The 78 year-old GM vice chairman and veteran “ultimate car guy” Bob Lutz will be retiring on May 1st after working in the auto industry since 1960 for Ford, Chrysler, GM and BMW. He is heralded as having transformed GM car design from the “angry kitchen appliances” of the late 90′s to what they are today. In a new exit interview with Aol Autos he spoke about the greatest accomplishment of his decades of work.
Lutz confirms that of all he’s done, the Volt is his proudest achievement.
He says this is true “for a few reasons, one of them being the new technology.” No cars he’s done before the Volt technologically broke new ground as the Volt does. ”In the field of alternative-drive systems it leapfrogs what has been employed by our Japanese competitors,” he says.
Lutz adds that more than just being groundbreaking, the Volt has flown in the face of naysayers, many of whom were quite vocal right here in the early days of GM-Volt.
“There was a lot of internal and external skepticism,” noted Lutz. ”There were a lot of naysayers who said it was BS, or that it was just PR, or that the lithium-ion battery would never work, or that GM wasn’t serious about this,” he said.
But now nearing the day of retail launch Lutz says “facing all that negativism, and ultimately triumphing with a car that has a good chance of making a major impact, is thrilling.” Indeed.
Lutz also admitted there was significant hesitation on the part of GM to actually move the car into production. Something this site hopefully helped thwart.
“It wasn’t just Rick Wagoner who was hesitant,” he said. ”It was the company’s entire automotive strategy board.”
“GM had been so badly burned with the EV1 that there very little desire to repeat that, and to experiment with a battery-powered vehicle,” he added.
Much of the push back came from senior GM officials who were enamored with hydrogen fuel cell technology.
“There was some resentment from the fuel-cell backers inside the company,” he said. ”Because I think they thought they would be the ones to transform the planet and get us off fossil fuels.”
But Lutz and the lithium-ion battery finally won out in what he called “internal competition.”
He continues his assertion that he does not believe in global warming, though said so less colorfully than he has in the past.
“I can’t really get into that too much as long as I am still gainfully employed by General Motors,” he said about his view on global warming, though noted “as time has gone by there are more people in the scientific community who share the same point of view I do.”
“The majority of the public right now does not believe that CO2 emissions from cars is the main source of global warming,” he added.
Lutz admitted his impetus for building the Volt was not to reduce emissions, but to reduce oil dependence, though government regulation also played a role.
“If the government and the EPA say we must curb CO2 emissions, I have to set my personal beliefs aside and do what is required. But reducing dependence on imported petroleum is also important to me,” he said.
“We also must look at fossil fuels as a finite commodity,” he added.
To read the entire Q and A including discussions about GM’s bankruptcy and Lutz’ other achievements go here.
Source (Aol Autos)
+33
Apr 12th, 2010 (6:41 am)Thank you, Mr. Lutz.
The Volt will shine and our dependence on oil will start to wane.
+31
Apr 12th, 2010 (6:43 am)Bob, I want to salute you for an illustrious career —one that culminates not by “fading away” like too often happens —but at a point representing a true pinnacle of achievement! You will be remembered as the major force behind leading the world’s automotive industry into one of the most important achievements in its 100-year history —the truly practical electric vehicle employing extended range electric vehicle architecture!
+19
Apr 12th, 2010 (6:43 am)There were many times I would have liked to be a fly on the wall in the board room as the Volt was being debated.
The fact that ultimately the company chose to move forward with this revolutionary car may well prove to be one of the most significant turning points in company history.
Yes, it truly is, “Change we can believe in!” And for that we can thank Bob Lutz.
Well done, Marine.
+13
Apr 12th, 2010 (6:57 am)In the end, I think a lot of people’s exit interviews will contain the same refrain: being glad to have been part of the Volt project.
+7
Apr 12th, 2010 (6:59 am)Oh, and shouldn’t that pic at the top show him in a pink tie?
+8
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:06 am)The battle is not over yet, we dont want the Volt canceled after 2 years of production either.. dont let off on the pressure.
+6
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:09 am)THAN YOU Bob Lutz for all your contributions to the auto industry throughout your career. You will be known among the great ones like Harley Earl.
Thanks, and now, go enjoy your retirement.
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:15 am)ABout GLobal warming, IT happens on a regular basis whether people walk (or drive) the planet or before. AS lutz he does not think cars are the main or the sole cause. Yes getting off imported oil is more important right now as we are in a recession and trade deficits are hurting us,whether to buy oil or to buy imported nissan electric cars.
+8
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:18 am)With the continuing love Bob receives from the gm volt dot com gang. He’ll be watching the posts with interest for many years. As the Voltec program grows and expands. We know a large Voltec vehicle is on the way. And we know a fast Voltec vehicle is on the way. The question is “when?”. Let’s all enjoy the ride with pride. And thank Bob Lutz for sticking with what is right. And with what is a winner.
=D-Volt
+6
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:19 am)Come to think about it ,if we are going to be buying volts in order to stop sending money out of the country for oil,why would we be considering buying nissan leafs and send a large chunk of money out of the country all at once,and funding nissan’s R&D. With our owen $7500 to boot. THe insanity continues.
+14
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:36 am)“The Chevy Volt is an inconvenient truth.”
Still get a laugh out of that introduction every time I think of it. Thanks Bob for not only bringing us great cars, but for providing some entertainment along the way.
+3
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:43 am)I like the picture, but somebody colored the tie wrong…
+12
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:49 am)First I pat myself on the back !! As a long time poster on this site ,we may have helped pushed Gm in the right direction .
Great Job Mr. Lutz
1. Right about lithium-ion battery technology winning out.
2. Right about oil independence.
3. Right about false CO2 science.
Great way to end your carrier with a Grand Slam!
+5
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:51 am)Because Nissan is busy building huge factories to build the LEAF in TN?.. they can send the 6% profit back to shareholders (some in the US) but the vast majority of the money will stay in TN paying the salaries of the local employees and suppliers. Most likely the LEAF will have a higher US made content than the Volt.
For many many years after the $7500 is spent, the LEAFs will not use a single drop of foreign oil.
+12
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:52 am)Mr. Lutz applied his Semper Fi attitude to the VOLT project
and our nation will be much better for it.
Thanks Bob!
Go VOLT!
+22
Apr 12th, 2010 (8:02 am)Bob Lutz, God bless you! I’m sure you take pride in Merkur, the Viper, the BMW 3 Series, and many other of your babies over the years. You’re a car guy – like me, and AN AMERICAN. It’s true you can and will be remembered as an AMERICAN HERO – Because you served your country well in the Marine Corps., and that, to me is why you consider the Volt as your highest achievement, as do I. Americans cannot fight to the death for their freedoms over centuries only to give it all up to fuel their cars and trucks!
I know there’s alot of things exciting about high performance automobiles that can carve a turn or shoot to 60 in an instant… But when we sit down and really use our brains, we realize big oil cannot go on running the show. Nearly all oil importing nations are not democracies and nearly all of them have interest in seeing the USA fail. So I think you, Mr. Lutz show your red, white and blue blood and truly became a HERO by pushing for Volt and being outspoken about peak oil and our dependency upon it as our greatest weakness. The roar of a sports car is exciting. But the GLORY OF FREEDOM, the American Way, is MUCH MUCH MORE to get excited about — and to leave as our legacy to future Americans.
When James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, and George Schultz began speaking out about what America’s dependence on foreign oil has done to our nation, and what it has the potential of doing in the near future, I began changing. I started seeing technology like the Prius and Volt as being so much more exciting than tweaking 19th Century internal combustion technology. It has totally changed my perception of what “high performance” actually means. James Woolsey drives a Prius and so does George Schultz, as they promote PHEVs, and that has to change.
