Volt MPV5 in China
China’s automotive fleet is rapidly expanding. Last year the Chinese market overtook the US to become the world largest automotive market, and sales are expected to continue to expand 55% to 13.55 million passenger vehicles per year by 2015.
The country is currently the third largest consumer of oil in the world with all of Europe a close second and the US number one. As China’s volume of vehicles continue to increase along with economic growth so too will their oil demand. China will pass the US and become the world’s largest oil consumer within a few years and thereafter continue to expand consumption. China is already importing more than 50% of its oil.
Fortunately, there is already great demand among the Chinese population for electric cars. GM plans to sell the Chevrolet Volt there and several Chinese automakers including BYD have already begun to sell electric cars in the country. Nissan is considering selling the LEAF in China as well.
A recent poll performed by Ernst and Young revealed that a shocking 60% of Chinese consumers are interested in purchasing a plug-in car. This is five times the rate in the US or any other country.
The Chinese government has also expressed great interest in promoting plugin cars, to help stave off foreign oil dependence. The government has already designated 20 cities to deploy extensive plugin charging infrastructure, and have set a production goal of 500,000 “new energy” cars by 2015. A massive series of incentives and subsidies to encourage electric car adoption will be announced in July.
Despite all the obvious benefits, one leading Chinese auto executive isn’t so sure this is a good idea.
Huang Xiangdong, who is vice president of Guangzhou Automobile Group Corp that has ventures with Honda, noted that 83% of Chinese electricity is produced by burning coal.
“Battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids do not save more energy than conventional cars on a well-to-wheel analysis,” said Huang. “We think in China it’s not the right time to promote pure electric vehicles.”
While reducing CO2 production is important to some, as in the US, concerns of oil dependence loom large.
“There are broader benefits of electric vehicles, such as reducing the dependence on foreign oil,” Henry Li, general manager of BYD’s auto export trade division.
Irrespective of any naysayers, clearly the Chinese electric automotive market is poised to become extremely large and profitable to automakers who are successful there. As the first foreign firm to get a foothold there, GM has much to benefit from selling electric cars there, and much of the company’s future profit could be tied to it.
“China is currently a larger market by volume than the US,” says GM spokesperson Tom Wilkinson
“It is probably our second or third most important market and growing faster than either the US or Europe,” he says. “In short, it is pretty important.”
So although we’d all like to see the exciting new Chevrolet Volt MP5 concept go on sale in the US, it should be fairly apparent why GM chose to unveil it in China. In fact it was actually produced in partnership with venture partner Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. Anyway the MPV5 according to GM spokesperson Dave Darovitz “is a concept only.”
“No plans for production,” he adds.
Source (Detroit News) , (photo from Autoblog)
+38
Apr 24th, 2010 (8:28 am)Even with all the coal production for electricity, having plug-in vehicles will still allow those fuel sources to easily change, relatively speaking.
That’s one of the great things about plug-in vehicles: It provides you a diversified portfolio of energy options that can be adjusted as economic, political, or environmental needs change… without having to junk or retrofit millions of individual vehicles.
Current gas cars give us one fuel source, possibly two (FlexFuel)… Electric cars give us about a dozen options, and to me that’s a good thing, even if it’s mostly coal for the Chinese at this time.
join thE REVolution
+5
Apr 24th, 2010 (8:31 am)“Huang Xiangdong, who is vice president of Guangzhou Automobile Group Corp that has ventures with Honda, noted that 83% of Chinese electricity is produced by burning coal.”
The introduction of electric cars is great but they also need to make the production of electricity cleaner, I agree with that.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (8:34 am)I am very disappointed that we as Americans did not get to view these vehicles first. Who bailed out GM? These cars/other vehicles should be available to Americans first and ASAP!!! Let’s get em into showrooms now!!
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (8:35 am)Amen to that… +1
join thE REVolution
+2
Apr 24th, 2010 (8:45 am)“Battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids do not save more energy than conventional cars on a well-to-wheel analysis,” said Huang. “We think in China it’s not the right time to promote pure electric vehicles.”
I thought that even with electricity produced by burning coal an electric vehicle or plug-in hybrid would be cleaner than a conventional car “well-to-wheel”. According to Huang this is not the case. Anyone?
+22
Apr 24th, 2010 (8:46 am)Personally, I don’t give a hoot about where GM unveils *Concept* vehicles which may never see production. It’d be pretty limiting for them to compete internationally, if all the concepts were unveiled in the USA. I’m reasonably sure that they haven’t stopped the Volt production while showing off this Concept, and yes, I’m impatiently waiting to see “our” Volts in showrooms too. JMO.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+23
Apr 24th, 2010 (8:49 am)“No plans for production,” for the MP5.
I am guessing GM already has a time line for production they are just being coy.
+15
Apr 24th, 2010 (8:50 am)The main thing electricity brings to the table is diversity. There are many ways to make electricity. If one way has problems, you can change to another way, and the cars and infrastructure remain unchanged.
I see coal as an important step in the journey. Later, as solar and wind get real, we can migrate away from coal.
In the mean time, we can look at ways of making coal cleaner, like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoiAKcIls6s
+4
Apr 24th, 2010 (8:51 am)I believe that the difference is that in the US *less* of our electricity is coal-generated, so here the numbers run in our favor of electric cars.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+2
Apr 24th, 2010 (8:54 am)the MPV5 according to GM spokesperson Dave Darovitz “is a concept only.”
“No plans for production,” he adds.
I hope this is not true. Is the MPV5 at the show drivable? It could be just a shell, but if it is fully functional, it would show that it has moved beyond just a concept.
Nothing wrong with GM making money in China. In fact this is the only product I know of that will help balance the trade deficit. If GM decides to build this car, I am sure they will set up manufacturing world wide, China, USA, and Europe. I do not think GM would import this from China.
Many have pointed out that the safety and pollution standards are lower in China and cars built there will not meet US standards. I believe this is true. But I also believe China is serious about raising their standards with the intention of selling their products in North America and Europe.
+12
Apr 24th, 2010 (8:55 am)Anything that throttles the Chinese oil spigot should be a good thing for the US. It makes more oil available for us, and keeps the price of oil down. Whether this is good for EVs is another subject. It’s probably good for EVs overall, but not US EVs.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (9:04 am)+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (9:07 am)I don’t understand the last part. Do you mean “US” as in Volt fanatics, or “US” as in the USA? And why would it not be good?
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+10
Apr 24th, 2010 (9:07 am)China along with France are the only countries I know of that are investigating Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors. LFTRs are inherently safe, much cheaper to operate, and produce almost no radio-active waste. This design is so attractive that I don’t understand why there isn’t major world wide drive to get these nuclear reactors into production. Well, the cynical side of me does. LWRs (standard Light Water Reactors) are established and highly profitable. They require enriched uranium and the enrichment process is difficult and expensive (read profitable). This community would loose a lot of income if LFTRs were to become popular because thorium is cheap and does not require enrichment for use in LFTRs. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk
China would seem to be our biggest hope to bring LFTRs into commercial use. The ideal locations to install LFTRs are at existing coal generating plants as the electrical grid infrastructure is already there, and thorium is a by-product of coal ash. It has been estimated that there is enough thorium in US coal ash piles to power the country for a hundred years.
China could lead us into a new pollution free era of cheap electricity.
+20
Apr 24th, 2010 (9:15 am)Frank Jamerson, a former GM engineer turned electric-vehicle analyst says, “the Chinese have a hundred million people on electric bikes. That means a hundred million potential customers for electric cars.”*
Another thing. From the article above, Huang Xiangdong, vice president of Guangzhou Auto-
mobile Group Corp, noted that “83% of Chinese electricity is produced by burning coal.” He goes on to claim, “battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids do not save more energy than conventional cars on a well-to-wheel analysis.” This is absolutely false!
