is indeed old and when he says: “As good as (our electric cars) are, the electricity has to be generated by some fossil fuel.” he’s showing his age. I’m not saying renewables are up to providing the industrial levels of power required by existing electricity demand PLUS a population of millions of electric cars. I’m saying FUSION power is. http://www.iter.org
In addition to the collaborative ITER program, the U.S. is also looking into what’s known as “inertial containment” fusion at the Lawrence Livermore Labs https://lasers.llnl.gov Neither program expects over unity (more energy out than used by the reactor) for at least a decade, but that’s at current funding and public interest levels. Imagine if one or both programs had the same support NASA had in the 1960′s with our Lunar program.
Fossil fuels are exactly that. Fossils. I want to be able to drive an electric Winnebago to the 7-11 for a slurpy if I choose to, without feeling guilty about what I’m pumping into the air.
+6
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:50 am)With the status of electrical generation right *now*, Mr. Whitacre sounds more “current” than old. Granted, fusion is hot (on a lot of levels) and holds some promise, but it’s definitely not anywhere close to being ready for prime time. I’ve watched its progress too. Personally, I like the “all of the above” option, *including* intense research, *modern* nuclear, etc. JMO.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:53 am)They are looking at vehicle to grid tech for Volt Gen II or III.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+3
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:57 am)If the weather here in Central Texas would just warm up, I could take my electric motorcycle out for a ride, then come home and recharge it using the solar panels on my roof.
I don’t have the capacity to recharge the Volt that I’m hoping to be able to buy in the Fall, but when I do have a Volt in my driveway, I’d like to be able to recharge it using the solar panels that are somewhere on my property. And I already have those places planned out.
The era of green energy is right here, right now. I hope that GM isn’t just going with the Volt to be politically correct, but understands how much of a game changer being able to drive a car that one powers from ones own sources of energy. Imagine life in remote villages, or rural areas — no more dependence on fuel trucks or long rides to gasoline stations. I was a disaster relief volunteer in New Orleans after Katrina, and if I’d had a Volt and solar power, my life would have been much better than it was.
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:58 am)That’s a pretty flippant answer, given than many GM cars don’t even have OnStar. A more elegant solution would be the ability to turn OnStar on or off. Call me crazy, but I think that would be a better solution than me ceasing my lifelong support of an important American manufacturer. We’re all GM supporters here (well, except for the trolls).
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:58 am)I am with you Citco is first Exxon is second from the back.
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:02 am)I hope not. V2G is the dumbest thing since wind up starters on cars.
Demand Response is a much better solution than V2G. Generator-following loads (the opposite of load-following generators) is an even better one.
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:03 am)In 1980, oil hit $98 per bbl for the yearly average (inflation adjusted). Oil is cheap at $80/bbl. Gasoline is cheap below $3/gal. Alternatives can’t compete.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp
Forcing alternatives spending with a negative return on that investment is just tying up investment funds unnecessarily. If you keep losing money on wind/solar/alcohol, then, investing more is not economically viable short term. It is better to use the cheap fuel we have and work on higher tech for future build out.
I’m all for building out solar/wind/bio, but, to mortgage the future unnecessarily won’t get us there faster in the long run. The negative return and interest will kill us.
Better to use those investments in infrastructure, R&D, and testing the waters with some small roll-outs (like Volt). Bring up a few experimental PV and wind farms to get some experience. Make some cellulose-based alcohol and see how it goes.
For all we know (and most of us are hoping) the Volt will take off like a rocket without being TCO-viable. The cost of gasoline vs electricity may not be that big a factor for some people to go electric. It’s not for me.
Pearl white Volt SS with tan leather FTW!
+4
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:05 am)Looking back at some of my comments so far this morning, I can only say; Man, I’m a total A-hole today. Time to take it down a notch….
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:07 am)#3
My sentiments exactly. +1
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:07 am)It has been demonstrated in previous threads that most of the US debt can be attributed to republican presidents. For more details, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
and
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
So it’s quite unfair to call the US debt ‘Obama’s debt’ and you should avoid making this thread political.
At 80$ a barrel, oil is indeed very cheap considering it’s a limited ressource. We do know that world wide energy demand will rise in the next 5 years, as soon as the economy improve. Price of oil should be at least twice what it is today and the govt. should tax oil so that it reaches that level asap.
This way, people will naturally be looking for an alternative – the electric car will be viable, production will ramp up and soon enough we will get rid of oil as much as we can.
I do agree with you that any BEV/EREV/ plug-in hybrid built with decent quality in the next several years will not sit on a lot for long.
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:09 am)#5
True that. +1
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:10 am)Hmmm … most of that fossil fuel is coal.
In anycase, with peak oil exxon mobiles of the world will have less oil to sell anyway. The national oil companies of oil producing companies will become far more important (than they already are) compared to the “big oil”.
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:14 am)I wasn’t *trying* to be “flippant”, but it’s been discussed here (a lot) that OnStar may well be a crucial (read necessary) feature on the Volt. It may be used for software upgrades and with consent will likely be used to gather real-world data on the car’s use, charging behaviors, etc. It’s *possible* that the Volt’s Gen III or IV may not require OnStar – I don’t think that anyone knows at this point. So until then, it will seem prudent to some that they not buy a Volt.
By all means, I hope that you continue to support GM by buying their OnStar-free models.
As always, it’s all about priorities.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+3
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:16 am)Tagamet: “If you are seriously concerned about privacy issues…”
My friend, ‘Privacy’ died with the invention of the “World Wide Web”. It is impossible to have nearly every computer in the world having the ability to communicate to each other and NOT have security issues.
To believe that someone even cares to know everything about you is, (well I’ll go easy on this one), “silly”.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:16 am)Let me think, what problems have we heard of in China. Hmmm, oh yes, censorship. I wonder if that could lead to not hearing about some of the other problems?
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:18 am)Not that they don’t generate the right kind but that they don’t generate nearly enough. Not even close to enough. Maybe nuclear some day, but the others just don’t generate enough right now. Why don’t you put down your prejudice against Exxon and try reading the post and interview notes again.
+9
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:20 am)#29
They can track me all they want. It will serve them right when they die of boredom, LOL.
