Air-conditioning coolant made of hydrofluorocarbons is a significant greenhouse gas that may contribute to climate change.
These molecules accumulate in the atmosphere, break down very slowly, and trap heat there. This is in addition to any ozone-depleting effects.
The currently used coolant in automotive air conditioners is called R-134a which has an average atmospheric lifespan of 11 years. This translates to a global warming potential (GWP) of 1400. GWP is the ratio of a given gases behavior to carbon dioxide.
GM has just announced it will begin using a new air-conditioning refrigerant called HFO-1234yf, which is supplied by Honeywell in all of its vehicles beginning in 2013.
GM says using this new coolant will keep cars cool while at the same time reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 99%. The new coolant only has an atmospheric lifespan of 4 days, giving it a GWP of just 4 times carbon dioxide.
Since the EPA awards credit for this improved environmental performance it can be used to help achieve the 40% improvement in fleet fuel economy that is required by 2016.
“The use of HFO-1234yf will help GM vehicles significantly exceed its targets under the new regulations,” said GM in a statement.
“GM’s decision to adopt this new refrigerant is additional proof of our commitment to be on the forefront of green technologies that will keep our planet healthy for our children and grand-children,” said Mike Robinson, GM vice president of Environment, Energy and Safety Policy. “It’s not just about meeting regulatory requirements; it’s about environmental leadership and GM plans to lead in developing new technologies that will take the vehicle out of the environmental debate.”
Source (GM)
This entry was posted on Sunday, July 25th, 2010 at 7:06 am and is filed under Environment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:13 am)Can it be used to replace R-12?
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:24 am)“This translates to a global warming potential (GWP) of 1400. GWP is the ratio of a given gases behavior to carbon dioxide.”
I have not heard of this before…
“The new coolant only has an atmospheric lifespan of 4 days, giving it a GWP of just 4 times carbon dioxide.
Since the EPA awards credit for this improved environmental performance it can be used to help achieve the 40% improvement in fleet fuel economy that is required by 2016.”
So is there some sort of multiplier that is used to change mpg… Or is it less drag??
confused…
+13
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:30 am)What are the other properties of R-1234yf.
Toxicity – If this material is more reactive, does that mean it is more toxic? The old bad refrigerants (R-11, R-12) were almost inert. The only human exposure worry with them was oxygen displacement. R-134a is a little more toxic. Will this new stuff be harmful to get a whiff?
Flammability – Will it burn?
Thermo – How good a heat transfer media is R-1234yf? Does it take more power to run the air conditioner? Does it take a bigger heat exchanger to condense the refrigerant?
+5
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:31 am)Two more days till the MSRP of the volt is reveled, Maybe!
Options also! Will we see a build your own Volt web site?
-2
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:32 am)Sometimes I despair that the CAFE regulations really lower oil consumption.. did they get rid of the SUV loophole?
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:32 am)Much as I dislike swapping one source of pollution for another, the EPA credit makes sense, assuming the claims for the new refrigerant are true, and it costs less than our current refrigerant.
Another concern, other than cost, is its efficacy, does it require the same or less energy to achieve the same amount of cooling. Does anyone have the answers?
+4
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:33 am)Does it do as good a job of keeping the car cool without needing additional power from the battery or genset? The statement said it would keep the car cool, not that it would do so to the same level as the previous coolant. Though I would give up a certain amount of power to get the greenhouse gas improvement, I would like to know if the new refrigerant is as effective at doing its job as R-134-A.
+9
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:34 am)Mildly flammable
Relatively the same working pressures as 134
Drop in replacement for 134 with minor mods
http://www.1234facts.com/library.html
+4
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:54 am)Thanks for the link, mmcc! Sounds like a win-win for the environment and the consumer.
Now back to our regular programming:
What is the MSRP going to be?
Will we be able to avoid dealer gouging?
What is the CS mileage going to be?
etc.
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:57 am)These are the things that GM needs to push along with the Voltec drivetrain in their advertising…
This is long term smart!!!
-2
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:58 am)So basically, GM is taking advantage of an EPA loophole that allows car companies to continue to keep us hooked on foreign oil.
When will they get it? Energy independence is the most important problem we face. When oil starts running out, people won’t care so much about global warming. They’ll be happy just to get to work, provided they still have a job…
I guess we’ll just have to wait till gas hits $10 a gallon before people really understand what peak oil means. But by then it may be too late.
-10
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:08 am)(click to show comment)
-8
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:15 am)So Government Motors continues to dance with the AGW chimera.
Here’s an exercise: Let an 8 -1/2 x 11 sheet of paper represent our atmosphere. Calculate the area that carbon dioxide would occupy on this sheet of paper at 380 ppm. I think you’ll be surprised at the very small area it occupies. Then think about the likelihood of the purported effects of carbon dioxide on global warming. Compare the relatively massive emissions of carbon dioxide versus the tiny amount of refrigerant release and tell me what you think.
Is GM serious or just playing the Green card?
What company was just recently playing the green card with massive TV advertising budgets while they were playing fast and loose with safety standards and practices for well drilling? Did they feel protected by their multi-millions in political donations? The real world and real market forces will eventually displace cynical corporate contrivance.
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:19 am)Dave G Said:
I guess we’ll just have to wait till gas hits $10 a gallon before people really understand what peak oil means.
A backyard solar still and a ‘98 Ford Taurus multifuel could take care of that situation. Greatly reduced gasoline consumption. Roughly 2 gallons per tankful.