Although I certainly hope China will find ways to avoid burning coal to produce electricity, the claim that conventional cars use no more energy “well-to-wheel” than plug-in electrics is wrong for two reasons: 1) Electricity production on a massive scale, even in coal-fired power plants, is relatively efficient because of the huge scale, and 2) Conventional ICEs are only about 20% efficient, while electric cars are 80% or more efficient. So their “well-to-wheel” math is way off.
Also, given that the Chinese car market is already larger than ours, that GM has the largest share of that market and that the projected growth of the Chinese market is huge, it makes good sense for GM to aggressively develop their business in China.
* http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904334,00.html
Apr 24th, 2010 (9:20 am)I mean EVs in the USA. If significant production goes to China, it means more EVs, but maybe less USA EVs to be sold here. Just my opinion, which has been known to be wrong.
+4
Apr 24th, 2010 (9:27 am)“The government has already designated 20 cities to deploy extensive plugin charging infrastructure, and have set a production goal of 500,000 “new energy” cars by 2015.”
And they can afford to do it too since there is this one country that has borrowed billions of billions from them until they are in debt up to their eyeballs. The interest in that debt alone will pay for their infrastructure.
+2
Apr 24th, 2010 (9:34 am)I am disappointed too, but look at the big picture: GM got the money from our Government. Our Government has been borrowing money from China for a long time. When the loan shark knocks on your door asking for a bit of payback, are you gonna say ‘no’?
Apr 24th, 2010 (9:49 am)Thanks for the clarification – much appreciated. Given the limited roll-outs, I’m guessing that it will be a moot point – for a while anyway.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+2
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:04 am)What China really needs is a lot more government regulation, so they couldn’t *build* all those dirty coal plants. No, wait, China does have a lot of government “intervention”. Hmmm, never mind. I’m not even sure *what* my point is, but there’s one there,I’ll bet.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+2
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:05 am)The Chinese are trying to implement technologies which will make true on the promise of “clean coal” though unfortunately that phrase remains an oxymoron. Both the US and China have huge coal reserves and would benefit from being able to use coal. But there isn’t any technology even on the horizon that would make this a sensible alternative given the health and environmental impacts of coal, Dyson notwithstanding.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:18 am)Re Clean Coal:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20003258-54.html?tag=mncol;title
If Skyionic is successful, we may have a huge supply of baking soda.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:20 am)With the recent disasters involving oil rigs in the Gulf, and the unfortunate tragedy in a Coal mine, I hope we take a hard look at the positive reasons to embrace “clean and safe alternative energies”. I wish our Country could make quick decisions for positive change but that would not be democratic…
-1
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:27 am)I totally agree! GM is an AMERICAN company and the government used OUR money to bail them out, so we should have a say in this!
I think the Volt MPV5 looks better than the regular Volt and they need to get it into production! GM’s problem is that they unveil these awesome concept cars that are adored by the public and then they don’t build them (think Converj).
The Volt MPV5 would be more practical for families than the regular Volt, as it seats 5 and has way more space. I heard many are not happy with the discontinuation of the Vibe (or Pontiac, in general, for that matter), and the MPV5 would make a perfect Vibe replacement!
GM would be foolish not to build the MPV5.
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:34 am)GM still lost a lot of money last quarter, and Chrysler made a profit! Didn’t expect Chrysler to do so well, good for them. Read recently that GM is running 3 shifts at some plants, this is VERY good news as it bodes well for GM to make a profit next quarter. Once GM returns to profitability there is a better chance that we will see variations on the Voltec platform come to life.
+3
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:39 am)Different governments have different priorities. China’s government is more interested in economic growth than environmental issues. For obvious reasons. They need it to maintain stability.
That said, I believe that the central government in China is starting to take cleaner air into consideration. (Although not as much as the rest of the world would like.) But China, like the US, the central government isn’t the only government player. China is a huge country, where the local governments all have massive incentives for economic growth vs. clean air. And it’s really difficult to change that.
+5
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:51 am)It may be that the motive for these inaccurate statements is that a BEV might be too far off in the future for his company/interests. Even coal fired generation can’t throttle down at night. The usage of that baseload for plug-ins would be wise. Although it is worth noting that China is briskly accelerating all forms of green energy generation as well. It would be doubly impressive if they decided to begin to phase down coal fired generation at the same time.
Also, the fact that 60 percent of the Chinese would adopt electrics is astonishing compared to what the remainder of the world seems to prefer at this time.
Although I know that will change really fast based on when the Volt gets out here. America will demand it to the fullest of production capacity within months of sale.
Driving the Volt last month had instantly convinced me of this. Nothing else out here compares to it, as I’ve driven just about everything out here for scanning data collection. I know how everything else is made.
+2
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:53 am)Everyone seems to think that China can grow at 10% forever. Without stopping. Yes. They’ve managed it this far by massive amounts of infrastructure spending, loose lending, and mercantalist policies that led to an ever increasing trade surplus. But at some point those policies loose their effectiveness. At some point the rest of the world stops being willing or able to handle the damage to their economies. China’s been able to keep the growth during the credit crisis by loosening already loose lending standards. Which is creating asset bubbles. All of these activities are driving their economy further out of balance. And that has consequences.
Mercantalist policies can work for a really long time. Decades. And it can and does result in permanent capacity transfers. But the world cannot tolerate ever increasing trade surpluses. Not anymore. And they’re starting to run into money supply/sterilization bond issues with the dollar peg. And loosening lending standards doesn’t work nearly as well, or as long .
To me, China looks like the US in the late twenties, and Japan in the late eighties. Basically, a huge bubble. I don’t know when the bubble will explode. But it will.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/business/global/08chanos.html
Yes. I know this time is different. It always is during the boom period.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:01 am)If everything was so simple as you describe in the global marketplace.
Sigh.
If GM makes lots of money selling cars in China that’s a good thing, right? Especially if you claim to be a US taxpayer/owner in “Government Motors”.
-6
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:02 am)Not making any claims of true knowledge, but I read an article on the internet the other day that claimed that the transmission of electricity was only 30% efficient (i.e. 70% lost in the transmission lines). I would guess that it might be worse than average in China. I have no way of verifying what the real loss of energy is in electric transmission.
+4
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:05 am)The MVP5 is a nice looking car and GM needs to drive to bring it to the US within 1-2 years. The other thing that gets to me in this article is
“sales are expected to continue to expand 55% to 13.55 million passenger vehicles per year by 2015″
What does that meen for Oil prices? $5 at the pump?
GM and all of the US automakers need to put the Plug in programs into High gear!!!
+2
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:10 am)The transmission of electricity is a minimum of 93% efficient, because line losses are minimized by stepping up the Voltage to hundreds of thousands of volts, then at various locations stepped back down again. So, the most transmission lines, etc, lose is 7% not 70%. (We would not be able to afford the power at that rate of loss). Plus, as the inventor Westinghouse proved long ago, the larger the thermal conversion furnace, the lower the combustion-heat losses there as well. Making coal energy the same cost as natural gas fired energy (to promote natural gas generation) is what the goal is to promote that changeover eventually in the carbon credits ideas that hopefully all countries adopt someday.
+3
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:20 am)The Chinese have already embraced electric bicycles, so electric autos are easy for them to accept.
+5
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:26 am)The other issue that I wanted to bring up–so far foreign automakers like GM have been able to hang onto their advantages in the Chinese domestic market because of the inherent difficulties with the ICE. And they have a hundred year head start perfecting it. They have no such advantages with electric cars . If anything, given Chinese expertise with lithium batteries, they’re at a disadvantage. And the Chinese government will do whatever it can to slant the market in favor of domestic producers.
So I’m not sure this is a huge opportunity for GM even if the Chinese economy keeps growing at it’s current rate for another few years. SAIC, sure. BYD absolutely. Chery, Geely, etc. GM, possibly not.
Yes. We will all benefit from the resultant lower increase in oil use…
+2
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:27 am)Wow, does *this* ever sound familiar….