I’m on the fence re: global warming. I don’t discount transportation’s effects possibly accelerating inevitable climate cycles – yet Climate Gate was a huge eye opener, and there is plenty of good science both ways. All-in-all, I feel we have to breathe in cities and suburbs, and anyone who thinks ICE’s are exciting should read what air pollution does to our health, especially how it effects the young and the elderly.Or lock yourselves in a garage for 45 minutes with the doors closed.
Bob, you are a PATRIOT – may we all drive our Volts into history, paving the way to less global conflict fueled by oil, cleaner air to breathe and the sweet sweet smell of liberty for all.
I SALUTE YOU!
RECHARGE! James
+9
Apr 12th, 2010 (8:42 am)Yet another interesting insight, the fool cell actually hindered development of battery technology, thus the idea that the so-called hydrogen economy was a fifth column for big oil appears valid.
+7
Apr 12th, 2010 (8:53 am)While Bob may be right that the amount of CO2 from cars is not the *largest* source of
the proportion of all greenhouse gasses of course, (whether or not he agrees about global warming),
the cutting of CO2 from autos via the Volt represents the way toward the **easiest** source of CO2 *that we can cut*.
It may be that Bob could someday also be given credit for that as well as for bringing us the Volt.
/..late for work. have a great day everyone.
-17
Apr 12th, 2010 (8:55 am)(click to show comment)
+4
Apr 12th, 2010 (8:55 am)I have a 1929 4 door sedan a fun car with the original drive train it gets 20 mpg on 73 octane gas . In 80 years we have gone nowhere on fuel econ . THIS is finally about to change!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom
+4
Apr 12th, 2010 (8:58 am)I am thankful for what Bob Lutz has done to make the Volt and cars like it a reality. Without his force and extreme influence at GM, it is highly likely the Volt never would have happened. I know a lot of people disagree with some of his viewpoints or what have you, but I stand very grateful as to what he has done to promote EV’s in this world. He is leaving us all a great legacy, in my opinion.
+4
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:03 am)Good work Mr. Lutz! As every engineer knows, it takes guts to push against naysayers who oppose any new technology- parochial interests that will lose out if your competing technology is adopted as well as people who simply fear change. The fact that he suceeded with such a paradigm-shifting vehicle as the Volt is a testament both to his drive and the skeptic-convincing power of Voltec technology.
+7
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:07 am)Yes, I’m annoyed with the fuel cell folks too.
Right now 9% of the hydrogen comes from electricity as a byproduct of caustic manufacture. The rest comes from fossil fuels, principally natural gas. A fuel cell is simply a way to burn fossil fuel in another form.
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:09 am)Give Lutz the Peace Prize.
+7
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:10 am)I’ll argue otherwise.
The 49% of the electricity that comes from coal in the US makes 43% of the green house gas. Cars & trucks are next in the 30′s.
We can convert that to nuclear power faster and cheaper than we can convert transport to non-emitting technology and the benefit is greater.
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:18 am)Thank you Bob Lutz!
Thanks to your influence, cars like the Mustang have V-6 engines that get 35mpg and still scream.
Cars like the Caddy CTS have performance and class that rival all competitors at half the price.
Cars in general are better because of your direction and decisiveness.
Let’s see what happens this time during your ‘retirement’. Lol.
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:19 am)It’s great to have a thread devoted to Bob Lutz and his contributions, not just to the Volt but also to GM in general. Here’s a great article discussing his positive impact on design at GM. He really did a lot of heavy lifting, and you can see the results in the cars that GM puts on the road today. GM still doesn’t make cars which are as reliable as those from Toyota, Honda, or Ford, but it does IMO make better cars than any of those brands. Hopefully those now in charge will continue his focus on design and quality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/automobiles/21LUTZ.html?scp=1&sq=bob%20lutz&st=cse
As for climate change, I’ll just leave it at, while anyone is entitled to their opinion, Bob doubtless has the same grasp of climate change that climatologists have of car design.
+4
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:19 am)Right you are. I will also add this. Regardless of how people feel about global warming, there is not harm done by reducing pollutants. I would think both sides could agree with this.
Off topic. I teach senior citizens Internet Safety. You should never give out your address on the web nor any other personal information. There are too many crazies out there. By the way, what year is that RV parked in your front yard? This is my point. Please be cautious.
+3
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:20 am)All innovations need leaders with vision, drive, and courage. You da man, Bob !
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:24 am)What you guys said! Pretty much all well said.
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:27 am)Since no nuclear power plant has ever come in at anything approaching on budget or on time I’m not sure how viable that option is. At the end of the day they’re just gigantic government construction projects, and those never seem to end well. (Think of the Big Dig in Boston). In any event building reactors is neither fast nor cheap, which is why one hasn’t been built for so many years. As a practical matter, reducing demand by changing to LED light bulbs is probably faster and cheaper than increasing capacity by building nuclear reactors.
But if we can find something that actually works that would be great.
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:43 am)Climatologists? I wonder how many of them would have a job without “Global Warming”? Infact how many climatologists were there in 1960? And how many today?
+4
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:45 am)I too admire / thank Mr. Lutz for his leadership in getting the Volt / E-REV technology off the ground and rolling at GM. However, I did notice that the article failed to mention / acknowledge Jon Lauckner’s contribution. That’s a shame.
From the article…
“He continues his assertion that he does not believe in global warming, though said so less colorfully than he has in the past.”
Be “colorfull” Bob. That’s what it takes to get through to some people.
Global Warming Is a Fraud.
Important observations on “climate history” were recorded by Thomas Jefferson a couple centuries ago. Read up and become “enlightened” folks.
http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/03/how-the-little-ice-age-debunks-global-warming/
+31
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:49 am)I have an observation and suggestion that I’d like to share with all global warming detractors and believers alike. It appears that we have allowed CO2 to become the dominant environmental issue whenever we discuss burning fossil fuels. For the sake of agreement, I think we should all set aside the CO2 issue for a moment and remember that burning gasoline and diesel also creates a tremendous amount of pollution (particluate, soot, carbon monixide, acid rain and smog precursors, etc.); and THAT is undisputed science. Yes, cars are much cleaner than they used to be, but if you are unwilling to lock your child in a garage with a running car then you tacitly acknowledge that auto exhaust is still bad stuff.
So even if you don’t believe in global warming, please remember that switching to electric cars will lead to an increase in air quality in all urban/suburban areas. And for that, millions of Americans with athsma and emphysema thank you. In other words, the evironmental benefits of automobile electrification are real, even ignoring CO2 issues.
And yes, I realize that electricty also pollutes, in the form of coal combustion emissions at power plants (and to a much lesser extent natural gas combustion emissions). But study after study have shown that a large centralized coal plant is cleaner on a KW basis than many decentralized ICEs. Bottom line: ELECTRIC CARS ARE GOOD FOR BOTH NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
+11
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:59 am)Actually, the easiest way to cut CO2 is to convert coal plants to natural gas plants. On average, coal produces 2.1 lb of CO2 per KWh, whereas NG produces 1.3 lb CO2 per KWh. That’s a pretty profound improvement. Right now, northern Apalachia (mostly WV and PA) sit on top of a massive newly discovered NG reserve called the Marcellus Shale formation that could power this country for several decades while we make the switch to nuclear.
The DOE report with this CO2 data is here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric
+18
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:06 am)Global Warming is like religion. Either you believe it or you don’t. Arguing about it doesn’t do any good.
So let’s concentrate on things that we can agree on, like ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.
+3
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:08 am)I would venture that today’s greater number of climatologists is much less related to the issue of global warming, and more related to the fact that improvements in computers, satellite technology, and analytical chemistry have made climatology more of a useful and repeatable science.
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:11 am)I’m a global warming agnostic, but for sure expect more progress reducing pollution from cars.. in a few more years you will see particulate filters on gasoline powered cars.. I expect BEV with their regen braking will also have much lower dust creation from friction brakes.
Dan, is brake dust still dangerous?.. no more asbestos right?