-1
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:20 am)I don’t like the republicans or the democrats. You can’t compare apples and oranges, you have to evaluate each time period and what was going on.
Obama certainly came in at a tough time, but his focus has been on trying to get government control over healthcare, raising taxes in a bad economy, and a stimulus plan which is largely a payoff to get support for his healthcare.
Many more jobs could be created for less than a tenth of the stimulus plan by simply putting credits in place for things that will generate economic activity (in our country not other countries) and doing things to lower the cost of employment (lower taxes health care expenses). Where I work half of us were layed off in 2009 because of current government policies.
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:21 am)#33
LOL. +1
+8
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:22 am)We should ALL avoid getting sucked down the politics drain.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+3
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:23 am)Mr. Whitacre did not want to be CEO of G.M. but he decided to step up to the plate in the bottom of the ninth inning at G.M.. Mr. Whitacre’s main goal is to make G.M. profitable. Without the governments help, projects like the Volt probably would have been canceled under the circumstances at G.M during this difficult time. Building the Cruise will help the Volt succeed since they share alot of parts and should be a great alternative for people who can’t afford the Volt. I believe the Volt is a critical project for G.M. So that when battery technology improves G.M. is ready and won’t have to play catch up to most everyone else. Mr. Whitacre, the electrification of the automotive industry is a key component towards many new jobs, national security not being dependent on foreign oil and great for the environment as well. Thank you Sir. Robert Davis
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:23 am)That’s true. China is screwed up politically. But birds and fish washing up onshore with a light coat of 10W-40 is usually picked up by the world press.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:24 am)LOL, *I* didn’t bring up privacy, Jim in Pa did!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:25 am)You think oil spills in the Gulf could be covered up?
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+4
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:26 am)#48
Oh, I dunno, I’ve actually gotten quire a few laughs today already. Hang in there.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:27 am)Congratulations Lyle on your exclusive with the CEO. Not bad for a non-journalist.
It’s an OK idea but irrelevant. First it’s doubtful there is much oil offshore. Second is that getting that oil into production will take 25 years at best. Third is that even in the most optimistic scenarios about the size of the fields there isn’t enough there to move the price needle one way or another. Fourth is that at the price needed to justify offshore developments in the areas we have left oil becomes that elusive commodity, unobtainium. (IOW if that oil is commercially viable the economy is hobbled by high oil prices). We have a lot of natural gas, almost endless amounts of coal, huge amounts of surplus agricultural land, and not very much oil. It’s better to just accept these facts and move on to trying to find a real solution rather than distracting ourselves chasing the chimera of endless amounts of oil offshore.
Oil has simply become too expensive a source of energy, and it’s going to get more rather than less expensive as we move forward through time. We need substitutes at cheaper prices. For example, running a car on electricity costs about 1/6th what it costs to run it on oil. Multiplied by hundreds of millions of cars on the road, this presents an opportunity for saving tens and tens of billions of dollars annually, which can then be used for other purposes. Not to put too fine a point on it, but finding cheaper substitutes for your energy needs is how you “fuel” economic growth.
+4
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:27 am)#42
Buy a Volt and avoid ‘em all!
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:30 am)#49
Damn right. Total management breakdown on the front end as well as afterwards. For shame!
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:31 am)What a GREAT idea! Why, oh why, didn’t I think of that?!?!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:36 am)Yes that will give incentive to the folks who can afford new cars. What about the poor guy just starting out in the workforce as a young family and driving to work to try to keep a newborn kid fed and housed. What about the young girl just trying to drive far enough to graduate from school and start a career.
Taxes will inordinately punish folks like them. If there was a floor on gas to keep prices from plunging so fast that efforts like Voltec, cellulosic ethonal and advanced battery research aren’t completely wiped out and abandoned during one of the inevetible price falls of oil prices, the issues of fairness and negative economic effects would be lessened.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:37 am)Even if I accepted your assertions, why not just let those, er, what’s the term, oh yeah, capitalists go out and search for cheap sources of energy on their own dime?
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:38 am)#63
Naaahhh, you’re on a roll. The one about the cadmium jewelry and BYD was worth the price of admission. BTW, I wonder if I could block my OnStar antenna by covering it up with my tinfoil hat? Just a thought….
Blog on!!
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:41 am)#65
Amen, and thank you very much. +1
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:43 am)Six to ten years if the political climate is right.
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:45 am)I prefer not to think about it. BUT, it could go worse than that, even:
“YO, THIS IS FLAVOR FLAV… WHO’S THIS??!?”
(if you don’t get the context, check at 0:15 seconds, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TnqwISHskY)
-10
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:46 am)(click to show comment)
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:49 am)#81
As statik might say, “tres drole”.
As to the rest of your comment, it is extremely thoughtful and well said. Thank you. +1
-9
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:51 am)very interesting that the government as owner of GM allows a oil-lobbyist to steer its company. Sounds like a shoot in the knee prolonging invasions of oil producing countries…
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:52 am)#84
That’s OK, you never know when inspiration is going to strike. No extra charge for the brilliant insight.
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:54 am)onstar already has been used for eavesdropping by the FBI, but the courts later revoked it.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html
However if you are worried about being tracked in your car then I’d keep your cell phone powered off, as long as your cell is powered on it can be tracked by your service provider. And lets not forget every time you use a credit card or debit card your bank knows exactly where you are. It’s getting tough to be anonymous.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (12:06 pm)There are advantages to V2G other than the oft-quoted smoothing of grid power.
If your electricity is out for some extended period. It’d be nice if my frozen dinners didn’t spoil and I was able to nuke ‘em for lunch. Having V2G (and G2V) communications would also enable apps like ‘grid schedules charging’ app or ‘vehicle avoids brown-out damage’ app.
I don’t want my expensive battery to be degraded by unnecessary charge/discharge cycles due to the grid demanding my power. On the other hand, if the grid needs power and pays me an exorbitant amount for it, maybe that’s a good thing.
+5
Jan 14th, 2010 (12:07 pm)Guy Incognito@#91
Taking name-calling to a new low, and challenging the CEO to cancel the Volt is “impressive” on so many (low) levels.