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
-11
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:35 am)(click to show comment)
-11
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:39 am)(click to show comment)
+3
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:45 am)Well yes. That’s kind of my point.
That said, China’s weaknesses don’t translate into US strength. And I, for one, am far more interested in the latter than the former.
We need to make a lot of changes to make ourselves more competitive. Infrastructure spending. Making the R&D tax credits permanent. A consistent energy policy. Tax credits for worker training. Revamping the tax code to tax consumption rather than production, etc. And we need to do that China or no China.
I was hoping that China would be this generation’s sputnik but no such luck…
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:56 am)TO be true , its good for china and not good for US. GM is a entity which can go away anytime like a bankruptcy declaration.
Resons :
1) Business finds where they can produce cheap and sell high price , so GM will move as a Chinese company
2) Money flows only one direction to china , nothing flows back
3 Low margin : even read on wuling sunshine – $4500 van so GM may get $20 as profit and it will mostly reinvest
4) No Ip protection : They will copy all technologies and come back to US as some xx company which sells cars for $10000 for the $4500 stuff and ruin the economy also.
If GM was such rocking in China /asia then they may not have taken this money.
IF you read some other GM stories in china , GM is silent and the partners are strong – so most of the profit goes to them and not to GM.
So its not that rocking and its only same game as just numbers ( GM already proved once that sales numbers doesn’t matter, what matters is product and margins ) else 77 year old world’s no: sales company wont have gone bankrupt.
My advise to GM is : don’t run behind numbers and profit. Run behind product and enough profit . Never compromise on product for increasing profit and dont say all these black magic ( rocking in asia ) is going to work for you. We know it didnt worked for you in past.
I am finding a new principle for tax on imports : i think the tax name should be “Life balance tax” , if a product is getting imported from a county, the govt should access how much money if this was made locally (based on the living standard of the country ) and tax the difference
money. This will not ruin the living standard of west and business will not outsource just because of profit. If they really find an advantage ( like skill ) they only they will do and this will reduce imports. product prices will go bit up but every one will have jobs as imports will happen only on needed items.
On Volt MPV5 – its good and needed. If i was the CEO, i would have asked an orlado with voltec start testing at time of volt testing itself and will be releasing as a surprise product at time of volt release ( may be a limited number) than showing today’s needed cars as tomorrow’s cars.
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:57 am)That presumes a certain level of consciousness on our government’s part – as in being conscious.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (1:30 pm)I seem to remember a statistic that America is one of the only markets where GM is actually not profitable. So if China needs good cars, I say build them!
Also it’s funny that China has only had a booming economy and industrialization in the past 20 or so years, yet they already have stricter fuel economy standards than America does.
I also am wondering what that little blue number is in that picture, looks sporty!
+2
Apr 24th, 2010 (1:47 pm)Here is a paper on the subject of well-to-wheels by the DOE (NETL).
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/Petroleum%20Fuels%20GHG%20Modeling_Feb%2025a.pdf
Most of the analysis depends upon the efficiency of your coal fleet. The US average CO2 emissons from coal are ~2250 lbs of CO2 per MWh.
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/coal.html
Assuming a 10% loss in electric transmission, and 5 miles per kWh for the Volt, this equates to 0.495 lbs CO2 per mile using coal. Newer coal plants only emit about 1800 lbs of CO2 per MWH, so this would reduce to 0.396 lbs/mile.
A gallon of gas produces about 20 lbs CO2. It takes about 20% more than its equivalent energy to transport, refine, and distribute. So that equates to 24 lbs of CO2 per gallon. If your car can achieve 50 mpg, then the gasoline equivalent is 0.48 lbs of CO2 per mile.
So depending upon what factors you want to use for refinery efficiency, oil transport (domestic or imported from half way around the world), etc., the numbers can be made to look like anything you want to assume.
But an efficient plug-in like the Volt, with an efficient coal fleet, can be less CO2 intensive than the best petroleum based vehicles.
Still, new coal technologies with carbon capture are the answer to the problem, and they are right around the corner (despite what DonC says).
Apr 24th, 2010 (1:49 pm)I still have hope that will change…
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (1:51 pm)Yeah, recycling all the money for exports to the US did create the US housing bubble (coupled with brain dead politicians who drank the Kool Aid from the efficient market hypothesis cup). And yes China can keep up the exports by manipulating its currency for as long as the US lets it — keep in mind that the US ended Germany’s currency manipulation in just a few weeks by levying a temporary tariff. But sooner or later its domestic market will have to absorb a much larger part of its output or it will end up in the same pickle Japan is in now. I’m not one to bet, but my guess is that China and Korea and India will follow the Japanese trajectory.
When looking at the problem, some have concluded, given the countries in which domestic demand is always lacking, that the root cause of their demand failure is the strong preference for boys. So in some sense in order to fix the problem society will need to change values, which is not something easily done.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (1:57 pm)And our coal fired plants are cleaner. As is our manufacturing in general. And we emit much less carbon (and other pollution) per unit GDP.
My point is that no country is perfect. Different countries have different internal pressures. And their governments respond to those internal pressures. Things like fuel economy standards and removing lead from gasoline are easy for the Chinese government. Things like cleaning up their air pollution–not so much.
There’s a trade-off between safety standards and fuel economy since safety precautions add weight. Our government choose the former. The Chinese government chose the latter. Personally, I don’t regret living in a country that puts a high value on the safety of its citizens. Even though it does put us at an economic disadvantage.
Apr 24th, 2010 (2:01 pm)GM is unlikely to manufacture in China and import back to the US. Although this has been done in the past with low end models not made here, the MPV5 would be a major part of Chevy’s line and there is no longer a large cost difference as auto assembly is highly automated and automation costs the same everywhere.
This is true for all Chinese companies selling in NA. GM makes a profit in China so this is an exception.
If a Chinese company wants to copy an American car they will do so whether or not it is manufactured there. But if the want to sell outside China they cannot infringe on patents.
Profits from China are small compared to the losses in America. But you are right, if GM was selling that well then they would not have gone bankrupt. There is some mis-conception about GM sales. GM sales in China are the highest of all FOREIGN companies in China, does not out sell Chinese manufacturers.
It is good sales policy to let the local company get all the publicity. Also in most Asian countries, foreign ownership is limited to be less than 50% so yes the company with the greatest ownership, Chinese, definitely should get the credit.
Agreed.
Not true, GM is making a profit in China.
This is not a new idea, in fact been done a lot in the past. You are talking about protectionist tarrifs. We live in a new world wide economy and cannot promote this. However we in NA should get with the program and institute VAT.
I would’t be surprised if that wasn’t pursued. But obviously not to production. I think GM just can’t afford to go too far too fast, else they wouldn’t have cancelled the Converj.
+2
Apr 24th, 2010 (2:17 pm)It wasn’t the only reason for the housing bubble. Alan Greenspan helped by keeping rates too low for too long. And, yes, the complete lack of regulation. For markets to work, you need transparency. For transparency, you need government watchdogs. But ICAM that China’s currency manipulation definitely played a role.
Currency manipulation isn’t the only reason for the trade surplus. Germany and Japan still run massive trade surpluses. But it helps. A lot.
ICAM, that its extremely difficult to transition to domestic consumption. But it has to happen. The US managed it relatively well, although we ultimately went too far in the other direction. But I agree, I expect China and Korea to follow Japan. India, I’m not so sure about.
In many Asian cultures, the male female imbalance tends reduce consumption since families are competing to attract brides for their sons. Which isn’t true in the West.
But I also think that the low interest rates that the government needs to keep up (regardless of the dollar peg) also play a role. (Their banks are going to need low interest rates for a really long time given the amount of non performing loans.) In the US, lower interest rates increase consumption. (Low interest rates make house and stocks prices rise, thus making people feel richer. And a lot of people don’t mind borrowing to consume. In which case, interest rates are the price of consuming today as opposed to tomorrow.)