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:19 am)My question is: Will they stop making/selling R-134a like they did with the old R-12? After doing some reading, it sounds like they are. Europe has already banned it starting in 2011, and many states are already deciding to ban it for sale to non professionals, I’d say it will be unavailable pretty soon after the new stuff hits the market. So, I guess we gotta modify our air conditioners…again.
Little trivia for you today…the first R-12 was a joint venture between DuPont, Frigidaire, and General Motors, the registration for the trademark “Freon” was filed on December 8, 1931 and registered May 10, 1932.
-3
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:22 am)+14
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:23 am)PS, there is no way that graph is accurate. If oil jumps to $500 or more per barrel, humans will find oil all over the place because it will be worth it.
I think we can and will handle peak oil just fine. It is not going to come on us like road block. It will be a gradual thing. Prices of course will rocket around due to supply and demand issues but that will in turn reduce usage and keep us moving along. As this occurs, alternatives will be picked up more rapidly. It should only take 10-15 years to completely transform the type of cars that are on the road and we have plenty of oil in the World to carry us through such a transformation. The good news is that many car companies will be offering really efficient hybrids or all electric vehicles over the next 3-5 years and this will provide a relief mechanism.
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:23 am)Anybody know what minimal mods will be needed to use the new refrigerant?
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:28 am)eh? You’ll have to elaborate on this. 2 gallons of what per tankful? What does a solar water distiller have to do with a ‘98 Ford Taurus?
+6
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:29 am)I don’t blame GM. Apparently they can get a credit in the laws as written for this type of thing. They are just playing by the rules of the game that the gov’t has established. It is the Govt that is fixated on global warming here.
The sad thing is that since they changed the refrigerant to meet some govt rule on CO2 equivalents, now they won’t need to push their cars up in mpg as much to meet the overall standards. In other words, now we can burn more oil because of some “man-made” global warming potential number in the regulations.
What we need is for the real world and real market forces to eventually displace government stupidity.
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:32 am)Whether GM is 61% owned by the government doesn’t matter. They have to comply with CAFE mandates, and they’ll do it the easiest and cheapest way possible, just like everyone else will.
By the way, if the gulf of Mexico was the size of Cowboy stadium, the oil in it would be the size of a 20 ounce beer.
+6
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:33 am)Just wait until you see what happens when you get it up to 88 miles per hour!
+3
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:37 am)Peak Oil has already happened, but I doubt that the graph of all oil production will drop as precipitously as Dave’s chart indicates due to increased oil sands/shale production and deep sea drilling and other production types that are marginal at a lower price per barrel. But as oil production drops and demand continues to increase (in the short term) the price of oil will adjust to the new norm. The question is, what will the new price range be? And what will be the price ceiling be that forces poor countries to use something other than oil for transportation?
I would guess that there will be a series of oil price ceilings that will be hit in the the next decade, as first the poorest countries, the Zimbabwe level, are forced to move away from petrol based transit due to their inability to purchase petroleum at the new price point. Eventually enough of the poorer nations will give up ICE cars that the price of oil will find a new, lower, demand level.
The main question is just how much of a negative factor will this this new price per barrel (say a range from $160 to $200 a barrel) be in the poorer countries? I think it will be crippling for them but it will reduce the demand to the point that the price will stabilize. The second question is, what will that price per barrel mean to us in the States and Europe? Surprisingly, not that much, it will hurt but it won’t debilitate. As the price of oil doubles and then trebles, our vehicles will adjust relatively rapidly over the next decade and we will use less gasoline. It will be a PAINFUL decade as our fuel costs go up but we won’t be crippled.
Third world countries won’t be that lucky.
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:45 am)This is a tricky thing to predict. Many claim it has not happened. Others claim it will be another 100 years before it happens.
The US Energy Information Administration (which claims independent statistics and analysis) of the Department of energy has reports on this.
They are predicting peak oil sometime in the middle of this century.
A summary of one of their reports is copied below.
From the DOE…..
The bottom line
Will the world ever physically run out of crude oil? No, but only because it will eventually become very expensive in absence of lower-cost alternatives. When will worldwide production of conventionally reservoired crude oil peak? That will in part depend on the rate of demand growth, which is subject to reduction via both technological advancements in petroleum product usage such as hybrid-powered automobiles and the substitution of new energy source technologies such as hydrogen-fed fuel cells where the hydrogen is obtained, for example, from natural gas, other hydrogen-rich organic compounds, or electrolysis of water. It will also depend in part on the rate at which technological advancement, operating in concert with world oil market economics, accelerates large-scale development of unconventional sources of crude such as tar sands and very heavy oils. Production from some of the Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan heavy oil deposits is already economic and growing.
In any event, the world production peak for conventionally reservoired crude is unlikely to be “right around the corner” as so many other estimators have been predicting. Our analysis shows that it will be closer to the middle of the 21st century than to its beginning. Given the long lead times required for significant mass-market penetration of new energy technologies, this result in no way justifies complacency about both supply-side and demand-side research and development.
Source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/presentations/2000/long_term_supply/sld020.htm
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:45 am)And you don’t believe the other auto manufacturer’s will jump on board? GM was just the first to announce.
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:49 am)#19 omnimoeish
I was talking about an alcohol still. It could also be a wood fired still.