-1
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:13 am)Two problems:
1) Natural gas is significantly more expensive than coal.
2) We import natural gas.
The U.S. has been called the Saudi Arabia of coal. If energy independence is the goal, coal surely has a part to play in the near term. We should investigate ways of burning coal more cleanly.
+8
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:16 am)This is a better picture of Bob, Marines dont have goofy smiles like that!.. and note the appropriate tie.
Semper Fi Bob!
+5
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:20 am)Best wishes to Mr. Lutz in his retirement. He has his faults, but he did dramatically improve GM’s product line-up. And, without him, there would be no Volt. And the EV movement as a whole would be a lot further from reality.
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:22 am)This was a great article, thank you Mr. Lutz.
+4
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:24 am)As a scientist myself who has worked in research in several related disciplines, I will suggest that climate science is a backwater of science and it has not attracted the brightest and best. Most of the experts in climate science simply have some type of science degree and stumbled into the field of climatology. I do energy balances for a living and I would also suggest that the climate models being used are primitive at best and definitely not related to the term “repeatable science”.
Why are there more “climatologists? Academics follow the money. They don’t generally do science for the sake of science. Graduate schools are a business. Money has been poured into this area so more students and proffessors belly up to the trough.
-1
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:27 am)I fully agree with you. I was just commenting on Bob’s apparent shift in behaviour towards the subject. In addition, I should have been more specific. “Man-made Global Warming” is a fraud.
I too am looking forward to the day when this country is Energy Independant.
U.S Politicians have wasted the last 35+ years and have put us more at risk.
+7
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:34 am)This logic is flawed. It is similar to the fact that “Since none of my dieting has ever come in at anything approaching effective or on time I’m not sure how viable that option is.”
The facts on nuclear demonstrate that our 102 plants operated nearly 24/7 with no air pollution and an excellent saftey record. They produce enourmous amounts of power with a lightweight foot print on the land around them.
There are multiple new reactors making their way through the NRC licnesing process right now thanks to the 2005 energy policy act.
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:35 am)We found vast domestic reserves of natural gas that are accessible given new horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology. The only problem is that it can contaminate the water supply. As in, there are people in Arizona who can now light their tap water on fire…
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:36 am)If you dont attempt to capture and store CO2, Clean Coal is practical and low cost. Coal can be combusted in gasifiers using just oxygen.. the resulting gases contain no NOXs since air is not used. Afterwards the gases can be purified and burned to produce electricity or catalyzed to make cheap methanol (an alcohol), diesel or other industrial products. The output of such a plant is just harmless CO2 and water vapor. The advantage of this expense is that you get to build new coal powered electric plants near cities, something that is impossible today.
Coal-syngas plants are the most popular form of Clean Coal being implemented today, China is standardizing on them.
The method of in-the-ground coal gasification is also very interesting.
For Clean Coal to be clean, no mercury, sulfides or radioactives must be allowed to be vented in the atmosphere.
+5
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:40 am)I swore I would stay out of this argument for the reasons Dave G stated. There’s no real point in discussing it. Personally, I think we should leave these things up to those qualified to discuss them. Which I definitely am not.
But if anyone wants to check out the science, and you happen to be in New York, the Museum of Natural history has an ice sample from Greenland on display.
+3
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:49 am)I hope they offer a limited edition VOLT – LUTZ edition SS (anything less than an SS would not be Lutz worthy..).
Way to go Maximum Bob. and for the record, I do not believe in global warming either based on a ton of empirical research. I improve my efficiencies, and reduce carbon footprints in an effort to conserve energy..
Mitch
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:51 am)Just want to be able to walk in to a Chevy dealer and buy a Volt as soon as possible. Doesn’t GM need my money?
+6
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:53 am)This is exactly what I had surmised. I also think that, given the many Volt boosters at GM who are leaving, and the recent announcement of GM H2-mobiles by 2015, what we may be facing is a case of “The Empire Strikes Back.” Those same Hydrogen Dreamers will be looking for any reason to curtail the Volt by this time.
GM leadership: YOU HAVE TO BUILD A HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE BEFORE THERE CAN BE HYDROGEN CARS. Also, ask your Hydrogen engineers how that pesky on-board Hydrogen storage problem is coming along.
Bob, thanks for all you’ve done; but I hope retirement doesn’t mean that you stop being outspoken, or become unwilling to call out the GM leadership (if necessary).
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:57 am)Don C.
If enriched Uranium is not the goal, but rather cheap clean electricity…read this.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4971
It is part of the US governments added research targets, and has been around for generations, the problem lies in the fact that many reactors were also used to produce weapons grade uranium.
Mitch
Mitch
+4
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:00 am)And I thought us “Deniers” were just a bunch of “uneducated racist rednecks”.
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:03 am)Best wishes to Mr. Lutz in his retirement… good job… don’t go away… I wish you would continue to contribute in retirement in some way with your expertise. Maybe be a advocate for helping American companies fight UNFAIR TRADE. We pay Japanese companies $7500 per electric vehicle while they put a $20,000 tariff on any American car sold in Japan.
+3
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:04 am)And on the subject of reactors,
“THORIUM.”
We at least need a new research program.
/carry on …
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:11 am)The same area has 100 years worth of coal, too.
Be well,
Tagamet
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:18 am)Read my link at 51…
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:19 am)Can’t you do that in NYC already? (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:24 am)Yes.
In addition, for coal/gas power plants that have land around them, there are some pilot programs to use exhaust gasses to grow algae for biofuels. The algae not only gobbles up CO2, but most other polutants as well. Here’s an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoiAKcIls6s
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:28 am)Excellent picture!
THANKS MR. LUTZ! Tales of your contributions to vehicle development will be told around campfires for many generations. I suspect that you don’t need to be told to enjoy the remaining miles on your odometer.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!**********NPNS
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:31 am)Dang Straight !
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:38 am)How much does tap water cost? 4cents/gal? hmm….
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:41 am)That LFTR test reactor in the ’50s was pretty interesting. However, Thorium power isn’t limited to the LFTR paradigm.
One of the more intriguing (to me) is the Thorium-based fusion/fission hybrid. Uranium and Plutonium are capable of producing enough neutrons (too many, really) to keep their fission reaction going, provided you have enough material to achieve “criticality.” Thorium requires an external source of neutrons. What if you had a DT fusion element as a source of neutrons to bombard the Thorium with? Such a fusion neutron source need not be capable of “breakeven” fusion, in fact, there are table-top laboratory neutron sources based on fusion. In this case, the device need only be capable of producing neutrons at sufficient energies to sustain fission in Thorium (it’s energy output would power the fusion device with enough left over for useful power generation). The important part of this is that since Thorium does not sustain it’s own reaction, a minimum amount of it for “criticality” is not required. There’s no telling how small such a reactor might be made … Added safety bonus: turn off the fusor, and the reaction stops.
There are other forms of Thorium power as well, though I admit that LFTR is probably the best bet for fastest and safest results where replacing coal at large scale is concerned.
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:43 am)I just got moderated for a comment about Thorium reactors. Go figure.
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:51 am)NYC has some of the best tap water in the country! Because we’ve bought up a bunch of land upstate (about which people upstate are apparently very unhappy), it doesn’t need to be filtered. It’s won all sorts of awards. And, IMHO, it’s better than most bottled water. Which isn’t tested or regulated nearly as much.
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:51 am)dear Bob,
Thanks for having the vision and courage to face down the naysayers and convince GM to build this car. It is certainly one of your many great achievements and we are grateful for your tenacity. You can consider yourself the father of high volume EVs and the reason why ER-EV has made it from concept to a real product. Clearly the work of an automotive pioneer.