Be WHATEVER,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (12:10 pm)Well-said. I didn’t reply because I thought that it was a troll using the “D” word.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (12:10 pm)I paid my local suburban Detroit Chevy dealer a call (based on advice from Corvettguy) and they had “no idea” that they might be getting product in 2010, after all California is the only place getting them…
Jan 14th, 2010 (12:12 pm)I soooo appreciate the “no charge”. I can put that money in my “Volt Jar”.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (12:14 pm)GROAN.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (12:24 pm)Soon you will pretty much be able to avoid them all. Cheers to that!
+3
Jan 14th, 2010 (12:27 pm)You do not exactly have to live in a cave to be “off the grid” but the information age does provide the government with the ability to invade our privacy. Naturally if you lean left, and think government is part of the solution, you are all for government assessing our activities, this is appropriate, this is inappropriate. Sadly, I sit at the other end of the spectrum, and do not want others compelling me to live according to what they consider appropriate.
Jan 14th, 2010 (12:36 pm)I think China will try to “manage” information wherever China conducts business.
Jan 14th, 2010 (12:38 pm)(Predictably) “From your lips to God’s ear”!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (12:41 pm)Uncontested.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (12:46 pm)Well said pdt!
What flabbergasts me is that this article veered way off of electric cars and straightaway onto the oil behemoth.
Lyle, I thought you wanted to know Mr. Whitacre’s take on electric cars not ExxonMobil’s take on the only way to power them…
Probably a great interview, but it wasn’t conveyed in your article.
Keep up the good work (please let us know about it when it happens!)
Jan 14th, 2010 (12:52 pm)It still doesn’t hurt to let your local dealer know what kind of demand he can expect. If he is able to place an order into the system, and for whatever reason it just sits there for 6 months, at least the car has YOUR NAME on it when it finally arrives. It’s all good. Just hang in there!
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:02 pm)Taking your 1st and 3rd points first: If that’s true why are other countries who are not burdened by our tree-hugging-political-correctness expanding their efforts in the Gulf and even at the North Pole? (I recall a story about Russia planting a flag under the ice cap by submarine to stake claim to the oil there…)
And to your 2nd point: So what? Knowing that it would take 25 years to fully develop new finds of oil only brings to mind that HAD WE STARTED our efforts 25 years ago (1985), we would not be handing out Billions or Trillions of our American dollars to foreign regimes run by crazy dictators.
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:02 pm)I’m not that sure he’s trying to get government control over healthcare just for the sake of it. You have to admit that, according to statistics, countries where there is some form of govt. involvement are able to provide a complete coverage of the population for less money than what is spent in the US. So I believe that Obama was trying to achieve some kind of cost control over healthcare and that he concluded the government had to be involved to get that result.
As for raising taxes, my understanding is that the middle class did not have to support more taxes under the Obama administration. Taxing the higher incomes more does not have much of an impact on the economy. The economy is bad, that’s for sure, but it was going to be bad anyway since we’re trying to get out of a recession.
As for the stimulus plan, we’ll see in the months to come how it turns out. Economists were inclined to say that this was the right move to do. How it is spent will determine where the country is going.
So far, it seems the country is going to keep it’s biggest auto manufacturer (GM) and that manufacturer will make the Volt available. It’s a starting point to get off oil. It needed to be done, I think.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:06 pm)Point taken. But I didn’t start the fire and I like the facts to be known.
In the future, I’ll try to behave
-1
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:10 pm)Affordable proven solar energy is here today. Mr Whitacre is wrong about needing fossil fuel to power our EV’s.
Please check out this website: http://www.stirlingenergy.com/how-it-works.htm or just type suncatcher into your search engine.
This is proven technology that going utility scale right now. It is designed and manufactured in the USA. It has the highest sunlight to electricity conversion rate and costs the same as a coal or natural gas power plant. It is made mostly in Michigan by suppliers to the auto industry.
Everybody on this website should familiarize themselves with this simple proven technology.
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:19 pm)T. Boone Pickens had begun to build a 4,000 megawatt wind farm. He would have started assembly of turbines and towers that were delivered to the Pan Handle farm this Spring except that the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) approved construction of additional transmission capacity to windy areas of the state but not far enough to reach Picken’s Wind Farm. “In July 2007, the PUC announced its approval for additional transmission lines that could deliver 10,000 more megawatts of renewable power by 2012. New transmission infrastructure will allow all Texans to access the the state’s vast wind resources.” …. http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_wind-transmission.htm
As a result, he attempted to raise founds through private sources and had a initial commitment from some of his friends in the gas industry. The effort fell through, in part I believe because of opposition to authorization to build a transmission corridor where he had planned. He only recourse was to cancel a large part of his plan and divert what turbans were paid for to new locations. IMHO, it was a stupid action by the Texas government most likely done because Texas is oil country and his support for ending our oil addiction did not set lightly in the eyes of oil men. He continues his effort to ween our country off of foreign oil and has succeeded in getting the attention of Congress who will be taking up HR 1835 and S. 672. Pickens believes we can use natural gas, 20% of the fuel used to generate electric power, to power our transportation fleets and replace that with wind power.
“Latest Pickens Plan News – Pickens Moves Wind Farms to Minnesota and Canada”
http://www.pickensplan.com/news/2010/01/12/pickens-moves-wind-farms-to-minnesota-and-canada/
http://push.pickensplan.com/index.php
Instead of pasting legislation to take advantage of his investment in Texas, he has been forced to move the turbines out of he country and to Minnesota where the wind isn’t as powerful. Just plain stupid Texas politics gets me mad. It’s time for a new governor and other officials that will back the tremendous advantage that Texas is blessed with.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:20 pm)First off being contacted by Whitacre directly, as a lot of posters here cheered, does speak volumes for both Lyle and CEO. That ‘want-list’ adds invaluable credibility to gm.volt.com opinions. True, I have been critical of Whitacre’s moves. Recall day one at NAIAS. It was wonderful news. The Converj is a go, GMC’s Granite, VOLT being repriced well below $40k and all that. Then from day two on, each of these front line topics have been to some degree recanted. Likely wouldn’t have happened under FH and much less likely to happen if a big-car exec CEO is installed. Now finding GM’s CEO is a Priority 1. And this critical issue given the leadership statements in the past few weeks is not being addressed. Once installed, GM cannot function with two CEO’s. Chairman Whitacre must agree any issue in contention be decided in favor of the real CEO – no exceptions… see the point.