+4
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:53 am)Yes, at higher cost of oil, it will make more economic sense to develop lower producing wells etc. The problem is that even oil at $90-100/barrel, while being sustainable for the economics of oil production for a couple of decades, it is unsustainable for our economy as a whole. All of the added costs of transportation, almost everything you can think of is delivered to you on semi trucks. When that happens, those costs get passed on and on and on and filter down to the lower and middle class, so now they’re paying extra for fuel, and extra for food, and extra for anything made of plastic, or rubber (tires etc.), and then they all of a sudden don’t have money to go out for dinner anymore, and they stop going on vacation and any tourist driven area’s economy dries up, the people who are already living at the edge of their means start using credit cards, people living beyond their means already start going bankrupt. The US was spending about an extra $1 billion/day during the summer of 2008 than normal. Even now our economy will probably remain stagnant at $80/barrel.
Of course the whole foreign oil dependence thing is bad news since we are funding both sides of the war in Afghanistan but that’s another story.
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:54 am)—
The foundation of the new CAFE standards is the amount of air pollution a car creates. That is radically different from the older standards, which centered on the amount of gas used, i.e. mpg. The new standards focus quite a lot on CO2 but also on all other gases that are regulated as “pollutants.”
The new standards are about gas used only insofar as using gasoline produces air pollution. That is, a mileage standard is backed out of the standard as how little gas has to be used to get the amount of pollutants down to an acceptable level, after taking into account all the other ways that a particular vehicle has reduced air pollution. Of the other ways, the one most directly reduced is air conditioning; another is incidental gas evaporation (hence sealed systems). Air conditioner gases are one of those. If these are reduced enough then gas used does not have to be reduced as much.
So, it is not that counting a change in the refrigerant is a loophole — it is one of the items on the main track of the new and different kind of regulation now in place. The new standard is simply not about reducing petroleum, except indirectly.
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:56 am)Ahh ok, thanks. Why hasn’t that been commercialized already?
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:08 am)OPEC set up a system where member countries exports are based on their reserves. Consequently, many OPEC nations consistently over-estimate their reserves in order to maintain their export levels. The DOE uses these estimates to predict the peak.
The graph I grabbed may be a little off, but not a lot. We’re headed for a cliff.
Yes, world oil production will decrease gradually at first, but that will have huge economic implications. Oil prices will swing wildly.
Alternative transportation requires a lot of capitol, and that may be scarce if we’re in a depression. So by the time people realize that oil has peaked, it may be too late.
-1
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:08 am)I think you just need to simply replace the engine. Replacement of the transmission is optional.
+3
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:10 am)Nuclearboy, I think you have a great comment there, though I disagree with the EIA about when Peak Oil from conventional reservoirs will occur, you bring up several cogent points. But the EIA’s own docs indicate that production peaked in 2004. Admittedly, that graph ends in 2008 but oil production has declined slightly during our times of trouble of late. But something I am pretty sure we can agree on is that the price of oil will probably increase over the next decade, the real question is by how much and in how volatile a manner will the rise occur.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html
Omniemoeish, you have a good point about how energy adds to the price of everything, but when the price becomes the new norm, I think people will simply use less foreign sourced goods and go without the extras, and yes that will cause painful alterations in the economy. As the cost of shipping goes up, (it would appear that the incredibly cheap shipping prices of the past several decades were an anomaly) the huge advantage of building consumer goods in low wage/low cost nations drops precipitously. Bad news for our getting low cost goods, but very bad news for China. But again, as energy prices hit a new ceiling at around $180 a barrel, is it possible that the US and Europe will respond by using our energy ever more efficiently and turn to domestic sources for consumer goods? I hope so. But it will be an interesting decade.
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:16 am)According to the CIA World Fact Book, there are 1.365 trillion bbl of proved oil reserves in the world. At current consumption, we have about 44 more years till it’s all gone.
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:18 am)Yes, well said, +1.
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:22 am)Lyle’s introduction says, “GM has just announced it will begin using a new air-conditioning refrigerant called HFO-1234yf, which is supplied by Honeywell in all of its vehicles beginning in 2013.”
The EU is ahead of the US in adopting HFO-1234yf (as they are in adopting carbon emission controls). Because the first Amperas will be made here (but sold there), I would guess the Volt and Ampera will lead other US-made cars to get HFO-1234yf by 2 yrs to keep their A/C designs identical.
Now, regarding right-hand drive for Vauxhall Amperas…. NO COMMENT.
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:27 am)Somewhere along the line we need to do something about all the trucks that use diesel engines. One barrel of oil produces the following:
19.15 Gal. Gasoline
09.21 Gal. Diesel Fuel
01.75 Gal. Heating Oil
01.76 Gal. Heavy Fuel Oils (Residuals)
03.82 Gal. Jet Fuel
01.72 Gal. L.P.G.
07.27 Gal. Misc. Other Products
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:33 am)That is an interesting graph. If oil production is equal to the demand for it, that same graph could be applied to our country’s NEED for foreign oil as the increase of ‘personal electric vehicles’ comes into the mainstream. I don’t believe oil will ever be replaced in industry.
+6
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:43 am)Rant warning:
Congrats to GM for making an effort to do whatever they can to make a really Green vehicle. Unfortunately, it sounds like it may not reach the bar of perfection and therefore the Volt should first be criticized soundly and then the entire Volt project itself be canned (When canning the project, please be environmentally sensitive.)