Not only will this vehicle start the transition to the electrification of transportation in the US, it will lead the move away from fossil fuels. This is even bigger than the vehicle itself, since it sets a direction that leads the world toward energy independence. Lowering our consumption of foreign oil will return funds to the domestic economy, strengthen national security, and help grow jobs at home. And in lowering the need to defend foreign oil fields – you have helped protect the lives of our young men and women in uniform.
Not bad for a forty year career filled with achievement. Thanks again Bob. It’s been a great ride!
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:04 pm)My comment about your comment is in mod. SIGH
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!**********NPNS
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:08 pm)That’s what they WANT you to believe. It actually causes brain damage and higher taxes.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!**********NPNS
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:21 pm)They don’t operate 24/7 in that they are frequently down for maintenance and repair. No argument with the air pollution. As for footprint, they have a light footprint on land but need enormous amounts of water which limits siting, as I’m sure you know.
But the real problem with nuclear reactors is that you can’t construct them economically. Hasn’t been done yet. Unless you can scale them down to a manageable size they will always come in way over budget and way late. To say we should just keep trying is to keep doing the same thing and then being surprised that we get the same results.
There is a classic book on why large software projects invariably fail entitled “The Mythological Man Month.” Its thesis is that when projects become very large more and more time and resources are needed to co-ordinate and less and less time and resources are actually spent on the project. The end result is a Tower of Babel situation, with all the concomitant delays and overruns. Seems obvious that this thesis applies to nuclear plants, in spades. You can say that the next nuclear reactor will be different but so long as they are large and complex they will never end up producing power at anything approaching the claimed amounts or costs.
You say there many nuclear plants making their way through the licensing process. How many of those are viable absent government guarantees? My guess is the answer is none.
-3
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:21 pm)No intention to offend GM fanboys here, but I’d say that I can’t congratulate Mr. Lutz on the Volt yet. It is too early to tell whether this car will be a success in the market.
+3
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:26 pm)I agree, so we need to eliminate that $7500 subsidy for those electric cars. Oh, and all those solar subsidies too. Jeepers, we’re saving money right and left!
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!**********NPNS
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:28 pm)The problem for nuclear energy is with the size of the construction project you need to get the plant up and running. If thorium reactors are small enough to be brought on line on time and on budget then I’m all for them. The article you cited seemed more concerned about the cost of the fuel which in my mind is not a significant issue so the answer to the question about size wasn’t clear to me.
-11
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:31 pm)(click to show comment)
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:31 pm)I read in the wall street journal that they’re coming out with a new generation of smaller nuclear reactors.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/06/11/honey-i-shrunk-the-reactor-small-nukes-arrive/tab/article/
However, just because something wasn’t economically viable with generation one technology doesn’t mean that new technology can’t make it viable. They’re doing all sorts of work into new types of large nuclear reactors. It might take more upfront costs, but I think it’s worth building pilot reactors. Especially given the potential payoffs…environmental and economic.
+3
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:33 pm)Don’t forget to come back in November.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!**********NPNS
-1
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:38 pm)Along with Lyle, Bob needs to make sure Letterman gets a Volt soon after production starts. Oh, and me too.
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:40 pm)You’ve missed the point my friend. Note I referred to guarantees. You’re talking about subsidies. Unlike other alternative power generation facilities such as solar or wind, nuclear power plants require government subsidies AND government guarantees. These are two distinct concepts with very different costs and benefits. Subsidies is when you pay a specified amount for something. Guarantees are when you agree to pick up the (unspecified) tab for failures.
I don’t have an issue with the subsidies for nuclear power because they can be calculated and known up front. Guarantees are completely different. The government can’t know the numbers up front, the cost overruns are completely out of the government’s control, and there is no limit to how much the government can be billed for. Essentially a guarantee is the classic case of giving someone a blank check. Not a good idea.
If nuclear power only required government subsidies I”d say it was a good idea. In fact that would be much better policy than continuing our current practice of subsidizing the oil companies. But it’s not so I’m not.
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:44 pm)I think even in ten years more people will want an electric with a range extender than a pure electric. Even if battery prices come down a battery that takes you 200 miles will be large and heavy. And even if you travel 60 miles a day excess battery weight is far more wasteful than a 1 liter engine that can take you across the country. What’s even more wasteful? Everyone having 2 cars. So unless you’re satisfied living in America and not going more than 100 miles away from your home, I honestly think E-Revs will dominate the market.
There will be mileage options for pure electric range but I can see most people buying the cheaper models that take you 40 to 50 miles a day no matter how cheap batteries get.
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:53 pm)The size and complexity of the construction project is independent of the technology. So you can change the technology but if the construction project remains the same size you still have the same budget and scheduling issues.
The smaller reactors are IMHO an absolutely great idea, regardless of the technology. The article you cited mentions the problem of waste disposal but that’s an issue we’ll just have to deal with. It’s always a question of “compared to what”, and a coal plant puts out more radioactive material than a nuclear plant.
The fact is that people are always drawn to the most complex solutions. With cars they want to look at spiffy drive trains rather than just making the cars lighter and more aerodynamic. With electricity they want to look at solar and nuclear and wind and rather than just using LED light bulbs. I’m not any different but I do recognize the absurdities.
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:53 pm)Bob:
Enjoy your well deserved retirement!!!
When I get my Volt, if you are ever in the Youngstown, I would be proud to have you autograph my car!
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:55 pm)Congratulations Mr Lutz for a great career. Well done on the Volt. I wish you many joyful retirement years.
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:56 pm)Actually Nuke plants are amazing in how long they operate and how much down time they have. They are not frequently down at all. Some operate for more than a year straight. An amazing feat for a big plant. The NRC numbers show over 90% uptime and this includes the refueling outages.
As far as large reactors go, that is the industry trend. The new reactors all all large.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html
Small reactors have not proven to be viable because of all the environmental hoops and regulation that must be jumped through. If you are going to build one, the consensus is to build a big one. The new ones will be about 30-50% bigger than the current fleet.
As far as over budget and behind schedule goes, I would agree. Thats the way we do things but it does not negate the benefit of doing it. Just because an aircraft carrier is over budget and behind schedule does not mean that it does not float.
These new plants, if anything like the existing fleet (they are actually safer and better), will provide needed base load for 60 years with excellent uptime.
As far as govt guarantees go, at least they are not as subsidized as the big solar and wind projects that produce less power. Once these guys are built, they will produce the cheapest electrons available.
Apr 12th, 2010 (12:57 pm)You’ve got a month. Do we have a year?
Seriously, it will take numbers larger than what GM is committing to for the Volt to be a market success in my mind. It would be hard for me to say that three thousand a month was a success. In fact, for me anything less than 10K/month is a failure. Not necessarily a failure on GM’s part, but a failure nevertheless.
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (1:08 pm)“It appears that we have allowed CO2 to become the dominant environmental issue whenever we discuss burning fossil fuels.”. — Jim
I wish one of the science guys or chemist guys who read this blog would clear up this crap about CO2 being a pollutant. Even my 8-year old knows CO2 is what we breath out, and the plants breath it in. It is not a pollutant.
CO1 (Carbon MONOxide) is the culprit. Am I wrong on this? If I am wrong, then dammit, everyone stop breathing right now!!!
Apr 12th, 2010 (1:14 pm)The ‘dealers’ most certainly do! And thank you for shopping with us!
+3
Apr 12th, 2010 (1:21 pm)Absolutely. I’ve become increasingly worried about that very scenario if GM decides to price the Volt at a loss and limit production to limit the loss. That’s kind of a no-win scenario since it totally undermines our ability to “vote with our checkbook”.
If anything is priced so that the manufacturer loses money, there’s a very strong incentive for that manufacturer to stop making that thing. Fundamentally, that was the problem with the first wave of electric vehicles a decade ago. Nobody made money (and nobody could see a viable path to make money, either).
I was hoping the most important lesson from Tesla was that you could actually charge an arm and a leg (plus another leg) for an electric vehicle and people would buy them and the manufacturer COULD make money. And then you bring the costs down slowly over time. That approach (in general) works pretty well. Sometimes it doesn’t work, but frequently it does.