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:21 pm)It’s always the second player that gets the flag thrown (g).
Thanks,
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
-1
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:25 pm)Agreed. Its a big, fat indisputable conflict of interest. He is a fox in the hen house.
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:29 pm)Thanks for the link. Interesting read.
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:34 pm)Very entertaining thread today….
Very cool of Ed to call you Lyle….pretty neat
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:43 pm)It’s important to realise that, even if all the nex cars sold tomorrow were magically E85 compatible EREVs or EVs, there would still be a legasy fleet of at least 20 years needing fossil fuels to run.
The quoted post brings up a very good point re: liquid fuels. Better than fuels for the future though, would be a bio-fuel that can work seamlessly with existing ICE vehicles on our roads right now. There are companies working on bio-butanol from cellulose, as well as both bio-gasoline and bio-diesel from algae. There will be a transition period, even if EVs sell like hotcakes out of the gate. We need to respond to the environmental, security, and energy demand challenges with more than one approach if we are to be carbon-neutral, have clean air to breath, safe from hostile foreign control of our energy source, and able to meet the growing demand for energy at a reasonable price.
Advanced biofuels are an exciting piece of the puzzle. Personally, I would be thrilled to be able to run butanol or biogasoline in my Volt when running in ER mode.
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:46 pm)Consider the possibility that excessive health care costs are making domestic companies less competitive, causing unemployment and trade deficits as people buy foreign products instead.
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:48 pm)That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day!
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:50 pm)I think most of us would agree that one of the best ways for individuals to help make changes happen, is to make wise choices every time we open our wallets. We will sometimes pay more for product if we believe in the cause. I do think direct tax credits for American consumers can be a great tool for change, as long as the tax credit is very carefully thought out. Of course anything to do with taxes has potential to be abused.
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:52 pm)Absolutely hysterical. I don’t know how I missed that!
+1
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (1:56 pm)Could you give details for each…
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (2:10 pm)S. Korea is so jazzed about winning the UAE contract ($20B to build four 1.4 GW reactors and another $20B to run them), that the announced yesterday their goal is to export 80 reactors by 2030. They also announced they will train 2800 additional nuclear engineers by 2011. The government and private industry have announced plans to expand their supply chain to permit this level of export.
21 Nuclear reactors are currently under construction in China, including the worlds first Westinghouse Nuclear (bought by Toshiba in 2006) AP1000, which is ahead of schedule and due to start up in 2012 (3 other units are currently under construction).
Electric cars (and heat exchangers, etc.) + Nuclear Energy is the future.
The opportunity for the US to lead is slipping fast. We still have some great technology (the Integral Fast Reactor is a good example), but we face the possibility of being left in the dust. There is already a group planning to ‘import’ the Korean reactor. That would be pathetic beyond description (as the design is derived from Combustion Engineerings System 80).
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (2:14 pm)I thought this thread was going to be about Lyle being “the man”……
What happened???
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (2:17 pm)Gas and coal have different price structures. Coal is used for baseline generation, the cheapest and gas is used for peak load generation and load balancing, much more expensive.
All the starting players for solar thermal have sold out after energizing their units, finding the margins just too thin, always, and the prices just too volatile, sometimes.
I’ve been a solar advocate since the ’70s but pro forma projections and a cool technology alone don’t always lead to stellar results in the wild. Scale, improved operations processes and tech advancements would be required to make it work, not to mention improvements to the grid. Even then no single technology will solve all the needs for power generation.
Jan 14th, 2010 (2:25 pm)What about Alvin Weinberg’s thorium reactor, wouldn’t that eliminate the safety, waste and militarization arguments. ( http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/07/68045 )
+4
Jan 14th, 2010 (2:28 pm)Everybody here knows that Lyle IS the man. There is no point discussing that.
Jan 14th, 2010 (2:31 pm)Exactly. Well said Bob G.
P.S. Sorry Tagamet, I couldn’t help myself…
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (2:37 pm)We are beyond the build stage. We are in the buy stage.
This is what I was saying yesterday. You can complain about not getting a Volt in your area, or, you can go do something about it.
As a grass-roots organization (are we organized?) we need make our needs/wants known to those that can do something about it. Your local Chevy dealers. That’s where the rubber literally meets the road for Volt sales.
I would wager that if 100 or so of us showed up at Classic Chevrolet of Grapevine (Dallas) with our checkbooks, they sure as heck would figure out how to get it done. Nobody I know of is going to pi$$ away $3.5 million in sales without a fight!
There is no need for GM to guess about demand if we go put our money where our blog is.
Jan 14th, 2010 (2:41 pm)In reality this is more or less what we do. The facts you get on some broadcast stations notwithstanding, we don’t face a situation where there are VAST amounts of oil within easy reach and we can’t solve our energy problem because all those horrible environmentalists have just prevented anyone from extracting it. Under the Bush Administration there was so much exploration for oil and gas the American West became a pincushion. The oil companies drilled everywhere. Unfortunately they found a lot of natural gas, which is why natural gas is so cheap — the US is completely awash in the stuff — but little oil. If you think for a minute you’d understand that you know this — it’s at the heart of the effort by liberals to force the oil companies to turn back all their millions and millions of acres of leases before moving offshore.
It’s fine with me if the oil companies want to drill offshore. I can suport that, with the precondition that they give up all the counter-productive and undeserved tax breaks they get. And I’d understand that whatever they found wouldn’t change the price of oil one cent and therefore wouldn’t make one whit of difference to our economy (the Bush Administration admitted this BTW). I’d also understand that, worries about dependency on foreign oil notwithstanding, that given that all the refineries along the Gulf are designed to use the lousy high sulfur Venezuela crude, the oil probably wouldn’t be used in the US anyway. (Part of the Alaska oil is exported to Korea and Japan, which makes perfect economic sense). IOW it’s not a solution to anything other than it would allow the oil companies to continue with business as usual. That’s OK but it doesn’t float my boat.