Seriously, it really galls me when *some* ignore the incredible amount of good that the Volt represents, simply because it doesn’t meet their idealized ideology. Even if we stopped all transportation in favor of *walking* and carrying our goods on our backs, we’d still exhale CO2 (which is 4 times “better” than the new coolant). Would you rather we just stuck to gas guzzlers?
All I’m asking is just a *hint* of perspective here. A little credit where credit is due, is obviously asking far too much.
/RANT OFF
//computer off
///sorry for the rant, but this just really rubbed me sideways
Be well,
Tagamet
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:44 am)I think we all agree in general. I am just counting on people not to roll over and die due to peak oil issues. There will be pain for sure but we will carry on.
I still see many people driving alone in big cars to work. Car pool lots in MD/DC area are not full. There is much room for conservation, etc. People may walk or bike to run errands. I have started to do this. Many people don’t have a garden. The average person has hundreds of things they can do to save fuel and money. Perhaps that $100 per month phone plan can go. Somehow I survive without it.
For these types of reasons, we will adapt and the peak oil decline will be long enough that we can transform through it. The price will sky rocket as supply goes down and we will quickly find ways to use less oil. It is good that cars like the Volt will be on the road. Many will not quibble over range issues with BEV’s if gas is $15 per gallon.
My fear is that peak oil will bring wars of some type. If we can stay at peace, we will be fine.
So, I think we agree, I am just saying that the transition will provide us with time to adapt. Some of the initial shocks will really spur on the adaption process too.
I hope GM has a whole fleet of fuel efficient vehicles ready and waiting on the lots.
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:45 am)Right, but keep in mind that as oil fields start running out, the remaining oil is increasingly hard to extract. For example, many of the oil fields in the U.S. pump out 9 barrels of water for every barrel of oil. This takes longer to deal with, so production rates go down.
That’s what peak oil is all about. It’s not that we’ve run out of oil, it’s that the rate at which we can extract the remaining oil begins to level off and then decrease.
In the early to mid 1900’s, the U.S. was really good at pumping oil from the ground. We were once a big oil exporter. And that’s why we peaked before everyone else. As you can see from the graph, the peak didn’t mean we stopped drilling and extracting oil, but it did mean that the rate of production leveled off and then steadily declined.
This graph is real data, not a projection. What happened to the U.S. in in the early 70’s will happen in the rest of the world. And it will be sooner than we think.
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:46 am)We reach the state of Double Joy?
-9
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:49 am)amazing how folks in US want everything cheap …geez a few c increase in gas prices coolants etc only will allow more $$ into infra-structure of this crumbling nation and cut the gas use but NO they rather spend the $$ beer smoke all u can est buffet sit in their 4T suv …what a bunch of stooopids ..other nations will leapfrog the US in BEV use and eco friendly production of electricity which will need to be increased due to extensive use of BEV vehicles …the shrinking middle class will lead to super rich & the poor slaves working for min wages ..just like a 3rd world nation ..
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:51 am)Please refer to the folowing Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-134a#Safety and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFO-1234yf
R134a is currently being used. HFO-1234yf will be its replacement: Europe regulations currently require its use by 2011. The new gas was developed by DuPont and Honeywell as mandated by the European Commission. It “can be used as a direct drop in replacement for R134a.” It has an autoignition temperature of 405 degrees Centigrade.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:52 am)Today we will spend Seven hundred and eighty eight million dollars on imported oil.
http://www.oil-price.net/
Sad.
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (10:10 am)This is stupid! -1
Are you suggesting that because the EPA looks at all forms of pollution in their assessment that GM should stick with a known GHG just because you think that any rating improvement should come from the tailpipe only?
+3
Jul 25th, 2010 (10:14 am)-1 Because the improvement is small, it shouldn’t be done????
Jul 25th, 2010 (10:27 am)Well said.
Whether we have past, reached, or nearing peak oil, we will adapt. This does not have to be a cataclysmic event. Some things may actually improve, like air quality.
Even if tomorrow oil prices spiked to $200/brl, you would find how quickly people would change. Car pooling, bicylcles, mass transit, and the EV would enter the scene quickly.
If you an EV’r this could be the real stimulus to LJGTVWR (or whatever that acronym is..)
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (10:30 am)Guessing the change in actual AC performance is negligible. It’s just ‘better for the environment.”
+3
Jul 25th, 2010 (10:31 am)TESLA: The next DeLorean?
Off topic, but here’s an excellent article about Tesla in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/business/25elon.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Jul 25th, 2010 (10:37 am)Exactly.
Which is why any serious solution should include bio-fuels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ih-DLurcZA
“If we took 1/10 of the state of New Mexico and converted it onto algae production, we could meet all of the transportation energy needs of the United States.”
Jul 25th, 2010 (10:42 am)For #16, DaveG: Its not helpful to anyone reading your post when you site facts and figures or charts and graphs without a link to their source or without explaining any context about why they want me to look at this. You fail on both counts with this graph.
+6
Jul 25th, 2010 (10:43 am)Which is it: you don’t blame GM but you think the government action is studity? The regulations enacted have resulted in DuPont and Honeywell developing a refrigerant that has far less effect on the atmosphere: I hope you don’t get melanoma. The allowance toward meeting the increase mpg is counter-intuitive, I would agree, but it was done as an incentive to stop the depletion of the ozone layer protecting us from ultraviolet radiation. Mean while GM and others are providing us with the means to lessen the effect peak oil will have on society.