Nissan has destroyed that paradigm for the upcoming electric car battle. What we’re going to see, instead, is a pricing bloodbath for manufacturers where there will be several manufacturers chasing after a relatively smallish pool of customers with cars priced well below where they will make money. They will all limit production (even Nissan is talking small quantities of a few thousand leaves (sp?
) in Japan) whether to limit losses or because they can’t actually produce more due to parts supply issues or simply because that’s what they expect demand to be I’m not sure. I’m suspecting limiting losses. Mitsubishi just did a major backtrack on pricing for their iMiev in Japan, with a massive price cut to match the Leaf.
Anyway, had all these upcoming vehicles been priced in the $40-$50k range it probably would have been the Tesla paradigm and I was expecting electric vehicles to really get firmly established. Now with this loss leader paradigm, I’m not so sure the companies will have the collective stomach for it. I guess this could be called the Prius paradigm since apparently that’s what Toyota was rumored to be doing. That proved pretty successful as well, so I’m not saying this upcoming price war will fail to get electric vehicles firmly established, but well, it’s a much riskier paradigm I think that will take some real motivated visionaries in the companies to make it ultimately prevail.
Sadly, one of those motivated visionaries is leaving GM. Making the whole paradigm just a little bit more riskier.
(Isn’t that cool how I managed to ramble my way back on to the topic?
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (1:23 pm)I suspect that the definition of success for the Volt isn’t the only difference between our “minds” (g). To me, getting that first set of wheels on the ground *is* success. Remember, Lyle started this site when the actual Volt was a concept – read vaporware. He, GM, *we* have nurtured it to the point where it will be a reality. How long did Statik and I go round and round about whether there’d ever *be* a Volt???
If the incredible happens and it isn’t sold in huge numbers, have we done less? I don’t think so.
This runs parallel to the earlier distinction you drew between subsidies and guarantees (and yes, I know the difference). You see the difference as one of size, I see the similarity in that they are both govt supports.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!**********NPNS
Apr 12th, 2010 (1:26 pm)I’ll see your “THORIUM” and raise you an “IEC/Polywell” research program. We should be investigating BOTH of them aggressively.
It’s atrocious, the kerjillions of dollars being thrown at ever-hungry, ever-delayed ITER monster, while a miniscule pittance is directed to these two very interesting alternatives.
Apr 12th, 2010 (1:28 pm)Bob: We all wish you the very very best. Your legacy inspiring a new era of automotive history – as proven by VOLT’s new competition. VOLT may have saved GM’s fuel cell program:
In November 2007 USA Today reported the following:
“GM promised the United Auto Workers, as part of a labor deal signed in September, that it would start manufacturing Volt in 2010.”
“The fuel-cell Volt, expected about a year later, probably would be leased. Fuel-cell technology is expensive, and the cars can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build. Piggybacking onto Volt will cut that somewhat, says Daniel O’Connell, director of a GM unit that services and supports fuel-cell vehicles.”
FC commercialization hinges on FC attaining 10-20 year durability. (10 years to overhaul for another 10 years) I think we’ve seen the 5000 hr. performance mark (150,000 miles). Making GM’s 2015 forecast plausible.
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (1:29 pm)Bob Lutz is “The MAN”
When he made this statement about the Tesla he changed the course of GM and the rest of the Auto Companies.
“That tore it for me. If some Silicon Valley start-up can solve this equation, no one is going to tell me anymore that it’s unfeasible.”
And
“Lutz said he believes history will view this moment as “the tipping point that enables the age of electric vehicles.” “Moreover, he believes this transition will be “every bit as momentous as the transition from horses to horsepower.”
Guys like Bob can and did make the difference. GOOD for YOU!
Apr 12th, 2010 (1:30 pm)Jim,
Actually, most NG fueled plants being built are combined cycle, so in these more efficient plants, the CO2 reduces to 0.8 lb/kwh.
An exhaustive study by NETL has been completed which provides this data. See Table ES-2 on sheet 26 of 516.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/Bituminous%20Baseline_Final%20Report.pdf
Work is currently underway at NETL on advanced technology for coal that will produce ultra-clean synthetic fuels and electricity. Emissions of NOx and SOx similar to the NG combined cycle, 95%+ mercury removal, only with zero CO2 emissions. Plant also will be very economical.
Public report is expected later this year.
Bill
Apr 12th, 2010 (1:32 pm)Stumbled across this article, seems somewhat relevant considering where Mr. Lutz is hoping the Volt will take us (get away from Oil).
US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply
Basically the US Military has issued a report forecasting an elimination of slack in the world’s oil production environment by ~ 2012 and a large shortage by ~ 2015. The fact that the US Military put this out publicly (as a threat they see coming) is a big deal. The fact that the US Media appears to have missed or chosen to ignore it is astounding – considering the ramifications for our society. This was reported on in the UK.
Bob, please make a plea for additional production capacity to be available for Voltec vehicles (battery production facilities principly) before you leave GM, OK? We’re going to need’em
Apr 12th, 2010 (1:54 pm)#27
Amen. +1
Apr 12th, 2010 (1:59 pm)So that explains why I didn’t get into Harvard!
But, seriously, it absolutely raises taxes. But good public water systems are a lot cheaper than relying on bottled water for drinking, cooking, and cleaning the way they do in developing countries. Modern sewer systems were the biggest public safety measure ever. And it’s one of the things we should be spending more money on.
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (1:59 pm)Seems obvious this would apply to Obamacare or Government in general. I need to check this book out. Thanks who said we would never agree on anything. :>)
Apr 12th, 2010 (2:05 pm)#48
Me too, but it’s not easy. +1
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (2:13 pm)__________________________________________________________________
From Lyle’s Article:
“…Lutz also admitted there was significant hesitation on the part of GM to actually move the car into production. Something this site hopefully helped thwart…”
————————————
There is no doubt that the GM-Volt.com site helped tip GM’s decision to put the Volt into production. The Volt Program then snowballed big-time and took a life of its own not only within GM but the entire automotive industry towards electric cars.
Thanks for your contribution Lyle!
The Tesla Roadster (inspired by Martin Eberhard) and the Chevrolet Volt (inspired by Bob Lutz) will go down in automotive history as being the two cars that most contributed towards sparking the Electric Car Revolution.
Thanks for your contribution Mr. Lutz!
Parting Salvos from GMs Bob Lutz – 2010 New York Auto Show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyuTqiCRqaA
_________________________________________________________________________
Apr 12th, 2010 (2:31 pm)It is always a question of compared to what. We don’t have any energy sources that aren’t subsidized in some way. There should be a way of determining which is the cheapest when taking all the costs and benefits into account. The cost of building, plus the subsidies,plus the cost of clean-up/air pollution, economic rent from use of a nonrenewable energy, minus the potential innovation spillovers…etc. But there isn’t. At least that I know of.
However, with regard to nuclear reactors, standardization should eliminate some of those budget overruns. Like they did in France. But we’ll never get there if we don’t have pilot reactors using the new technologies.
Making the cars lighter is also expensive. Or the auto companies would be tripping all over themselves to use more carbon fiber. While I don’t think cafe standards make as much sense as a substantial gas tax, they don’t specify the mechanism for meeting them.
But, in general, we need both conservation methods like LEDs, and alternative energies like wind and solar. Neither one can solve our energy and environmental problems by themselves. Right now, society, at large, is facing a crisis. And everything that can help is welcome.
Apr 12th, 2010 (2:32 pm)Its all basic research, and it advances human knowledge.. its all good.
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (2:48 pm)There are no practical controls for what gets put into brake pads, and where they are manufactured. Once either microscopic asbestos dust or diesel microparticulates get deep into the lungs, the lungs have no mechanism to expel these.