The fact that offshore oil won’t make a difference is the reason why Pickens says that we “can’t drill our way out of the problem” and why he advocates shifting transportation fuels to natural gas. That’s a reasonable idea but it’s probably not as good as moving to biofuels or to electricity or even to hydrogen. The best idea of course would be to find a way to use coal without having it kill us (a coal fired plant emits more radioactive particles than a nuclear reactor). That’s quite a shame, because we we are to coal what Saudi Arabia is to oil.
Jan 14th, 2010 (2:55 pm)#130
I agree. +1
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (3:01 pm)#129
Yeah, we wandered off the thread. Funny, I’ve never seen that before, LOL.
You can’t say it too many times though, “Lyle IS the man”. No doubt.
It’s days like this that I almost allow myself to hope that Lyle/we have established enough of a presence that Mr. Whitacre actually will pay some kind of attention to “The List”. BTW, I applaud Mr. Whitacre for trying to shake up/kickstart the GM culture. I wish him every success in the world.
Jan 14th, 2010 (3:23 pm)#132
I basically agree with everything you’ve said here. +1
While “Clean Coal” is nothing but a PR spin phrase today, I cling to the idea that it is possible. If Hitler could run half of his war machine on coal based avgas and diesel fuel 60+ years ago, it has to be doable. Of course Hitler wasn’t much of an environmentalist as I understand it.
The problem is that, if you mitigate all of the environmental costs which are currently externalized, it probably isn’t cost competitive with oil at this point. The air pollution which causes thousands of deaths every year, the mountaintop overburden dumped in to the watersheds, the millions of cubic yards of ash slurry lurking behind marginal containment dams and ready to wash down the creeks and rivers – the list goes on forever.
If you liquefy it into motor fuels, i shudder to think what kind of byproducts would have to be dealt with.
Still, I have no doubt that it can be done, when oil gets expensive enough. But it’s going to take a lot of political will to force the externalized costs to be internalized.
+3
Jan 14th, 2010 (3:25 pm)Don,
Please re-read what I posted and then re-read your post. I didn’t mention *anything* you’ve managed to assume. By my mentioning capitalism, I was in no way being political. I religiously try to avoid political “discussions” and will continue to do so. I wish that was more common.
One thing you did hit correctly is that I’m against govt subsidies for the oil companies (or anyone else) – but I made no mention of that. You seem to also assume that I get my information from “some broadcast stations”. I’d be very interested in knowing how you know where the heck I get my information. I know that I don’t presume to know where you get yours.
I could go on, but I won’t. I’ve said enough.
Tagamet
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (3:30 pm)Keep those happy thoughts.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (4:58 pm)#137
Man, I’m trying my best every day. Some days are harder than others.
LJGTVWOTR!!
-7
Jan 14th, 2010 (5:02 pm)99% of the statements by GM are just “spin”. 90% have never done an economic analysis of anything. This is all fuzzy feel good stuff.
You can store more energy in a pound of water than you can in pound of battery. It is cheap and low tech and it beats anything that GM has come up with. Water does not wear out and has no disposal problem. Think outside the box. Use 200 year old science. If you don’t know when the Lithium Ion battery was invented your are not qualified to have an opinion on electric cars.
Jan 14th, 2010 (5:07 pm)Believe me, I can relate!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (5:15 pm)Customers to the left of me…
Customers to the right of me…
Damn the torpedoes!
I’ll take their orders!
Somebody get me a Purchase Order RIGHT NOW!!!!
Jan 14th, 2010 (5:25 pm)You’re mixing your quotations! “The Charge of the Light Brigade” and Admiral Farragut, lol.
Be well,
Tagamet
/Do you deliver????
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (5:27 pm)There are companies who are working on electric trucks.
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/
Even Ford: http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2008/04/ford-british-electric-truck-maker-team-to-introduce-electric-trucks-van-for-north-american-market.html
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
P.S.
Forgive me if anyone else has already responded to your comment.
Jan 14th, 2010 (5:39 pm)I didn’t notice these links posted on this thread, but I *could* have missed it.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+2
Jan 14th, 2010 (5:48 pm)Loboc Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 8:01 am
You may be right about the price of gasoline pressuring Volt sales. Keep in mind the fantastic sales record for Prius. Number on car in Japan. One million sold. People want to buy good products. Hybrids reflect a persons view of the world and they are proud to drive a vehicle that matches their philosophy.
There are 51k early adopters on this site because they want to be a part of the transition to cleaner fuels. Volt is the first mass produced American vehicle that will let people own a piece of their future. And remember, no one really NEEDS an iPhone, or a 50″ flat screen – but they BUY them by the boatload. Not every auto purchase rides on efficiency and economy. If it did we would never sell a luxury car – or overpowered trucks.
Personally, I’ll be putting E85 in my Volt fuel tank. Preferably made from corn stover or wood chips or some other waste stream. Probably won’t be practical to find that fuel – but I’ll do it because it makes me feel good.
Ed, just keep the Volt roll-out on track. You have friends in high places.
Jan 14th, 2010 (6:01 pm)That’s what utilities already go, Julie. When the demand goes up beyond what the standard boiler/turbine/generators can produce, diesel or natural gas turbines kick in to balance the load.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
P.S. I support your using solar panels on your home to provide the electricity you need. More home construction companies are starting to ofter solar PV arrays as an option.
Jan 14th, 2010 (6:02 pm)not if you charge by solar power,
Jan 14th, 2010 (6:12 pm)Where did you work? In California or was it GM? And please be less vague by stating what government policiess caused you to be laid off?
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
P.S. I hope that you have found a new job since being laid off or are able to find one in the near future.
Jan 14th, 2010 (6:37 pm)Something MUCH closer to implementation (5-7 years?) is FocusFusion.org .
It is pushing to validate the process and then design a “cookie-cutter” prefab generator to be licensed world-wide, to all manufacturers at very reasonable rates. These would be 5MW garage-sized installations, usable anywhere they could be remotely monitored and serviced twice a year or so.
Their production and output costs will be about 1/20 of best current commercial/residential pricing.