There are all to many skeptics when it comes to global warming or peak oil. It just doesn’t matter anymore! (not really): the forces are in place to move away form oil as the primary fuel. The electric vehicle is a far superior machine for travel, as we see with every report by individuals who have driven either the Volt or Leaf. (IMHO, the Volt tells the whole story of superior performance compared to the ICE.) The NEW Direction is addressing most if not all of our current world problems:
Electricity vs Petroleum, New Businesses vs Loss of Domestic Employment, More Efficient Machines vs The Internal Combustion Engine, Less Pollution vs Doing Nothing, etc. This translates to fewer American dollars going abroad but instead being spent here in America; more employment within our nation; smarter use of our natural resources; cleaner air to breath and reduction of human impact on our environment. We are fortunate that technology has enabled a new economy that addresses so many problems at once.
The actions that governments take to address the individual problems facing all of us may seem stupid when viewed individually. But when examined on a larger scale as a synergy make perfect sense and aren’t at all stupid. It is wonderful that industry and government have worked together to give us this new refrigerant in a few short years! We no longer need government regulations to raise mpg if we adopt EV transportation. Just have a Program to Get the Vehicles on the Road! IMHO, I believe we have it.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+4
Jul 25th, 2010 (11:07 am)You’re right about high prices leading to more oil. On the other hand, a shortage is defined by high prices, so the argument that high prices will lead to more oil is more or less beside the point since it is just another way of saying that we’ll have shortages.
As for your suggesting that we can deal with peak oil “just fine”, that seems crazy since at the moment oil is seriously compromising our national security. The 13 largest oil companies in the world are run by governments, and oil prices are set by a cartel composed of governments which at worst back terrorists and at worse oppose our national interests. As a country we cannot be secure until oil is destroyed as a strategic commodity. Falling supplies and rising prices will compound the problem but adequate supply and stable prices will not solve it.
Jul 25th, 2010 (11:19 am)Bingo! This is profound insight. I’m all in favor of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions but oil as a strategic commodity poses as large a problem as greenhouse gases. A more sensible approach would focus on both oil usage and greenhouse gases. This approach would encourage things like my favorite natural gas or Dave G’s favorite 3rd gen bio-fuels rather than encouraging higher mileage vehicles that continue to rely on oil.
Unfortunately the process has been captured by environmentalists and those concerned about national security have not been able to have their voices heard. The reification of this mistaken approach is the MPGe, or miles per gallon of a gas equivalent. If the vehicle isn’t using oil what difference does it make whether it uses more or less of something else.
Jul 25th, 2010 (11:22 am)Here is the $100 per gallon alternative to my ‘79…..
http://www.rhoadescar.com/rcar/cyclecar.shtml
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (11:35 am)Why are you knocking a step in the right direction? This credit must be very small and will not be a replacement for other improvements to reduce tailpipe emissions.
Jul 25th, 2010 (11:38 am)Decent point.
Jul 25th, 2010 (11:56 am)Of course this would produce even more pollution because back yard stills are inefficient and especially if heated by wood the pollution would be enormous. Only if you have free wood would this save you money.
-4
Jul 25th, 2010 (12:16 pm)As I’ve said before, most pure BEV owners will use another car for longer trips. Depending on what that other car is, the pure BEV solution may actually use more gas than an EREV.
For example, with a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Leaf/Prius …………… 25
Volt ……………………… 37
Leaf/Corolla ………… 39
Prius …………………… 228
30 MPG car ………… 380
20 MPG car ………… 570
In any case, the difference in gas usage between an EREV and BEV is very small. So even at $15/gallon we’re still talking less than $200/year difference.
-1
Jul 25th, 2010 (12:18 pm)So, nuclearboy, the Hirsch Report says that we need about 20 years to prepare for peak oil. The questions are: when will the peak be and how much will we have prepared in advance of the peak. July 2008 is the historic peak and I can’t say with much confidence if this is the peak or not. What I can say with a high degree of confidence is that the preparation that we have done in advance of that peak or any subsequent peak is de minimus.
I’m not a doomer but I adamantly object to the cavalier approach that our society exhibits on this subject and the immense amount of ignorance surrounding peak oil (I’m not saying you are ignorant).
To be sure the graph is wrong because it oversimplifies the future but there is little doubt that an immense reduction in fossil fuel usage is about to take place and there has been so little new reserves discovered that are of historic importance that $500/barrel oil will not dramatically increase new supply.
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (12:31 pm)I’ll go one further. I think the risks associated with foreign oil are more imminent.
For example, let’s say Iran builds a nuke, and gives it to a terrorist who sneaks it across the border, and then blows up New York City. There’s an environmental problem…
Remember than Iran is one of the biggest oil exporters in the world, and that’s why sanctions aren’t working.
If the U.S. stopped importing oil, there would be more oil on the world market, so China wouldn’t have to buy oil from Iran, which would severely limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
It’s not that hard to connect the dots. Foreign oil will kill us.
+3
Jul 25th, 2010 (12:36 pm)To be sure it is a tricky thing to predict because current oil reserves are subject to political manipulation but, seriously, what idiots are predicting a peak oil date that is 100 years away? What would the graph look like of peak oil being in, say, 2100? And how realistic is it?
IMO, PO either occured in July 2008 or will be in with the next 5 years. Regardless, we are woefully ill prepared to deal with the massive price increases, the massive lowering of GDP and the historic societal changes that that portends.