In China, it’s the other way around. Since if you’re saving money for, say, your child’s university, you need a certain amount of money. Lower interest rates increase the amount you need to cut down on consumption in order to have that particular sum.
-11
Apr 24th, 2010 (2:24 pm)(click to show comment)
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (2:30 pm)I didn’t immediately grasp this from the item announcing the MPV5 earlier this week (or more likely, didn’t want to grasp it). As I observed then, the commitment of GM to a second vehicle for the Voltec platform would be evidence that they see EREV as more than something that tides them over to hydrogen. A second platform is still something that I am waiting to see, since the cancellation of the Converj.
Reaction here to the MPV5 would transfer well to the US at large IMO, and this or something similar would be a good choice for GM as a second Voltec platform.
I still have some suspicion that the ‘powers that be’ at GM don’t really understand what they have in Voltec. Hopefully sales will open their eyes quickly.
+2
Apr 24th, 2010 (2:32 pm)This sounds like someone from an auto group dependent on ICE’s for their sales, who doesn’t want EV’s to change their future, spewing this off.
Power plants generally approach 50% or higher in efficiency (turning potential energy into electricity, then drop that into your EV/EREV), while ICE’s are generally 10-15%.
JMHO…
Apr 24th, 2010 (2:34 pm)I think this is EXTREMELY important. Living in debt is not sustainable. All the money eventually goes from the debtor to the creditor. Most poor people do not know how to manage money (including myself), and must learn how to live debt free. I also believe that all levels of government should not be allowed to borrow money. Governments essentially have a fixed income. If a business borrows money, they expect to justify it by increased profit. They may use the money to hire more sales people, or to automate, or pursue new markets. Whatever the reason they can pay back the loan from the increased profit. When governments borrow money, they can only pay the interest with taxes. It is highly unlikely that there will be enough increased taxes (based solely on what the money was borrowed for) to repay the loan and interest in the time the loan is paid off.
Apr 24th, 2010 (2:39 pm)I’ll admit that I’m not up on the nuances of international commerce, but just what is the program the US should “get with” by instituting a VAT? It seems primarily like a way for the government to seize more wealth from wealth production, while increasing the tax compliance burdens on anyone who might “add value.” For the US not to have a VAT strikes me as a potential advantage over those economies that do.
Apr 24th, 2010 (2:46 pm)They can if they change it up a little bit. They copied Japanese and European technology with high speed trains. And they made some improvements. (adding $5 to the $100 worth of IP they copied.) And now they’re competing for US high speed rail contracts. And it’s entirely possible that California might give it to them.
And producing it there makes it a lot easier to learn about production.
Well “credit” should go to the company that invented and developed the car. At least, IMHO. I agree about the public relations. But that doesn’t bode well for any foreign automaker’s long term success in China.
But why should America put up with the double standard? Seriously, Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai (and any potential Chinese company) should have to give 50% of the profits they make in the US to some American company. That American company should also get an upfront and personal good look at their intellectual property.
That’s kind of the point. China may be the largest market by volume. For now anyway. But they’re not the most profitable market. Not by a long shot. North America still matters a lot more.
ICAM about the VAT. But there’s nothing wrong with strategic protectionist tariffs. Everyone else does it. It’s part of industrial policy. We even do it. The problem is that we protect the wrong things, IMHO.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (2:50 pm)I’m inclined to think that VAT is a bad idea. I’d be interested in your reasoning.
Keep in mind as you answer that jobs and capital are not streaming out of the US because domestic tax burdens for businesses and corporations are too low.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (2:53 pm)I think their attitude is that this is a stepping stone to Fuel Cells. Keeping production low will help with GM’s image while they promise high-volume future FCVs. High volume Voltec sales will not happen with this approach. But high volume sales by Nissan may open their eyes.
The real problem, as I see it is that they think everyone will switch to FCs when they become available. This is false reasoning, in a contest between FCs and EVs there are two camps. FC promoters champion quicker refill times and longer range. EV promoters champion convenient low-cost at home night charging which will always be at lease 1/2 price below hydrogen. New batteries will make range comparable.
So what it comes down to; are you willing to pay more than double for the quick fill? I think a vast majority of the population will say no, GM thinks most people will gladly pay the premium for the convenience of having to drive to a refill station.
Apr 24th, 2010 (2:57 pm)Well, ICAM that the US government has too much debt. The deficits are out of control. But governments do make investments. And it’s really crucial, IMHO, that they continue to do so. Infrastructure. R&D. Etc. In the 1800′s government land grants and other investments played a huge part in the railroad. And then there’s the interstate highway system. Sewage systems, which is the biggest public health measure in history. Etc. Some of those had long term unintended consequences. But so does private investment. The government can have a longer time horizon, which IMHO, is very important.
If we want thorium based nuclear plants, we’ll need the government to get behind it with tax credits. Subsidies. Etc.
The only time in American history the federal government has had no debt was when Andrew Jackson paid it off. That’s it. However, it’s never been this high as a percentage of GDP except after WWII. Which was a special situation due to a temporary drastic increase in government spending. But that was domestically financed, and we grew our way out of it. Which is unlikely to happen again. The other problem, IMHO, is that much of the current government spending is done badly.
Apr 24th, 2010 (3:02 pm)The difficult thing to understand is the specific rejection of an H2 EREV by GM. Given the higher costs of the hydrogen, the difficulties in establishing infrastructure for it and the commonality of propulsion hardware, you’d think a hydrogen Volt would be the only way to go. The higher cost / lower availability of the hydrogen would be offset by lower-cost overnight charging for most driving. The fact that this configuration is flatly “not being considered” suggests internal infighting at GM more than it does enlightened product development.
+3
Apr 24th, 2010 (3:15 pm)From the 6th paragraph:
“A recent poll performed by Ernst and Young revealed that a shocking 60% of Chinese consumers are interested in purchasing a plug-in car.”
The only ones that will find that information ‘shocking’ are the oil companies.
+2
Apr 24th, 2010 (3:21 pm)It has to do with relative international tax structures. Say you and your competitors can produce a widget for $20. It can be produced anywhere for the same $20.
For the sake of simplicity, say you have a choice of selling and/or producing in country a or country b. Both will charge you $5 worth of tax on it if you produce it and sell in their country. But country a does it through a corporate income tax, and country b does it through a Vat. You can sell it in both countries for $50.
Basically, if you produce all your widgets in country a, you will have to pay $5 to country a’s government for the widgets meant for both countries. And then you have to pay an additional $5 to country b’s government for selling it there. If you produce all your widgets in country b, you only pay $5 to country b’s government for the widgets sold in country b. And none at all to any government for the widgets sold in country a. So, obviously, you’ll do your producing in country b. All other things being equal. Which, in the real world, they’re not.
The real world relative tax structures are much more complicated than that. But you get the point.
Additionally, one of the major imbalances in the US economy is that we consume more than we produce. Part of that is because we tax production, and not consumption. A VAT is a consumption tax.
Apr 24th, 2010 (3:21 pm)Martin Eberhard ran an analysis that showed the Tesla Roadster having more efficiency and slighly less CO2, using US based coal generated electricity, than a Prius. I wonder if that still holds true? Stands to reason light and aerodynamic cars should be beneficial even while coal still makes the bulk of grid power.
Apr 24th, 2010 (3:24 pm)Not having VAT kills us internationality. In fact it’s a huge part of our trade imbalance.
1. The WTO has ruled that tax credits against the income tax generated by exports are illegal.
2. The WTO allows rebates against VAT when goods are sold to the US since the US does not have a VAT.
3. Exports from the US to a country which charges VAT is charged VAT at the border.
4. Imports into the US are not charged VAT at the border because the US does not have VAT.
Consequently, our exports are taxed twice but our imports may not be taxed at all.