So, I don’t drive behind diesels, and I don’t drive ahead of Priuses. (I slow down to let them
by).
Apr 12th, 2010 (2:54 pm)Thorium reactors are similar if not smaller than traditional weapons grade units. The great thing about Thorium reactors, is that it can use existing nuclear waste. Traditional units using U-235 waste 95% as the fissibility (if there is such a word) below 95% is useless below 95% for creating Pu-235. In addition, existing light water reactors can be converted.,and are more efficient for the process. (30% gain.)
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (2:58 pm)Bill,
That’s great news. The downside is that 95% mercury removal still allows much mercury to be released. Out of all of coal’s environmental problems, I would rank mercury as one of the greatest and least reversible. It is a very very toxic metal, and goes right up the foood chain to us. Think about what a sin it is that a breast feeding mother has to limit the amount of fish she can eat because of mercury. Humans thrived for thousands of years with fish as a staple, and now we need to monitor our intake as though it were akin to smoking cigarettes. And the overwhelming amount of the environmental mercury has burned coal as its source. This is one of the primary reasons I support converting coal plants to NG as part of our nation’s automobile electrification solution.
Jim
-12
Apr 12th, 2010 (3:02 pm)(click to show comment)
Apr 12th, 2010 (3:03 pm)Deniers,
I wanted to take a stab a convincing you of the error of your ways,-help you to get your priorities straight( though they’re not bad- you want to drive electric to end war in the ME and/or save the economy)though it will no doubt be inadequate.;-)
Was just rereading a piece by James Hansen, where he mentioned that greenhouse gas changes( in co2 and methane) are a positive feedback that contributes to the large magnitude of the climate swings, naturally…It’s a subtle but important point. These gasses don’t cause problematic global warming per se, Problem comes with the addition of the anthropogenic variety to an atmosphere already chock full, as described by the Keeling Curve. Large swings become catastrophic swings , what we face if we go merrily along without paying attention, as we’ve been doing to date thanks in part to junk science brought to you by the likes of Exxon Mobil. Now, saved the best part for last, brought to you by Skeptical Sceince -Fact “The most recent period when CO2 levels were as high as today (around 400 ppm) was around 15 million years ago, during the Middle Miocene. What was climate like at the time? Global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today. Sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher.” Grim prospects, right? But Find slight consolation knowing system only slowly(perhaps in 100 years) reaches these temps and sea levels given these levels of co2, And better news is, if we stop dumping, and even began extracting, the extra co2 and methane into the atmospere now, in a hundred years or so the system will begin to right itself. Long journey begins with first step, which is why I plan to drive electric, or better yet, hoof it.
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh2.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
-11
Apr 12th, 2010 (3:13 pm)(click to show comment)
Apr 12th, 2010 (3:23 pm)The US has the second largest known reserves of Thorium in the world (after Australia), but is the worldwide leader in Boron supplies; so I’ll happily accept a working Polywell reactor.
Of course, that leaves the problem of getting a working Polywell reactor when no one (except maybe the Navy) wants to fund it …
Speaking of size, there is expected to be a single efficient size for the IEC/Polywell, and it’s pretty small (20 or maybe 200 megawatts, I forget which). Of course, a large plant using several Polywell elements could be designed.
We’d still benefit from some Thorium reactors just to deal with the waste from a generation of LWRs.
Apr 12th, 2010 (3:32 pm)Exactly! Bob Lutz would be an outstanding candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize – as opposed the the astounding choice of Nobel Peace Prize winner to Mr. Obama, who …….seriously…….. won the Nobel Prize for…………………………………….
Oh wait, …….he sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and we’re still in Iraq. That might be it! —- L
L.
Hey, before all the Obama supporters reach for the thumbs down button, at least…….at least post your opinion why a man who did absolutely nothing was deserving of the world’s most prestigious award for as founder Alfred Nobel required,
“…shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”
Using that criteria, I would offer that Bob Lutz’s achievements in getting the green light for Volt is a major victory for the future of peace, and Volt’s future success – with it’s offshoots will pioneer our way forward, getting much of our vast military presences back home, without the huge burden of securing America’s place in line for petroleum sources. Especially since glaring evidence has surfaced that terrorist organizations have profited greatly from money gained from oil producing individual interests and entire nations. Thus it’s no joke to suggest Mr. Lutz a better candidate than the person who actually won the Peace Prize for………..for……………?
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (3:33 pm)Go nip yourself in the bud, please.
Apr 12th, 2010 (3:54 pm)Considering the source: Consumer’s Reports rehash by Forbes (neither of which know much about cars or testing them). I’d say that this is one of those cases where anybody can post anything on the Internet and spin it any way that meets their need for attention.
“The Buick LaCrosse received the lowest number of problems per 100 vehicles among midsize cars in the proprietary J.D. Power and Associates 2009 Vehicle Dependability Study.”
The Buick LaCrosse *is* a GM car.
( I know pdnftt)
Apr 12th, 2010 (4:16 pm)Just to clarify, I am not a denier. I was agreeing with LauraM’s comment, which I interpreted as a very low key chiding of the deniers. I am just not interested in wasting my time arguing with global warming deniers. Much easier to just stand here and argue with the wall. As I said a long time ago, when the water closes over their heads they may start to get the message. Clearly not before.
While I’m at it, ditto for political rants and arguments. I like the President. I voted for him. I thank God every day that he got elected. BTW, if not for the dreaded “bailout” of GM, there would be no GM, no Volt, and no GM-Volt.com.
I find it truly ironic to see all of these eulogies to Bob Lutz coupled with intermittent castigations of President Obama and the Democratic Party for their “socialist” actions including, but not limited to, keeping GM, and thus the Volt, alive.
Apr 12th, 2010 (4:39 pm)I think I read an article a few months ago about these reactors and one advantage was the proponents said they could be smaller.
Apr 12th, 2010 (4:47 pm)The car design is a major but only one factor in making a car reliable. Other things, for example, how long it takes for a complaint to go from a dealer to the factory, are also factors. GM is coming up with great cars, they’re just still not as reliable (overall) as those from Toyota, Honda, or Ford. But great cars that aren’t as reliable as you’d like them to be sure beats lousy cars that are very unreliable.
Lots of progress made, still some to go.
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (4:58 pm)#105 Bernard Fife: This from Wikipedia.
“Tesla Motors was incorporated in Delaware on July 1, 2003[21] by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning to pursue mass production of AC Propulsion’s tzero prototype electric car. With a small amount of personal funding, they rented Tesla’s first office in Menlo Park, California and set about developing a business plan. They quickly added Ian Wright to the team and in January 2004 started looking for funding to develop an production electric sports car. They arranged with AC Propulsion to borrow their TZero prototype to demonstrate to potential investors the performance possible with an electric car. By April, they found a lead investor in Elon Musk and closed a Series A capital investment round of USD$7.5 million. ”
AND
“On January 7, 2008, the New York times reported [1] that Tesla Motors issued a statement on its web site explaining that the Silicon Valley electric-car start-up’s founder and former chief executive, Martin Eberhard, “has transitioned from the board of directors and executive management of the company to the advisory board.”
Its clear from the lawsuit filed by Eberhard the two men simply don’t like each other. Musk is not the founder. He came in about a year later with a jillion VC buckeroos.
I understand Eberhard’s lawsuit against Tesla’s settled.
Myself a Silicon Valley engineer founder, pres & CEO of a successful VC funded pioneer company; I’m generally sympathetic to founders being tossed. But one learns taking sides between partners is a loosing proposition. Like taking sides in a marriage dispute. Get the point. When principals sit down at the table, they rightfully expect integrity, just as if they are partners. Eberhard’s lawsuit said a lot about Musk. Which is why it settled in zero time.
I challenge you to back your statement about “massive incompetence”.
BTW: Again not to take sides, Musk has made a whole lot of questionable statements.