The Volt helps address this problem but only on the margins if the price is still prohibitive.
Jul 25th, 2010 (12:42 pm)You can wait longer and everything will get better, cheaper, and faster. I have heard that same logic with buying computers and cell phones.
The rest of us will enjoy the current versions including the VOLT.
-1
Jul 25th, 2010 (12:42 pm)No, I’m suggesting that the government should concentrate more on decreasing oil consumption, and worry less about emissions.
The EPA loophole for refrigerants will allow car makers to sell more gas guzzlers.
Jul 25th, 2010 (12:44 pm)Is that the Stainless Steel Fusion turbo version that uses old beer cans and all? :+}
Jul 25th, 2010 (12:44 pm)Yes, well said, +1.
One caveot: Those who stand to profit from peak oil the most are usually the same people that say it’s a long time away, so I’m not sure they’re idiots.
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (1:05 pm)Yes, the question is what car will be used for longer trips. In most households that won’t be the 4 seat Volt – it will be the larger vehicle that can carry larger loads …
In households who already have a Prius, which they use for longer trips, replacing the other ICE with a BEV lets them reduce fuel consumption the most.
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (1:10 pm)GM is introducing this new technology in ALL cars starting in 2013. They are now and have been testing in their A/C units for some time. This has very little to do about the VOLT or technology tied to the VOLT. All companies are constantly evaluating new materials and introducing them into cars. I am starting to wonder about Loboc!
Jul 25th, 2010 (1:11 pm)Yes, but by the time they figure out Algae (if they ever do), we will have Lithium air batteries with 10 times the energy density. No need for ICE at all.
Jul 25th, 2010 (1:22 pm)===========
When people find it hard to understand the effect of a small amount of contaminant (something that should not be there, or not be there in that quantity), I like to give the following example.
It only takes about 25 parts per million (by weight) of potassium cyanide in your blood to kill you! Would you like to take this very small tablet of potassium cyanide to disprove the dangers of low parts per million contamination?
Now think about neurotoxins many of which require less than 0.1 parts per million in blood to be fatal.
Now are you sure that more than 380 parts per million of CO2 will not be fatal to the planet?
==========
The weight of blood in an adult human is about 8.8lb or about 4 Kg or 4000 grams (1.3 gallons with density about 1.03).
The weight of potassium cyanide that can be fatal in an adult is as low as 100mg or 0.1 grams.
0.1 grams / 4000 grams == 0.000025 or 25 / 1,000,0000 (25 parts per million).
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (1:27 pm)I was confused by your post. Who are the idiots predicting PO in 100 years? How are you coming to the conclusion that PO occurred in 2008, or that it will be within 5 years.
The Volt, with its limited production, of course will play an insignificant role, relative to our oil consumption. The application of alternative fuels and transit will become more of a significant role, and will include the whole range of BEV’s, EREV’s, Biofuels, mass transit, locomotive transport, and many others. This can and will have significant impact on our oil consumption.
The move is on, with GM and many other auto makers (because it makes economic sense). To imply that GM and others are somehow responsible for ensuring we are ready to meet PO, is somewhat ridiculous. This is not the role of GM, they are a company that builds vehicles to make a profit. Put money in GM’s pocket, and I am sure they will gladly accelerate the move to alternative fuel sources.
Lets not pretend that GM or any other car maker out their is wearing the “green” thumb for saving the world. This is something that each and everyone of us has to do, by changing the way we live our daily lives. No one wants to hear this, since they prefer to just blame big companies and the govt’ for not fixing it.
If your really concerned about the environment, then YOU should do something about it.
Jul 25th, 2010 (1:43 pm)You can buy the whole time machine here:
http://www.bttfstuff.com/timemachine.html
Cost = $25K, plus you supply the DeLorean.
+3
Jul 25th, 2010 (2:08 pm)Jec, there is a link at post #32 to EIA data showing world oil production has been essentially static since 2004. This may be what peak oil starts out like. And I think gm and the volt are going to be critical in the effort to make the next decade painful rather than catastrophic. Erevs are going to prime the pump of acceptance for bevs.
+4
Jul 25th, 2010 (2:21 pm)A few months ago, the Planet Green network aired a fictional movie that started with several people being assassinated in a desert. As the plot unfolds, it turns out they were geologists who had uncovered a horrible secret- that there was no oil in the Saudi western desert. I wish I could remember the name; it was part of their Reel Impact series. The movie was very well done (had the feeling of ‘24’) and was quite plausible. The premise of the bad guys (justifying the killings) is that if the truth ever got out, there would be world panic and global conflict.
Back to the real world- the Saudis announced earlier this month that they had curtailed oil exploration with the explanation that they were saving the oil for future generations http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010070377026 What a load of crap!!! I suggest we combined the fictional premise of the movie with the real world announcement and come to the conclusion that the Saudi’s have FAR less oil than previously thought.
I believe in climate change, the value of energy independence and many other good reasons to like the Volt. Those here who think the “peak oil” argument is something that can be ignored are out of touch. The Aral Sea became a desert because the Soviets apparently thought water was an endless resource. The corollary here is that with the rest of the world wanting to catch up with American lifestyles, the Aral Sea phenomenon is about to happen with oil. Those who think that the graph of oil available oil (per capita) can’t fall off precipitously are ignorant. It is time to make the jump away from oil while it is still (relatively) painless to do so.