So moving to VAT could erase our balance of payment deficit. It would certainly reduce it by a great deal and make US companies more competitive internationally. Looked at as only a domestic tax, VAT also has some advantages over the sales tax. It also has some advantages over the income tax, especially given the disparate treatment of earned and investment income and the swiss cheese nature of the tax code (too many unjustified exemptions).
Apr 24th, 2010 (3:40 pm)I don’t want anyone to think that I’ve been in contact with Michael Robinson off line and been converted to Hydrogen. GM obviously has some reason for thinking that hydrogen is, at last, “just around the corner.” It can’t be just what they’ve announced about Fuel Cells, perhaps there is also a breakthrough in on-board storage. Neither am I saying that an H2 EREV ought to be brought out instead of the Volt.
I am suggesting that the EREV is the master of transition, and a ‘bridge’ from gasoline to electricity could work just as well as a bridge from electricity to a new fuel. In a transitional period to a hydrogen infrastructure only an H2 EREV makes any sense for the buyer. One could argue that it might be hard to find hydrogen, but you can always find the plug in your garage.
I expect that the H2 EREV paradigm would work well enough to keep pure H2 vehicles comparatively unpopular for a considerable period after the hydrogen infrastructure is established, because of the end-use economy of plugging in.
This assumes, of course, that an H2 vehicle can be made to work in the real marketplace at all.
We all know that there are two competing camps at GM (Lutz confirmed this in his parting comments), and the fact that there is no conceptual mixing between the two is very telling. In this case, I don’t think competition is a good thing. It’s possible that neither camp can make it where they want to go without the other (though at the moment, my money would stay on Voltec).
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (3:43 pm)I’m all ears as to where you’re going to store the billions of tons of carbon dioxide generated by all those great new CSS technologies. I realize storing the nuclear waste has been a cakewalk but this is a far larger storage problem.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (3:48 pm)I just wanted to clarify that this is because the US gives an exemption for profits earned in other countries (well, at least until they repatriate their profits.) Which encourages them to invest any profits earned overseas into their overseas subsidiaries. (Which is not in our best interests, IMHO). Although we do have periodic tax breaks on repatriation. If we didn’t have that exemption, we’d put our corporations at a disadvantage when competing in those countries. Which would also reduce our exports. But at the same time….
This is way I hate the corporate income tax.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (3:54 pm)Okay, but wouldn’t we in the US institute a VAT in addition to Corporate Income Tax? That swiss cheese Don mentions goes all the way to the top. There may be unjustified exemptions, but there is confiscatory abuse as well. It’s unrealistic to expect that private individuals will be the beneficiaries of a new major area of taxation.
This might be an even more simplistic suggestion, but couldn’t you institute effectively a one-sided VAT by applying a tariff for imports which is automatically set by what the VAT would be if it existed? You could call it “trade equalization tax.”
No, this kind of thing isn’t my strong suit.
Have either of you looked into the Fair Tax? It is a consumption tax with many of the perceived benefits of a graduated tax (with fewer penalties for the instituting country than a pure VAT tax)? The greatest benefit of all from the Fair Tax would be it’s simplicity. Many of the problems we cite are due to Gordian Knot complexity in the tax codes (put in mainly for the benefit of scoundrels to hide behind).
From what I’ve gathered, the main problem with the Fair Tax is getting in enacted in lieu of our present government funding schemes. There are those saying that paying tax ought to be considered patriotic; by that measure, government owes us fairness in collection of that tax and responsibility where spending those funds are concerned — for equally patriotic reasons. Our nation is hurting for the lack of this governmental duty.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (4:05 pm)ICAM. You said it much better than I did. Although I don’t think that moving to a VAT would totally erase our balance of payment deficit. We’d also need to do something about currency manipulation. And we’d need more balanced trade agreements. And then there are other factors at work. Intangibles like infrastructure, education, ease of production, etc. But it would help a lot.
Production is “sticky.” So it would take time. But it would help tilt the balance of production in in our favor. And right now, every little bit helps.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (4:06 pm)I hadn’t paid attention to the energy mix there. I knew it was high in coal but didn’t realize just how much:
From:
http://www.ieej.or.jp/aperc/pdf/CHINA_COMBINED_DRAFT.pdf
The US produces about 1.2 billion tons of coal, but it only represents 20% of primary US energy.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (4:12 pm)If the goal is a reduction in oil imports, then what matters is if the energy is domestically sourced or not.
Right now China is nearing the limits of their coal production. If they do not come up with more domestic energy to produce electricity, then it is trading one type of of import for another. Since China doesn’t care about middle east vs. another import source like we do, oil vs. coal imports matter less.
Then again, they are aggressively pursuing nuclear so they may be able to avoid imports. Yes, nuclear does mean importation of uranium, but the numbers are significantly reduced. A large nuclear plant uses under $1 million of uranium a year. An equivalent coal plant burns $250 million of coal or a gas plant burns over $700 of natural gas per year.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (4:13 pm)What if someone could find a use for all this carbon? This would involve a process for removing it from the CO2 in order to be useful; one possibility is that algae-to-oil idea. Of course, you’d be fixing carbon only to release it again, but it would replace new carbon which would otherwise be pumped or mined. Perhaps eventually we would settle into a sort of artificial carbon-cycle.
Someone needs to find a technique for using CO2 as a feedstock to economically fabricate structural articles as complexes of nanotubes or fibers. You could hide all the carbon in plain sight as buildings, bridges and vehicles!
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (4:17 pm)… so maybe we’ll end up paying off our debts with Coal. The caveat being that whatever we do for environmental reasons here will be undone with our own coal, there …
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (4:18 pm)It would still help balance the economy and the trade balance even if we kept the corporate income tax. Although, obviously, it would be better if it replaced the corporate income tax.
Completely illegal under the WTO. It’s basically another word for tariffs. And it wouldn’t help with the tax on exports. But, anyway, different countries have different VATs. And they often exempt some things from the VAT. So there’s no way of saying what it would be if it existed.
I haven’t looked into it extensively. But it does look fairly similar to a VAT. I don’t know if the WTO would treat it as a VAT. And that’s the big question. Also, sales taxes are very very easy to evade.
I agree about our current tax system. It’s a mess. And that our government’s current and past ineptitude is hurting us. A lot.
Apr 24th, 2010 (4:19 pm)I’m sorry, I just can’t get into that conspiracy theory. Right now the plant construction business isn’t all that profitable since there are only a few being built. Maybe in a few years it could be if more are built.
But if the LFTR is as good as proponents claim, then it could be very profitable as well. Building a big plant isn’t cheap, regardless of type. There is plenty of room for profit, and if it is significantly better than existing LWRs, it would dominate all other forms of energy and expand rapidly.
+3
Apr 24th, 2010 (4:26 pm)Huang is echoing the same old tired myths and misconceptions. Even in a geographic area where the grid is predominantly coal-powered, it’s still better for the environment to switch to plug-in vehicles. This is because the first millions of electric cars will be powered off of the surplus (largely overnight) grid power that’s already available without having to build any new plants.
Also, it’s a well-established fact that electric vehicles are considerably more efficient than comparable internal combustion engine cars (and they’ll get even more efficient in the future). Remember, study after study has determined that the wide adoption of plug-ins will be better for the environment than our current fleet of vehicles on the road.
A recent study by Duke Power has concluded that if all personal vehicles in the U.S. were configured like the Volt, that the U.S. would be using 40% less oil and would be off of the mideast oil altogether. Yet in this scenerio, the country would only have to be able to generate 10% more electricity on its grid (and much of that could be accomplished just through greater efficiency of lighting, appliances, electronics, etc.). If new plants have to be built, they certainly don’t have to be all fossil-fuel powered.
It’s interesting to see that even in a country like China which is largely pro-EV, that you still can find a few naysayers. Personally, I’d like to see some of GM’s Volts get built in China in order to reduce its costs…but that’s another story.