Apr 12th, 2010 (5:16 pm)I’d have to agree fully with Lutz when he said, from the interview: ““The majority of the public right now does not believe that CO2 emissions from cars is the main source of global warming” ”
I heard recently that ONE…..ONE diesel powered cruise ship entering Seattle’s Elliot Bay emits the equal Co2 emissions to 275,000 cars in a day. Diesel fumes are THE WORST on human lungs as they contain micro particles of diesel oil which wreaks havoc and causes cancers.
- “In April 23, 2009 The Guardian has reported on new research showing that in one year, a single large container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent to that of 50 million cars. The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds 90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles. The recent boom in the global trade of manufactured goods has also resulted in a new breed of super sized container ship which consume fuel not by the gallons, but by tons per hour, and shipping now accounts for 90% of global trade by volume.” source article – http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/
Note: My opinion re: Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize has already garnered -1s, yet no one has yet offered even one opinion as to why he deserved the prize. Go figure.
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
Apr 12th, 2010 (5:31 pm)_______________________________________________________________
#105 Bernard Fife said:
“…Next time try not to make ill informed statements as it just make you look..well…dumb.
Cheers…”
——————————-
lol
______________________________________________________________
Apr 12th, 2010 (5:43 pm)He got the”Peace Prize” while we went into a war in Afghanistan on his orders, move troops out of Iraq and into…… Go figure!
Apr 12th, 2010 (5:53 pm)OT.
Dow closes above 11,000 mark for first time in 18 months
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-markets-close13-2010apr13,0,5804044.story
And gas is up $2.99/gal today.
+2
Apr 12th, 2010 (6:19 pm)Great comments….
Add to the 102 reactors that are generating economical electricity… all the Military reactors … submarines etc… and all the reactors all over the world generating clean economical electricity. I recently found out that we are rebuilding just one of our Military bases in Japan at the tune of 1.5 billion dollars and in the solicitation it states that all construction has to be done by Japanese workers….. how much does it cost to build a power plant? I’m sure this 1.5 billion would be a good bit towards a power plant or even a new mass transit system for some US city… but no… our “stimulus” money is again going over seas.
Apr 12th, 2010 (6:21 pm)It was at 11,000 …10 years ago!!!! We have gone nowhere!!!
Apr 12th, 2010 (6:36 pm)Just visiting LA should convince anyone of that!
Apr 12th, 2010 (6:48 pm)#108 Zachary Taylor (Jackson)
Wow !
You’re really giving that “Troll Moe” pic I posted the other day a workout! It is funny!
We all need a good laugh everyday (that’s my goal and motto).
Apr 12th, 2010 (6:50 pm)CU is useless questionaires sent out to the biased readers of CU magazine only… and they do not compensate for the amount of vehicles on the road. JDPowers does. JDPowers long term reliability rates Buick as the most reliable brand on the road. If CU gets 20 complaints from a Chevy model with a million cars on the road and 10 complaints from a Japanese model with 20,000 cars on the road they say the Japanese model is twice as reliable. I’ve written to CU and they have confirmed this and they also have confirmed that they try to get 100 surveys for a certain model… that’s 100 surveys from people who read their magazine on models that may have millions of vehicles on the road. CU is useless biased information. My real world information totally contradicts CU’s red dots. I bought a Japanese vehicle with all red dots…and my neighbor bought one of those open average dot Chevy ‘s….. it only took 4 years for me to write my first letter to CU… that Japanese vehicle was the worst vehicle I’ve owned in 35 years of buying cars…. Our family now owns 4 Buicks that are all as reliable as anything on the road… and they ride quiet smooth and get very good gas mileage.
Apr 12th, 2010 (6:51 pm)The key reason for the lack of on time is that the creators of the laws never contemplated just how much trouble anti-nukes could cause using the court system. On top of that, the rules changed mid stream so the plant would have to be redesigned as it was being built.
I’d like to see anyone come in on time when they change the rules mid process.
The rules are different now. Once the license is in hand, the ability to stop construction using the courts is taken away. Once the license is in hand, the plant can be completed as designed. Anything found afterwords is implemented just like rule changes to operating plants. They get to finish under the licensed design and make megawatts. Once the plant is operating, they then update the plant during future maintenance windows.
Considering that nukes are 50 year old technology and LEDs are not even yet commercially viable, I’d put the bet on the nukes.
I’d also argue that their rate is far more capable. Lighting is only 12% of the total electrical load. Even if you made magic light bulbs that didn’t use any electricity, the other 88% of the power still gets used. That could shut down 1 in 4 coal plants.
From 79-83 the US brought 15-20 new plants each year. If we held that rate, coal could be shuttered in a decade.
Apr 12th, 2010 (6:55 pm)That was just a horrible over-sight on Harvard’s part regarding your acceptance letter – they probably sent it by USPS (g) – or maybe they just drink NY water…
I was actually suggesting that there had to be something *in* the water in NY that causes higher taxes. Or maybe the taxes are just secondary to the H2O-related diminished capacity. (Seriously, I was just joshing about the water – I know it’s fine, and it *would* be criminal to do anything that had a negative impact on that pristine upstate natural resource. The majority of rivers and streams in PA have wonderful quality…. or orange from mine drainage from the last century. To be fair, even the orange ones are improving).
Be well,
Tagamet
/long day. Need a med check.
LJGTVWOTR!!**********NPNS
Apr 12th, 2010 (6:56 pm)I’d be OK with the switch to natural gas if it wasn’t for the fact that we are at this moment building multiple terminals to start importing Middle East LNG. I hear talk of enough natural gas in the US, but that is countered by the fact that we are rapidly ramping up the import of natural gas.
Being utterly dependent on the Middle East for petrol is bad enough. Let’s not add keeping the lights on to the dependency equation.
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:04 pm)Then another 800 years in Wyoming and another 500 years in Alaska.
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:08 pm)Does that make the Volt a convenient truth?
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:12 pm)LMK when Bob replies. I could drive out there to have him sign my T-shirt from the VNT-1 event (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!**********NPNS
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:17 pm)You apparently are operating on 1985 information and haven’t bothered to learn newer information. The nuclear industry focused heavily on up-time from the mid 80′s to the present day. Refueling outages were shortened, fuel cycles were lengthened, and unintended outages cut.
By the turn of the century the capacity factor was over 95%. It is now 97%.
It is common news for a plant to exit a 20 day refueling outage and run at 100% output for over 400 days. No other type of power plant has come close.
Not anymore. The technology was developed for coal plants, but 2 units starting construction now in Texas will have dry towers.
That is the point of the energy act of 2005. They aren’t doing the same thing. They have identified the problem and are reacting to it and expect that to improve things.
Isn’t it interesting that Japan, Korea and China have built plants on time and on budget? Some of those plants have even been built where the prime contractor is US based. The difference is the legal / regulatory environment.
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:26 pm)Friggin Bob Lutz…
You done Good.
The Beauty of a Volt…
Daddy Lutz
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:26 pm)The utility industry has played with the size of nuclear plants over quite a range. What they have found is that bigger is better from an economic standpoint.
The older generation plants worked their way up to about 1700 MW. The next generation of plants have switched to passive safety systems (no electricity other than batteries to run the instruments needed). Choosing passive safety put an upper lid on the power level. At first GE and Westinghouse tried to sell 600MW passive safe plants. Not one buyer bought one – note that I’m talking internationally where utilities kept on buying the previous generation designs. When they both went back to the drawing board with 1100 MW designs they got bites both domestically and internationally. China bought 5 within months of release and is building them right now.
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:28 pm)What subsidies? There is research into nuclear by the DOE, but that is minuscule compared to any other major source of energy. When it comes to production, there is a TAX on nuclear power.
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:35 pm)They are almost there. 18 of the 28 units in the licensing process are Westinghouse AP1000s. Buzz in the industry is that the AP1000 will be the only choice for new applications from this point forward.