+3
Jul 25th, 2010 (2:22 pm)Sorry for the rant earlier. No excuse, just a knee-jerk reaction to the thought that if the Volt wasn’t all things to all people, it’s seen as flawed.
I should have posted that the Volt is a great (if small) first step toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil while it minimizes pollutants. Almost every great accomplishment has had very modest beginnings.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Jul 25th, 2010 (2:35 pm)Excellent post, +1
Jul 25th, 2010 (3:00 pm)I guess you have to remember to carry extra plutonium unless you got the Mr. Fusion option.
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (3:21 pm)And right on key, Mr. Chavez opens his big mouth again…
“Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened on Sunday to cut oil supplies to the United States in case of a military attack from Colombia as a spat escalated over charges his country harbors Colombian rebels.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100725/wl_nm/us_colombia_venezuela
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (3:27 pm)All you have to do is look at the declining production from existing oil fields to realize that PO has already occurred or will within the next five years. Kup is right that we are/may be ill prepared. I qualify it with “may”. If we look at it from the perspective of all the deniers than it scare me to say we are in for a lot of pain, and JEC would be correct. However, resent technological advancements may save the day.
One of those advancements is the Volt and every other EV be it a EREV or BEV. The electric vehicle as I said in Post #52 has lead to a New Direction for global economy.
There is one other significant technological advancement that will ease the problem; that is the development of fusion power plants. Several project using different approaches are very close to achieving net energy My favorite is DPF. Professor Eric Lerner has theory of nuclear fusion that so far has met a number of hurdles that is leading the way to successfully producing net energy by the end of this year. If successful, fusion power plants will be commercially available by 2020. I am very hopeful that LPP succeeds in its effort.
With a cheap source of electrical energy and electric vehicles for transportation peak oil should not be a problem. “big companies and the govt’” are the only ones making the necessary changes you talk about. Ironically, it is a small company like LPP that has made breakthrough after breakthrough in the field of nuclear power generation. It won’t be you and I making those changes that are necessary without products that conserve energy; DPF power plants would be more efficient because they convert the fusion energy directly into electricity without converting heat into steam to drive turbine/generators; the Volts electric motor is far more efficient than the ICE. These two examples, demonstrate how the principle of conservatism should be applied. We should look for other ways to conserve energy and natural resources. Another way would be through the use of solar panels on our houses. Accept for the initial cost of installation and periodic maintenance, the energy generated comes from free sunlight.
A good case study in how the United States manufacturing industry declined is the steel industry.
Major steel mills such as Republic Steel and Bethlehem Steel relied on antiquated equipment while the Japanese built modern plants using the latest technology and were able to manufacture at a lower cost and better quality.
GM is demonstrating its ability to incorporate new technology into its vehicles. to give higher quality, and to provide owners with efficient transportation. The way the cost of energy is trending, this new technology will have to replace the old. It will take large companies and government to move us into the future; and small companies like LPP to give us new technology to build an economy not dependent on petroleum. (Hmmmm I wonder if EEStor is for real)
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (3:32 pm)No apologies need Tag. I sometimes feel like going off myself when I see Volt & LEAF supporters fighting about how one is the best and the other is a piece of crap.
Personally I’m happy we will have both of these cars. You can buy the one that suits your needs better. Up until now we had no EV options(You can’t count a limited production $100,000 sports car as a real option), now we have two. I know this is a Volt site, so I understand most here will say the range extender is what makes the car work and a pure EV wouldn’t work for them. However some go as far as to say a true BEV will NEVER work and is just stupid, which itself is a stupid thing to say. I believe both cars are a huge step in the right direction and will both sell well, but the Volt appeals to a much broader customer base and should sell better if GM can keep the price close to the LEAFs. Both of these cars will reduce our dependence on oil and help to improve the quality of air we breath we should all hope they both sell well and inspire more EREV & BEV vehicles to come to market
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (3:33 pm)—
That’s a rational perspective and one many sensible people will have. It’s also the reason why gm might have done better to focus on early adopters who want to be a part of a science project for a year before focusing quite as much on TV personalities.
The other side is that if gm has only a few months to make a big impression with a new product (before public attention moves on), then the high visibility targets are the ones to hit first. With the IPO coming up, perhaps gm wants to get all the good press it can from the Volt introduction and then deal with any problems, if there are any problems, after the IPO is over and done.
From the perspective of the present management, they will then have moved these over to a new management anyway.
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (3:34 pm)As a long term fed employee, Govt stupidity is as clear as the back of my hand for me. That is not at issue really.
I was really just trying to make the point that we are trying to increase mpg on new cars and because of this greenhouse gas fixation, GM and others will be able to claim a credit for a new AC unit and then have lower mpg ratings.
If we want the better refrigerant, than mandate it but not at the expense of reducing oil useage.
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (3:39 pm)I am siding with the thought that people are very resilient. I guess it is a matter of degrees here. As I look at the world I don’t see many people trying to save energy. During the last oil spikes, the car pool lot that I use had a few more cars but not many. I observe most people still riding along.
I think if things get bad enough, we have a lot of fat in the system that can be taken away to reduce the severity of the problem.
For instance, moving from a big car to a smaller car and joining a car pool could easily cut your fuel bill to 30% of its current value. Having alternatives like the Volt and BEVs will also be a big help. Perhaps we could go with CNG for trucks.