Regards…George, Sudbury, Canada……go Volt!
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (4:29 pm)Your numbers are reversed for very long distance transmission (i.e., crossing a continent).
The USA average was 6.5% loss in transmission in 2007.
source:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp
Apr 24th, 2010 (4:30 pm)The only thing needed to understand the proliferation of LWRs is the fact that their used fuel can be reprocessed to extract Plutonium for nuclear weapons. This was the motive force behind the civilian “Atoms for Peace” nuclear program, nothing else (it certainly wasn’t the economics). Inertia (as in: “This is how you do nuclear”) has been responsible for everything since.
Apr 24th, 2010 (4:33 pm)Alas I can only +1. China’s bubble will pop sometime. I’m amazed that it has lasted this long.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (4:43 pm)It sure would be great to be able to promote the Volt MPV5 at the next upcoming Renewable Energy Roundup in Fredericksburg, TX next September. Of course, it would be a double sensation to be able to have both the Volt as well as the Volt MPV5 on display there together.
And: to really ask for “too much” (LOL!!):
To give people rides around the block would also be astonishing for all of them as well.
Hey..,
why not?
Unless someone boldly asks for these things, then how could it even be considered a possibility in the first place?! There is 240 volt service at the Marketplatz during the three day event, and, the Volts could be continually be kept “topped up” so that everyone would be able to experience that “most peaceful and serene powerful gliding quiet”
that is exactly like gliding through the air
without any sound whatsoever!!
“If man [/woman] were meant to fly, God would have given him[/her]…..” [*a Volt!!*].
… [or at the very least, a chance to experience a ride in one!!]
Apr 24th, 2010 (4:49 pm)The fallacy of that argument would be the lack of online refueling with current LWR plants. To prevent the buildup of Pu240, fuel cycles need to be in the 30-60 day range. US designed reactors take 14-20 days to refuel and are run 1-2 years between refuel cycles. The Pu content is over 30% Pu240 at discharge and is incapable of making a bomb.
The Soviet LMBK was designed to make bombs and megawatts at the same time. US LWRs aren’t.
What saddens me is that while there are nuclear proponents here, they are using the same untrue arguments that anti-nuke people use. Just instead it is to argue over one type of plant over the other.
Apr 24th, 2010 (4:52 pm)Coal is producing 50% of the electricity in the US and even with spending many billions in the last several years… wind and solar combined only account for about 1% of the electricity we use.
One of the largest windmill giants only produces one megawatt of electricity… the small coal fired elec generating plant that supplies the electricity in my area produces 588 megawatts. In fact .. I worked at the plant for a few days doing a small electrical job for the company I work for. I was surprised at how small the plant was .. and that there was NO SMOKE like you see in the negative adds. I did not smell any bad odors… I did not see anything bad and it was so quiet I thought the plant was not working.
We also have a very large Windmill farm near where I live… I was very curious about these monsters… I’ve seen them from the highway for years… so one day we got off the highway and drove right up to it. You can actually drive and park right at the base of this monster. The blades are about a football field long and when they come past you while you are standing at the base it’s like a bus going by at 50mph… the swoosh.. swoosh… swoosh… I sure wouldn’t want one of these monsters near where I live.
I’ve been looking into Solar for my house but even with all the government and utility incentives that could pay for most of the installed cost … the payback is more than 20 years.
I like the idea of generating hydrogen from solar for fuel for a car… Hydrogen is where we are heading… that’s the right place to be. Replace OIL/COAL with HYDROGEN.
Apr 24th, 2010 (6:09 pm)Well, even if LWRs cannot be used for making bombs, I believe it is correct to say that there is a costly problem of waste product storage. I would like your personal opinion, LWRs vs LFTRs. Info on LFTRs:
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/11/thorium-at-googles-tech-talk.html
and
http://energyfromthorium.com/
and
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
Apr 24th, 2010 (7:39 pm)And thorium may in fact one day dominate. It doesn’t have to be an all-out either/or Thorium vs. LWR debate here. Both types of plants can co-exist. In fact, current reactors, including the reprocessing of the spent fuel, can act as a transition to greater Thorium use in the future. It’s just that countries like India right now have to do the unprofitable pioneering R & D work to ensure that in the future Thorium will be profitable for all of us.
Regards, George, Canada
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (7:53 pm)Nature does it, thats how nature sequested away 99.999999% of the CO2 that made the earths thick primal atmosphere.
Foraminifera floating in the oceans breathed CO2 to make shells of calcium carbonate CaCO3, once these animals died only the shell remained and it precipitated to the ocean’s floor where it formed the sedimentary rock called limestone. Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) also floating in the oceans took this CO2 to make sugars, proteins and fats that the foraminifera ate. Eventually they drastically changed the composition of the air. It took 500 million years but they finished doing this about 3 billion years ago. All powered by the Sun and photosynthesis.
Some of the CO2 is sequestered away in petroleum (much more recent geologically), but the vast majority of it is sequestered as limestone rock. If you burn limestone you get the CO2 back.
Apr 24th, 2010 (7:57 pm)I feel like someone just walked over my grave.
Apr 24th, 2010 (9:15 pm)Well, I think that the comments today pretty much covered everything. I was a bit concerned that we might have forgotten grave-walking. (g) I do think that we missed health care, but hey, we can’t hit it all *everyday*…
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:01 pm)Yeah, but nobody made any money doing all that, did they?
Actually, the algae-to-oil idea recapitulates some of that natural cycle, using algae to absorb CO2 in order to make precursor molecules for synthetic petroleum, or even a direct replacement for oil.
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:14 pm)I’m very sorry, but the strong desire to deny the link between commercial nuclear power and nuclear weapons doesn’t make that link disappear. If there were no such link there would be no concern, for example, that oil-rich Iran might be wanting to exploit nuclear power “for peaceful purposes,” while in fact using any Iranian reactors to enable a weapons program.
While reactor design and reprocessing must be taken into account when contemplating such a “dual use,” you cannot reasonably claim to achieve one without at least making possible the other. There is no particular reason why Plutonium could not be “mined” from the waste of nuclear reactors produced years before. Ronald Reagan tried to initiate a program to do this very thing as recently as the 1980s.
The only weapons-free reactor technologies on the horizon involve Thorium and/or Fusion, none of which will be supplying the world’s electricity grids any time soon.
One only has to ask the question, would Iran or North Korea express any interest at all in operating LFTRs, to gain the necessary perspective on LWRs and “peaceful nuclear energy.”
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:14 pm)All I’m doing is asking that the LWR criticisms remain honest. I’d love to see the flouride salt reactors succeed if for nothing else for the waste reasons.
It is too bad that the megatons to megawatts didn’t down-blend using thorium oxide. That would mean that if the fuel was ever reprocessed, it would be ideal for a thorium cycle plant.
-3
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:24 pm)You american complain wrong subject. Subject not tax or vat, should be too much pay for easy monkey work. Union pay too much to put tire ond and to use tool to tighten. Any dumb dumb can do. You pay too much for person to push button so tool can tighten screw bolt. Only american get paid much for easy stupid job. It american way. American way is not make money.
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:27 pm)Health Care!
Health Care!!
Health Care!!!
Bleah, bleah bleahhh!!!!
How’s that? Happy now?
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:35 pm)Speaking as a dumb dumb yourself, this probably carries a lot more weight than we’re likely to give it.
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:37 pm)Thanks, Zach. Now I can sleep well (however, by my mentioning that we missed healthcare, I’d actually *mentioned* it – LOL)
Nite Nite.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:45 pm)On Topic (miraculously)
Is the electronic sign in picture above trying to spell out something about the Spark? Is GM also thinking of selling a Spark-based EV in China? Is GM planning to sell a regular Spark in China?