The upshot will be a huge multiplication of human wealth and welfare, and a collapse of fossil fuel prices.
Jan 14th, 2010 (7:14 pm)I was suddenly channeling Charlie Sheen from the movie “Hot Shots”.
Jan 14th, 2010 (7:31 pm)Good luck! It only requires a Billion degrees Kelvin. Since they still haven’t shown a net+ output, I think it may be a little longer than 5-7 years before we see this. Sorry for the “doubtful tone”, but this seems to be right up there with ESSTOR.
Thanks for the link.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (7:36 pm)That would explain it.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (7:54 pm)I often read comments about co^2 and how making electricity negates the electric car gains. I’ve also read how co^2 can be buried underground. I believel that if larger electric plants were located around the country that co^2 could be buried with very little escaping into the atmosphere. What we need is a pilot plant to test this proposal.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (7:59 pm)I agree with Tagamet, my wild enthusiasm is somewhat muted.
It might very well work, but 5-7 years is very optimistic, especially considering:
1) this plasma machine was invented in 1964, and they are still studying it intensely, numerically and in the labs. Which is a good thing, but doesn’t suggest imminent breakthroughs.
2) As the Focus Fusion Society website itself says:
Fusion faces serious technical challenges. Splitting the atom is a walk in the park compared to fusing atoms. If DT (deuterium-tritium, the conventional tokamak approach taken by the huge ITER project) fusion is difficult, aneutronic fusion faces even more daunting challenges.
(Aneutronic fusion is the Dense Plasma Focus process of Focus Fusion, using hydrogen and boron gases.)
I actually like the chances for this approach – but ITER is optimistic about attaining a commercial fusion reactor “by 2050″, and this approach has less funding and is considered “more daunting” even by its supporters…
It’s not like we aren’t going to need some kind of fusion after 2050, so I say, fund these guys, Energy Secretary Chu.
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:05 pm)Hey, not all electricity is the same.
I hear Shell is working on generating electricity enriched with nitrogen, made from natural gas and ammonia, which cleans out the oxide gunk from bushings and connectors in the generator, battery and power electronics of cars like the Volt, Leaf, and Tesla.
Remember, Shell nitrogen-enriched electricity will make your electric car last longer and run smoother !
+1
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:34 pm)It might be a good idea to consider that if ExxonMobile has discovered huge natural gas types of reserves, it might make the best sense to not use it for truck (and certainly auto) combustion at an efficiency loss of 85%.
Instead, natural gas ought to be made to displace coal fired generation entirely at a far higher conversion efficiency to use it that way for the higher conversion efficiencies that electrification would provide us.
So, it is a good thing that Ed has the advancement interests in mind for not only GM, but, for the more carbon-friendlier fossil fuel of natural gas electriciy production as well. (As opposed to coal or crude).
(Really long workday, just got in.)
Jan 14th, 2010 (8:57 pm)Novato-based SolarCraft announced today it has completed the design and installation of a 39.2 kW solar electric system for Trione Vineyards and Winery in Geyserville, CA. The winery’s new tasting room and production facility are now powered by the sun.
…we expect the installation to provide 50% of our electrical needs, saving us over $750,000 over its lifetime,” said John Hamann of Trione Vineyards & Winery. “
Trione’s new solar system generates enough clean electricity each day to power 17 average homes. The new system will spare the air nearly 29 tons of harmful greenhouse gases annually, or 880 tons over the life of the system. Over the next 30 years, the air pollution saved will be equivalent to driving over 2 million miles. This is equivalent to planting over 6 acres of trees. The system will pay for itself in approximately 6 years and will continue to provide free, clean, renewable energy for decades to come.
http://www.trionewinery.com/
=D~
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:30 pm)Check out this website.
http://www.dakotagas.com/CO2_Capture_and_Storage/index.html
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:41 pm)We need a car that runs on CO2.
Jan 14th, 2010 (9:49 pm)I hope that someone finds an alternative use for coal. We sure have a boat-load of it in Penna.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 14th, 2010 (10:20 pm)As Alf would say, and I quote “HAA!!!!”, end quote…
-1
Jan 14th, 2010 (11:11 pm)“They’re tuned into the electric car,” he said. “As good as (our electric cars) are, the electricity has to be generated by some fossil fuel.”
Uh, I think we need some work in this area. Ed, the idea is to use renewables like solar, wind, hydro, biofuels, etc. to generate this energy. Although some of these sources are intermittent, the battery inside the EVs help to smooth out the supply / demand curves. That’s the point!!!
So, no, you don’t have to use fossil fuels to generate the electricity. In fact, a significant percentage of our energy mix is NOT fossil fuel based (hydro, nuclear – still non-renewable, solar and wind (small but can be scaled as desired, biofuels, etc.).
So, please don’t fall into that Big Oil mentality (oops, too late.
and feel the world cannot function without fossil fuels. It must, it did and it will because in terms of humanity, the fossil fuel era is but a blip in time.
+2
Jan 15th, 2010 (12:02 am)I’m looking forward to the rest of Lyle’s conversation with Mr. Whitacre.
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 15th, 2010 (12:58 am)Wonderfull !!
Lyle is getting a VIP Pass 
Only problem now a days i see with Lyle is with some positive news he mixes negative news ( dont know why in this post the ExxonMobil has to appear ).
+3
Jan 15th, 2010 (1:03 am)This was a positive gesture on Whitacre’s part and I too applaud his reaching out. I for one respect his directness and this contact with Lyle (and in extension all of us) should be good for his and GM’s image. It’s also nice to know we as GM-Volt.com are noticed.
The forum today was pretty wild! I wasn’t going to say anything but now that it has calmed down, I thought it would be helpful to end the thread on-topic
Jan 15th, 2010 (1:43 am)Lost my first draft, so her we go again!
Brian, first, I would like to thank you for this link. I have been following ITER for some time and have examined the theory and design of their Tokamak reactor. It seems to me that LPP is the closest to achieving controlled fusion.