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:40 pm)Weapons grade production requires a low fraction of isotopes higher than Pu-239. To get that, a reactor must run a short fuel cycle – typically under 6 weeks. Since most light water units are trending towards 2 year fuel cycles, they make terrible plutonium. Many have over 40% of the plutonium in isotopes other than Pu-239.
On the other hand, fluoride reactors make wonderful U-233. U-233 would make great bombs, even better than Pu-239.
+1
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:51 pm)Exactly. I agree that there is some disconnect between wanting services, and not wanting taxes to pay for them. However, I think the American people would be a lot more willing to pay higher taxes if we didn’t think the money was going to oversea bases or fighting useless endless wars. Or being given to some other special interest like, say, six figure pensions for retired supposedly “disabled” long island rail road workers.
I think everyone agrees that we need government services. However that doesn’t mean we can’t have a problem with how the government chooses to spend our money. Or think that they’re performing their roles very badly. And that we’re not getting very good value for our tax dollars. And that goes for both parties IMHO.
Apr 12th, 2010 (7:58 pm)THIS IS ATTRIBUTED TO ME? It was actually posted by Mitch @ #52.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!**********NPNS
Apr 12th, 2010 (8:21 pm)LOL. It’s OK. I was just kidding. I’m definitely over it by now.
As far as clean water–Water quality had been steadily improving over in this country over the past 30 years until relatively recently. Since Richard Nixon signed the clean water act actually. Which is amazing when you think about it. How divided we are now compared to where we were. And I think that’s more about politicians than the country. At least I hope that’s just about the politicians…
However, water quality is now declining again. Mainly because of lack of investment in basic things like maintaining water pipes and sewage systems. And the Bush era lack of enforcement of existing regulation. Some things need to be regulated….
Apr 12th, 2010 (8:28 pm)I was kind of hoping that they would standardize the next generation of reactors. If thorium reactors can solve our nuclear waste problem…well that would be worth more than a couple of billion even if the new reactor didn’t create any energy. I know that that would take more time, but…
-1
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:26 pm)Noel- Right, a warmist and a chider of deniers, with LauraM. Sorry about that disconnected quotation.
-1
Apr 12th, 2010 (9:27 pm)I send respect to Bob Lutz where respect is due. Good job for getting us the Volt. However climate denialism is foolish and dangerous. That kind of loose talk from an opinion leader has provided a continued excuse for inaction that could have cost humanity critical years in the climate fight.
Volts are only as clean as their electric power source, and we still need to build thousands of carbon-free power plants here in the USA to provide truly carbon-free transport. We also need to turn over the entire legacy internal combustion engine fleet. This will take decades.
Volts on coal electricity are still cleaner than standard gasoline cars. So it’s still a big improvement. And their batteries could be used to provide spare grid peaking capacity. And it makes the US an auto technology leader again. So keep it up, GM. You’re on the right track.
Apr 12th, 2010 (10:19 pm)OT ramble: I think it’s a pretty safe bet that water qualities vary significantly geographically. Here in central PA, I’ve watched the West Branch of the Susquehanna river improve remarkably over the past 30+ years. It’s gone from having a barren, rust-colored bottom (though the acidic water has been crystal clear), to the point where it now supports healthy plant and fish populations. Concentrated, long-term efforts to abate *specific* acid mine-water discharges are really paying dividends. Fish ladders have been installed to allow native fish migrations all the way from the Chesapeake Bay to my sleepy little village (Lock Haven). Unfortunately, I’m not overly optimistic that we’ll come up with the million dollars we need in order to qualify for matching funds to construct that ladder anytime soon. Hmmm, maybe we could get some of those stimulation funds…. (lol, for that kind of money, *I’D* build that puppy).
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!**********NPNS
Apr 12th, 2010 (11:44 pm)Whoops. Sincerest apologies, no malice intended:
Here is what I was trying to do
Then another 800 years in Wyoming and another 500 years in Alaska.
Apr 13th, 2010 (12:05 am)I’m a strong believer that they are good enough.
Why hold out for better when what we have is good enough?
Safety of the next generation under construction now is phenomenal.
Even run open cycle, the newest nuclear units have at least 150 years of fuel using known sources. That isn’t as good as coal, but certainly is a long time.
Close the cycle around the newest plants and the life of the known fuel is over a millenia. The newer plants are optimized for significantly longer fuel cycles. The primary motivator for doing so is increasing uptime. Lengthening the fuel cycle increases the breed ratio, a positive side effect, The newer plants also run at a bit lower power density. This is done to make them behave better as load followers and to help make them passive safe. The lower power density also increases the breed ratio. Combine them and the breed ratio is over 90%. The new plants are also licensed for enriched mixed oxide fuel. The old plants only could take fuel pins with either low enrichment uranium or depleted uranium with plutonium (mixed oxide). The ability to mix both makes recycling easier. The high breed ratio improves the benefit of recycling fuel, since only 10% must be virgin fuel and the other 90% can be recycled.
” If thorium reactors can solve our nuclear waste problem…”
I think the problem is solely political. Switching the type of reactor wont change the fact that there are people who hate nuclear power and will fight it.
Apr 13th, 2010 (2:03 am)Not hard to figure at all. I imagine the negative votes were for putting up a straw man argument. Surely you recall that the president himself stated he did not deserve the prize, and he wasn’t just trying to be polite when he said it. Why, even the “ultra-liberal left-wing media” seemed on the whole not to believe he deserved the prize.
Apr 13th, 2010 (4:18 am)Why does this bother you so? Does it reflect poorly on your President?
+1
Apr 13th, 2010 (7:13 am)The problem isn’t that it is actual like religion. The problem is that people TREAT it like a religious or political question and not a scientific one. If one does not know the science upon which the arguments are based then one cannot have an informed opinion.
Apr 13th, 2010 (8:09 am)What is Facts/Truth ?? When someone tells me they know the ANSWER, my hackles get raised.
Call me a denyer, teabagger, NRA Activist, right wing whatever.. It doesn’t bother me. Please do not stop the discussion — because when 2 opposite sides of an issue stop talking, we all know whats next — and its not pretty.
Why the Fuel cell hate? Does it really matter? Electricity from a generator/Fuel Cell/Battery for power looks the same to the motor. Isn’t a cell just a battery with exchanging anodes and cathodes? Hindered development? -crying-
Its not a zero sum game. Cross pollination and all that.
Don’t you dare stop talking! Prove your point with unassailable facts!
Plutonium?! I want a reactor to make GOLD, GOLD!! Moohahahah!
Good for you! Keep trying. More facts and less (other stuff) please!
“facing all that negativism, and ultimately triumphing with a car that has a good chance of making a major impact, is thrilling.”
I guess its better than having a fair chance. Kinda hedging his bet ‘tho.
Just the facts please — keep the name calling to a minimum. We are all adults here.
Apr 13th, 2010 (9:36 am)Just in case anyone else is running into this, I disabled my Flash/Shockwave plugin in Firefox (Menu Tools / Add-ons) and all of sudden everything is nice and snappy. Advertising is still there, its just not live motion (which is apparently what was killing everything).
Apr 13th, 2010 (10:45 am)#135
Amen Sister, tell it like it is!! +1
Apr 13th, 2010 (11:42 pm)The original plan for the Volt, as I understand it, is that it wouldn’t burn any foreign oil products either. The engine was advertised by Lutz in a 2008 interview on CNN to be running on E85. Apparently the latest news is the first models out will not be Flex-fuel compatible. There aren’t enough stations around to get it yet. We’re seeing more stations selling the fuel here in Florida, so it may be practical eventually.
Lutz has his head together on the global-warming farce, and keeps it sensible with wanting to cut foreign oil dependence. A real Marine.
Dont give up on ICE’s yet. There are other things coming out that will excite some folks!