Apr 24th, 2010 (10:51 pm)Having said all that, they are about to build the first new LWRs in decades in my State, and I’m glad they are. They will have great benefits for our region, but it would be naive at best to pretend that the attendant dangers, including proliferation, have been banished by tricky arguments. The weapons-side of current-technology reactors will continue to be a concern of peace-loving nations, even years after the last power plant has been shut down.
One of the greatest uses of Thorium technology will be dealing with the waste products (and weapons ramifications) of these early reactors.
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:01 pm)Assuming you’re serious, this statement doesn’t make sense.
Hydrogen is not a fuel. It’s an energy carrier. In other words, you need some other energy source to make hydrogen.
What’s more, hydrogen isn’t a very efficient energy carrier, as shown here:
So using the same amount of electricity, an EV or EREV will drive 3 times further than a fuel cell vehicle.
This is just one of the many reasons a hydrogen economy doesn’t make sense. See here for more:
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
“Even though many scientists, including Bossel, predict that the technology to establish a hydrogen economy is within reach, its implementation will never make economic sense, Bossel argues.
“In the market place, hydrogen would have to compete with its own source of energy, i.e. with (“green”) electricity from the grid,” he says. “For this reason, creating a new energy carrier is a no-win solution. We have to solve an energy problem not an energy carrier problem.”
“
+1
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:11 pm)Would GM attempt to build a vehicle in China and import it to America? Not sure the labor unions would allow that, so….
…. It appears to me, the MPV5 will materialize — Obviously it will spur alot of buzz….Buzz in concept cars often leads to production.
I said it yesterday, and I’ll repeat it tonight….If GM doesn’t build the MPV5 and sell it in America…it would be absurd.
Why wouldn’t you sell a vehicle that would launch EREVs into the mainstream? Once again — we’re “Voltheads”. We’ll sacrifice a seat in back or a third row to be an early adopter. We know non-early adopters won’t make such sacrifices, and so does GM.
If they don’t sell the MPV5 here, it is a message PLAIN AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE that GM has no long-term plans for EREV.
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME.
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:26 pm)As I understand it, most of the earth’s CO2 was consumed by ancient algae, and this is responsible for most of the oxygen we breathe today.
In addition, 99% of the oil we pump from the ground came from ancient algae.
If you grow plants to make vegetable oil, typical yields are:
Corn – 18 gallons per acre per year
Palm – 800 gallons per acre per year
Algae – 20,000 gallons per acre per year
If we took 1/10 of the state of New Mexico and converted it into algae production, we could meet all the energy demands of the United States.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxNeBQCRv1c
Apr 24th, 2010 (11:40 pm)Yes, I agree, and so does Nova:
“Skeptics say that all plug-ins do is shift the pollution source from the tailpipe to the smokestack, but studies show that powering cars with electricity from today’s mix of power plants could reduce greenhouse emissions by about 40 percent. Further reductions are possible if electric power gets cleaner.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/tm/3507.html?site=22&pl=wmp&rate=hi&ch=5
+1
Apr 25th, 2010 (12:00 am)Most of the complexity in the current tax code is the result of capital gains. Eliminate capital gains and you could get rid of 2/3rds of the tax code. Get rid of all the special provisions (like deductions for interest on home mortgages less than $1M) and you get rid of a lot more.
One issue with the “Fair Tax” (you almost know with that name it can’t possibly be fair) is that it puts too heavy a burden on those making between $30K and $200K. I was thinking that you could eliminate the corporate income tax and replace it with a VAT that has a far lower rate than the Fair Tax which essentially would be a 35% sales tax.
If you look at all the states that have sales taxes, and see just how different they are, you get some idea how difficult a sales tax is to administrator in a fair way. Conceptually there are far more problems with a sales tax than you have with an income tax. In theory the income tax is very simple, which is not the case with a sales tax. The problem is that we choose to make our tax code complex as politicians try to accommodate various interest groups.
Apr 25th, 2010 (12:05 am)Land is not such a big deal. We have a lot of surplus land. Where algae really stands out is that it doesn’t need much water and it eats carbon dioxide. Someone mentioned that it would be great to be able to use carbon sequestered from coal plants. That might theoretically work.
But what we really need for bio fuels is a synthetic “plant” that takes sunlight and carbon dioxide and creates a fuel.
+1
Apr 25th, 2010 (1:02 am)Organizations are not conscious people are. If that was not stealing one of your lines then it should have been.
If people in an organization are conscious then you are talking about a need for leadership to apply that consciousness. Leadership would then imply putting your countries needs before your own, in a political culture that says, never ever, get out ahead of your constituency.
Are we talking about the US here?
Apr 25th, 2010 (1:09 am)Iran is pursuing high enrichment of uranium to make bombs, not plutonium production.
Their claim is that they are enriching to provide fuel for power reactors, but I don’t think anyone is buying it. No one condemns vitamins because Sadam hid chemical weapons plants by saying they were vitamin plants.
Apr 25th, 2010 (1:30 am)What Reagan proposed was building plants to isotropically separate reactor grade uranium. This would be like the extraction of U-235 from U-238, only harder because Pu-239 and Pu-240 are closer in mass. But they didn’t get built because it was just easier to separate more uranium, and to this day all of the US power plants fall under IAEA inspection and do not produce plutonium for bombs.
If anything, the risk of proliferation is higher with a thorium cycle.
Thorium fuel cycles produce U233 as the bred fuel.
To be able to breed fuel, protactinium must be separated from the fuel on a continuous basis. If it is not extracted, a sizable fraction of the protactinium-233 neutron captures and will become un-fissile U-234. When separated, the protactinium-233 will decay into fairly pure U-233. The intent would be to then fuel the reactor. But if it were instead diverted, it would be a very good bomb fuel. And it’s just sitting in a tank at every power pant if one were to be built. That’s a LOT easier than trying to do it at one central reprocessing facility that would be the case with a LWR fuel cycle.
The US has tested more than one bomb powered by U233. The first was a 20kt bomb as part of operation Teapot in 1955. Because of U-232 and U-234 contamination, it isn’t quite as good as bomb grade plutonium. But U-233 from a MSR would be far better than plutonium extracted from light water power reactors.
Apr 25th, 2010 (1:31 am)http://www.rosestreetlabs.com/Hydrogen%20Press%20Release%20_2_.pdf
And 25% efficient too!
Apr 25th, 2010 (5:44 am)Don,
See this link:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/atlasII/
If you are interested, there is a 16.2 MB atlas that maps all the CO2 sequestration sites in the US.
The potential is a large multiple of the CO2 that we will generate over the next 100 years.
The Norweigans have been capturing and storing CO2 for over a decade at their Sleipner Field.
http://www.statoil.com/en/TechnologyInnovation/ProtectingTheEnvironment/CarboncaptureAndStorage/Pages/CaptureAndStorageOfCO2.aspx
“The entire carbon dioxide emissions from all the power stations in Europe could be deposited in this structure for 600 years,” says Mr Torp.
http://carbonsequestration.us/News&Projects/htm/Statoil-Sleipner-12-18-2000.html
And here is another project which proves the technology works:
A synfuels plant in North Dakota, built in the 80’s, is now capturing its CO2 and piping it to Canada for enhanced oil recovery.
http://www.dakotagas.com/CO2_Capture_and_Storage/index.html
Bill
Apr 25th, 2010 (7:08 am)China, get some nuclear power plants!!!
Apr 25th, 2010 (7:08 am)Selling the Volt and other electric’s is of course a good idea. One thing that will happen though is a Chinese Volt knockoff, a Chinese Leaf knockoff, etc. It’s something that GM or Nissan or the Government won’t be able to stop. However, in the larger scheme of things, It’s still electricity and not middle eastern oil.
Apr 25th, 2010 (7:46 am)Jeffhre, I wrote a fairly long reply that was lost to the ethers, so here’s a short version.
Yes, we’re talking about the US.
Leadership, past and present hasn’t helped – partly because of the system and to that extent, thank God for the checks and balances of the system.