I had an uncle who was an inventor. He told me that nature was the source of information that lead to his inventions. He mimicked Einstein in his approach to solve problems: look at a simplified view of the problem to find its answer. In working for a company to redesign motors, he looked at one celled aquatic organisms to find out how they propelled themselves through the water. When presented with two ways of designing a machine, pick the simple one. He was an avid fisherman, and loved testing the lures he owned. Some caught fish and some just didn’t. At his friends sports shop, they had a pool in witch a lure was dragged around in a loop. It was difficult to see what the lure was doing. MY uncle made a simple observation; why drag the lure just move the water. So he headed home designed and built a machine with a window where he watched his lures as the water was propelled in the chamber. He then designed and tested a new spoon design which turned out very successful on his fishing trips. He sold the lure testing machine, the new spoon lure design, and three machines that he also designed and built in his basement machine shop to a lure manufacturer.
In observing the DPF approach, I kept this idea of KISS that my uncle had successfully employed. ITER is a complex machine that tries to control the plasma and therefore becomes difficult to achieve. DPF is simple in that it allows the instabilities and therefore does not have to solve the difficult technical issues with Tokamaks. LPP appears to understand what happens during the instabilities and has managed them in way to come very close to the temperature and duration of chain reaction to succeed; much closer than the two other approaches to aneutronic fusion. And indication to that they understand what is necessary to finally achieve their goal. They believe that with sufficient funding that that goal can be proven in 5- 7 years as you state. Another 3 yrs to develop and test a prototype is realistic. Eric Lerner gives a good presentation of DPF:
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=eric+lerner&btnG=Google+Search
I watched another video just before this one. As I watched:
http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/dpf_animation/
I thought of quasars and the jets that stream from them. Well La! Eric Lerner also noticed that similarity and drew from his knowledge of the cosmos to develop a theory that has lead to advances in DPF. They are very near achieving success, much closer that ITER with its huge and expensive machine. Additionally, the DPF solves the problem of radioactive waste.
Tagamet, this is far from being an EESTOR. I would invest in it if I had the cash!
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Jan 15th, 2010 (2:03 am)You said it David, I concour.
JC NPNS
Jan 15th, 2010 (5:03 am)EEStor missed their December deadline.
What a surprise.
I wonder what their excuse will be.
+1
Jan 15th, 2010 (11:20 am)#157
I heard a story on NPR the other day about solar panel theft in Sonoma county. It seems that they are disappearing from the vineyards which have installed them. They interviewed a local guy who has a business installing alarms on solar panels. They also interviewed a Deputy Sheriff who responded to one of the alarms and arrested a crew of guys getting ready to drive away with a truckload of stolen panels. No good deed goes unpunished in this wonderful world of ours.
Jan 15th, 2010 (11:23 am)#163
Me too! +1
Jan 15th, 2010 (11:37 am)Where do I sign?
Jan 15th, 2010 (11:41 am)If Prometheus Vineyards is in Sonoma county, then most likely it was Zeus’ crew in the pickup.
Jan 15th, 2010 (1:19 pm)“ExxonMobil is very concerned about the environment and the future also,”
If that is true start bulding 300 miles range Electric cars and SOLAR POWER PLANTS ! STOP LOBING FOR BIG OIL !
ELECTRIC CARS + SOLAR POWER = FREEDOM FROM OIL !!!
Jan 15th, 2010 (4:22 pm)There a r several ignorant misconceptions prevalent.
T Boone Pickens quit his windfarms because they DON’T WORK! He needed to connect to a large electric grid to hopefully stabilize his wildly oscillating wind farm power. He sought a right-of-way for power lines to import stabilizing power from f Dallas to his windfarms white elephants. Ever the sharp conniving strategist, he planned to use the right-of-way for the electric powerlines, to lay a gas pipeline to deliver the uneconomical gas he purchased for a song, to get it to market. That was his real target. He failed.
The EIA confirms that green loon defined ‘renewable’ power supplies only 0.8% of the US energy needs. It will stay that way because it simply doesn’t scale. If you wanted to provide the power for New York City by windmills, the windfarm would be the size of Connecticut. Plus it pollutes, is noisy, kills lots of birds, doesn’t last long, produces only intermittent bursts of destabilizing power, and the cost of that oscillating energy is from 3 to 10 times the cost of electricity generated in other ways.
Natural gas will supplement Coal but not replace it. Indeed th most modern coal power plan IS tis a Gas plan, in fact. Integrated Gas Combined Cycle, IGCC, power plants use coal to make syngas on the fly, clean it, then burn the cleaned gas to power gas turbines,(jet engines), connected to generators;. Then take the jet exhaust to make steam and send the steam through steam turbines connected to generators to squeeze all the electricity possible. These are the highest thermal efficiency and lowest cost fossil based power available.
Jan 15th, 2010 (5:33 pm)Commited new nuclear power plants of the GEN III+ LWR design, are sufficient to raise nuclear electric generation from 19% to almost 40% of the electricity generated, in the USA. These are all scheduled to have ground broken starting in about 2012, and be on-line by 2020.
There is no reason that a modern fossil fuel plant can’t be clean and indeeed most new plants are not only clean, but very clean. It is only the old grandfathered-in, old smokers that still pollute much.
But we can’t do without their power until replacements are constructed, and the green loons try to make sure nothing is built, not even their so-called renewables. See Cape Power, Senator Feinstein’s Mohave desert set-aside, or the California solar power power-line fiasco,for examples of that.
The Exxon Valdez accident was more than completely cleaned up by Exxon and the environmental authorities. The last class action lawsuirt against Exxon was filedon the absurd basis that the Sound was not in the same state as before the disaster. But this case was filed on the basis that It had way TOO MANY fish, birds, and TOO MUCH life of all sorts, than it did before the oil spill.
Oil spills are dsiruptive to the environment no doubt about that. In the short run lots of wildlife of all types are killed. But oil is a organic biological collection of chemicals and constitutes fertilizer for lots of wildlife, which bloom and are in turn consumed by other life which blooms,and on up the chain. Indeed oil is ferequently a source of food, and natural oil seeps support many a local wildlife bloom.
In this day of newsroom views of disaster, “..if it bleeds, it leads…” , there is simply no perspective any more. During WWII over 5000 oil tankers were sunk, spreading lots of oil spills. The environment survived without loss, long term. Yet I am certain they were what proved to be, short term disasters too. Today if we have a oil tanker sinking once or twice a decade, people still worry about it 25 years later. Since it serves as a wonderful propaganda and fund raising tool, it is used to constantly raise alarm and funds.
Jan 15th, 2010 (6:10 pm)Stas,
Wind energy in Texas is so widespread, as widespread as the State itself, from up in the Panhandle, to out into the Gulf of Mexico.
Any suggestion that Wind energy is unstable is just absurd, because the entire State is its own grid.
Natural gas is it’s backup that ramps up in seconds.
How would anyone know when to do that? You might ask.
I was invited to an open meeting of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, about 8 years ago. The audience was filled with all the various interests that were responsible for generating electricity in our Great State.
There was prevailing at that time, a requirement that all wind generating turbines would be shut down between peak power demands between 5 and 7 pm. That was partly due to the lower number of wind turbines at that time.
(One funny thing was displayed up on a huge projected map of Texas. It had a long line going accross the top from Northwest Texas toward Dallas. It was labelled “1,000,000 volts DC”
(Not AC, but DC). (It was a joke on the audience, but not me).
I could have asked the ERCOT speaker if that was why he had a “cheshire-cat smile” on his face, but chose not to, and to just listen closely to the discussion.
Then there came the part where the audience was told that the wind turbines had to be shut down due to insufficient predictability of wind. This is all in the public record. You can all check this out yourselves to the letter if you like.
There was a microphone in the aisle. Various audience members could go up to the mike and ask a question. You were to state who you were, and what company you represented for the recording.
I stepped up when it became my turn.
“Yes sir, please say your name, and who you represent”.
I said “I’m Dan Petit, and, I’m a ‘Green Choice’ [wind energy sponsor] customer”
“We’ve never had a “Green Choice” customer here before” he said.
“Here’s my question” I said.
“Cell phones are cheap”
(The audience turned around and looked a bit puzzled).
“Cell phones are cheap” I repeated.
“Annamometers are cheap”.
“Why not connect annamometers (which measure wind speed), to cell phones, and populate sixteen of them all around the wind farms about 6 miles out to forcast a change in speed and direction twenty minutes in advance of a wind speed change or drop.
That way, you have time to fire up the diesel generators that 20 minutes ahead of time (for output stabilization), and just keep the wind generators online all the time instead.”
“The wind turbines have annamometers on top of them already” he said.
“No”, I replied.
“You go out 6 miles out ahead of the Wind generator and place them all around the farm itself, so that if the wind changes direction you have your twenty minute warning to expect a change in output from direction and speed changes.
“Well” “They’d have to be connected to ERCOT” he said.
I was thanked at a later time by one of the wind energy interests who said,
“Thanks Mr. Petit, we really needed that idea”.
So, Texas Wind Energy is a highly reliable part of the Texas Grid.
And, it is growing so extremely quickly nowadays one can hardly keep up with the news.
The thing about T.Boone, is that he wanted unconditional rights over a vast number of people’s land in an excessively sweeping manner, which is the opposite from a large number of Wind Energy companies slowly performing “due dilligence” in carefully working with all land owners one by one in respect for each land owners rights, desires, and individual farming and ranching interests.
Texas is really happy with Wind Energy consistency, because now, there is so much, there has been exceeded a “critical mass” of reliability. And, interestingly, T. Boone’s natural gas interests seem to be doing nicely in Texas as well. My electricity supplier has increased generation to natural gas for 49 percent of all electricity.
I hope this helps toward the understanding about how extremely terrific Wind Energy really is.
Jan 15th, 2010 (6:23 pm)Great idea! I’m glad you attended and spoke up. Just another example of one person making a big difference.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The ***VOLTS’*** Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 15th, 2010 (7:15 pm)#174 & #175
FUD
Jan 16th, 2010 (7:07 am)Thanks Tag.
This is what I mean when I say that all of us have to work together with ideas shared to make things better. Too much power concentrated into the hands of only one person (term limits help up avoid tyranny) always ends up trampling the rights, priveleges, and futures of too many others. Texas has no term limits for the governors job. His very high level party backers mess up phone voicemail and phone conversations with momentary blocking of key statements sometimes (I have two witnesses to this, and, it tracks back to the GOP), and, they have themselves become corrupt and evil. Evil, E vil, Evil.
Jan 16th, 2010 (9:05 pm)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcdhAFC7SjI
+1
Jan 17th, 2010 (7:13 am)That translates, in the very tiny “plasmoid” where the reaction occurs, to a quite achievable ‘electron voltage’ number; the plasmoids have been measured at 1-3 bn. degrees. The problems to be resolved have to do with detailed control of the magnetic fields and shaping of the anode chamber, etc.
In terms of the relevant numbers, FF is several orders of magnitude closer to “unity” than any other approaches. So if lack of “net output” makes you dubious of FF, you must be totally dismissive of the prospects of any other fusion approach!
+1
Jan 17th, 2010 (7:27 am)The “dauntingness” of the process is in terms of the “energy hill” that must be climbed to force fusion — but the difference is that FF is not trying to manage a huge, stable, steady-state reaction chamber like ITER, etc. The “implosion” of tiny plasmoids does the work, and these “pinches” have been demonstrated on the current equipment.
The next steps are some equipment adjustments to the trigger mechanisms (they use plates separated by ionizable gas, and the supplier used an incorrect metal and gas combo, now being remedied) to provide reliable surge control to the electrodes. D-D fusion will be used to tune the system over the next months, with a possibility of graduating to p-B in a year or so. If all (or enough) goes well, unity may follow fairly shortly thereafter.
The rest is engineering (not to be sneezed at, but with no serious “show-stoppers” in sight). 5-7 years for a prototype of a mass-production design is far from out of the question. It might even be sooner.
Jan 17th, 2010 (7:39 am)Actually, Dan, the joke is on you. DC is in fact preferable for long-distance power transport. The problem is with stepping down the voltage for distribution; AC is much better for transformers!
The real problem is that wind generators must always have 100% base load backup, require huge amounts of land for installation, servicing and power lines (usually in very inconvenient places), and wear out long before they’ve paid for themselves.
Their future is as a massive source of scrap metal.