Term limits might allow public servants to think about more than their next election (and who can get them elected ($)).
No leader should get so far ahead of his constituents that they can’t even hear them.
JMO.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Oh, I also mentioned that political discussion does nothing to advance the Volt discussion, since there is zero chance that anyone will actually change their views.
LJGTVWOTR!!**************NPNS.
Apr 25th, 2010 (9:57 am)Thanks to all for the answers on driving on electricity produced by burning coal. For me the conclusion is that starting to drive on electricity is the best thing we can do right now. As many said it is very flexible as there are many ways to produce electricity and it is easier to replace an electric power plant by a cleaner one than to replace billions of gas cars. Also as George said and I have heard it before “The first millions of electric cars will be powered off of the surplus (largely overnight) grid power that’s already available without having to build any new plants.”.
Apr 25th, 2010 (10:09 am)Cool–looks like the MPV5′s exhaust is aluminum!
Apr 25th, 2010 (10:28 am)All GM exhausts are stainless steel.
Apr 25th, 2010 (12:09 pm)I’m certainly looking forward to them getting the 4 AP1000 units online next year.
Apr 25th, 2010 (1:40 pm)The U.S. also get most of its power via COAL so it may not be time for EV here also. So what more important: CLEANER FUEL -or- LESS FOREIGN FUEL ? (You can only choose one)
The U.S. and China will choose LESS FOREIGN FUEL hence COAL gasification will continue and should actually increase. We have plenty of Coal for a few hundred more years. No worry. Let’s just get all those EVs on the road first. Clean Coal technology will take care of itself.
What we really need is small neighborhood nuke plants EVERYWHERE that can quick charge those batts with an atomic booster charging process. No reason we can’t charge a 16kW battery in under one minute. The power of the atom will prevail at the end of the day.
-1
Apr 25th, 2010 (1:58 pm)China market is HUGE. They should take the lead in EV sales eventually. Hopefully China will become the most advanced EV market on the planet. The good news is that China technology will eventually trickle down to the U.S. and Euro market eventually. That’s a win-win for the World. Build Your Dreams !
Apr 25th, 2010 (2:19 pm)GO CHINA GO !
From the 1980s up until today the Japanese have been summarily knocking the snot out of the poor American Car makers.
Looks like the tide is turning. Have to admit it. China will soon be taking over where the Japanese left off and it will soon be China’s duty to start kicking Amerika Butt very soon. We will lead with great power in the EV market as well.
So to you American’s we ask you to kindly step aside while the China Express stomps the crap out of the overpriced poor quality American marketplace.
Have a nice day and remember the Sun always rises in the East FIRST !
It is our right and destiny to lead the World after the rapid decline of America.
Like grandpa used to say Lead, Follow or Get Out Of The Way. It is time for obstructionist American to get out of China’s way. There is a new leader in town…deal wit it.
Apr 25th, 2010 (5:36 pm)If all you are going to do is take coal to power a car via electricity, they should go via gasification and ethanol instead. The liquid fuel is much more versatile, requires less in the way of overhauling the vehicle population, and might actually be better on carbon. Not that I don’t support the argument for electric and the flexibility of sources, but if they have coal and want domestic fuel, I say Fischer-Tropsch is the way to go.
Apr 25th, 2010 (6:09 pm)I’ve given this some serious thought, and I realized that I was trying to re-invent the humble tree…
A tree takes in CO2 (and light and water and some other nutrients) over the course of a decade or two. Also, trees can be grown with minimal maintenance, and the skills required to create seedlings and plant them are widely available in the nursery and landscaping industries. When you cut the tree down, you can build a house out of sequestered CO2. If you do anything with the wood other than burn it or allow it to rot, the CO2 will allow it stay sequestered.
Though tree technology exists and is implemented widely, it hasn’t really solved anything…
Apr 25th, 2010 (6:47 pm)My read is a bit different.
Iran is pushing to become a regional power. They’d love to have nuclear weapons toward that end, but their goals can be accomplished with or without them. Even more important is what to do once they’ve sold most of their oil in a decade or three. Seeking nuclear power makes a lot of sense in the light of Peak Oil* extraction.
* Iran’s production isn’t likely to peak at the same time as the rest if the world — the USA’s production certainly peaked decades before the world production has or will peak!
Apr 25th, 2010 (8:28 pm)I’ll partially agree. If they simply wanted to self produce nuclear energy, they’d go ahead and welcome the IAEA into their enrichment plants. If they only desire to reach 5% enrichment, then there is no reason to bar the inspections. The lack of allowing the inspectors either means that they are pursuing nuclear weapons or they want to make people think they are. Sadam played the same game and lost badly.
But where i do agree with you is when I disagree with those who say Iran – or any of the middle east for that matter – doesn’t need nuclear power. Right now all of the middle east uses oil almost exclusively for energy. While they can afford it because of the oil revenue, it isn’t in our or their best interest to burn the oil.
Apr 25th, 2010 (8:45 pm)Oh, and to abuse the dead horse a little bit more:
To fuel a light water reactor, natural uranium is enriched from .72% to at most 5%. IAEA approved plants are incapable of being easily reconfigured to go beyond 5%. If the fuel cycle is open (as is the case in the USA), at no point is purified U-235 nor plutonium produced. Not only that NO nuclear power has produced bomb plutonium from light water reactors. All 5 declared powers used graphite moderated reactors instead.
While a molten salt reactor is fueled in operation with thorium, it can’t be started with thorium. Operation requires starting with 95% thorium and 5% fissile material. Now how do you get 5% fissile material? Hint: you can’t start with 5% enriched uranium. If you mixed 5% enrichment uranium with an equal part thorium, you’d have 2.5% fissile material, 47.5% U-238 and 50% thorium. The answer is that you must mix 5% bomb grade uranium or plutonium into thorium.
So with a molten salt reactor requires bomb grade material to start and produces bomb grade material in operation, as opposed to light water reactors that do neither. To claim that molten salt reactors reduce the risk of dual use is simply either mis-informed or dishonest. I’ll restate that I really would like to see strong R&D work in the molten salt reactors due to their much hazardous waste products, I just would like the debate to be honest.
Apr 25th, 2010 (11:37 pm)All right. This is a little late, and I probably shouldn’t recheck old threads, but I just have to correct myself here. Of course, the fair tax is WTO compliant. I don’t know what I was thinking. Sometimes I really do say stupid thing. Not usually this stupid though…
The sales tax part is true though…
Apr 25th, 2010 (11:42 pm)As someone who cares about the environment–no, we don’t. A lot of that so called “surplus land” performs important water filtering, and air filtering functions. And it provides habitat for endangered species.
And then there’s agriculture…
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t make trade-offs. But a less land intensive solution is preferable to a more land intensive solution.
Apr 26th, 2010 (4:25 am)No plans for production? No problem! The chinese already took the concept car apart the other night after showroom was closed for the night, put it together by the morning again, reverse engineered it and will start THEIR production soon
Apr 26th, 2010 (12:47 pm)You know, now I’m starting to wonder why they don’t sell the Volt as a Buick, at least in China, anyway where that nameplate is extremely popular. Maybe it’s a size thing. Has there ever been a smallish Buick?
But its position as a semi-luxury brand would fit well with how I understand the Volt to feel. Plus, maybe Buicks aren’t large, just heavy and the Volt is kind of heavy with all those batteries. Of course, I personally would rather have it priced as a Chevy but then again Corvettes aren’t cheap, either. And it’s not worth the extra drag to put those 3 little venty things on the front fenders. 
Just a (rambly) thought.
Apr 26th, 2010 (5:40 pm)Was a joke–I mean the actual exhaust, not the exhaust equipment. Please see the lower right of the picture above.
Apr 27th, 2010 (3:08 pm)Thermal solar is a reality. Just look at http://www.infinita.com. I wrote to the company and I was told they plan to build the device for home use in about 2 years. It is already a technology that works.