Our country is not stupid and we can and will survive. Big successful companies that use trucks also have anlaysts that look forward and try to predict prices so that they can plan for the future. Oil price fluctuations are not a secret.
Things are definitely going to change, I just don’t see it as a catastrophe. It will only be a catastrophe if you focus on the cable news networks.
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (3:54 pm)NB,
I am just going to let you speak to this one. You seem to have it about right, at least in my opinion.
Nice job!
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (4:04 pm)Here is why oil is evil and why is has to be destroyed as a strategic commodity — Chavez threatening to cut off our oil supplies unless we cave in to his demands:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/lt_venezuela_colombia;_ylt=AhxMLUO.R4Ntivi1sDwoL0ys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNwZ3J0Y2JrBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNzI1L2×0X3ZlbmV6dWVsYV9jb2xvbWJpYQRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzcEcG9zAzQEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNjaGF2ZXp3YXJuc28-
While mostly an empty threat since there isn’t much of a market for Venezuelan oil outside the US because refineries are matched to oil source, this is why it’s imperative for the US to eliminate having its transportation sector dependent of oil. If it takes $50B or even $500B it hardly matters since allowing ourselves to be captive to oil states like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela costs more in defense expenditures. Plus the cost of transitioning is a one time expense whereas the defense expenditures are continuing.
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (4:11 pm)DonC,
Your post makes me think that Peak Oil and the rapid decline of oil is a good thing. Just thinking of all the dictators and fascists that rely on oil money to prop up their failed govts. is reason to wish for peak oil.
I would love to see the Saudi Royal Family get back into sheep herding
As for the US, we are smart enough to adapt.
Jul 25th, 2010 (4:13 pm)Ok, I’ll go easy on you.
Like I said, it is counter-intuitive. As other have said, the allowance for using the new refrigerant is not that great. I believe that the regulations covering higher mpg were motivated on several levels. Each motivating factor addressed: the regulations started out with the intent to lower emissions. As time has progressed, higher mpg has newer meanings; lower cost for fuel, less impact on the atmosphere ( as do fluorocarbons); and the latest issues, global warming and peak oil. However, adoption of electric vehicles nails the coffin shut on the petroleum problem and all its negative factors. MPG won’t be as important as we move to EREVs then to BEvs on a large scale. The roll-out of the Leaf and Volt will result in a huge increase in MPG (in all its EPA flavors 
) so much that as I said before it becomes almost irrelevant. The electric vehicle will push MPG so forward that it will dwarf any increased efficiency in the ICE. Both hybrid technolgy combining ICE with the electric motor will push the envelope but pure EVs will make the issue evaporate. 
Trust me: They will give us the best of all worlds.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again
+2
Jul 25th, 2010 (4:13 pm)Yes it should not be a huge problem but no one likes to change, and the average vehicle stays on the road for increasingly long periods of time. So you can’t just switch to another alternative overnight. The earlier you end the dependency the better.
A gas tax would make the transition very quick and relatively painless. Even the announcement of a big gas tax years down the line would probably do the trick. But gutless politicians will never sign on because it’s not politically expedient. Rather than doing anything that’s actually patriotic they’ll just stand up before a big flag and proclaim that they “support the troops.”
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (4:14 pm)I found the name of the movie (actually it was a BBC miniseries) that I referred to in item #74. As mentioned, combine “24″ & peak oil and you get “Burn Up”. I think most people on this forum would enjoy it. Check out the trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQTlTB-Ze2Y&feature=related Strongly recommended, but since it is not on Netflix, I can’t tell you how to find it.
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (4:18 pm)As always Tom M, well said +1!
At least you speak from experience with EVs as opposed to other “predictions”!
GO EV!!!
Jul 25th, 2010 (4:23 pm)Thanks for the link. I went on Google to try to find it based on the scant description with no luck. We’re Netflix customers already so I’ll have it soon! If I’m lucky, it’ll be on the list that can be streamed to our Wii.
Be well,
Tagamet
Jul 25th, 2010 (4:25 pm)I hope those new ac’s really are super energy efficient and I hope they will provide enough cool air on a hot summer’s days especially for future vehicles of the upcoming years and one more thing Volt fans look what I found on the internet last night a Chevy Volt T shirt here’s the link.
http://www.cafepress.com/+resurrected_dark_tshirt,312943516
Jul 25th, 2010 (4:31 pm)DonC,
Yep. Such a catch-22 situation we are in.
Since we know we cannot rely on the politicians to push the agenda, it means each of us has to do what we can to alleviate the on coming problems.
“I problem understood, is a problem half solved”
Let’s hope we can solve, what we understand.
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (4:36 pm)As a long term federal employee, I have to tried to look at the laws my agency enforced in a positive way. Very rarely did I look at them as stupid; nor the way we implemented the law. There were at times stupidity but not so often to label the agency as a stupid government operation. I can only speak for myself in that regard. From what you post and your nickname, I will surmise that you work for the nuclear regulatory agency. Having worked for the U.S. Customs Service for 34 years, I got to see many areas of the foreign and American manufacturing industries including involvement in TVA nuclear projects. It was amazing to see all the documentation required on power plant components and what needed to be done to insure integrity of those components. It was necessary to insure safety but definitely was one of the reasons why nuclear power plants are so expensive. My job often took me into issues beyond the laws we regulated. I got to see what motivated the owners of the companies I dealt with. My associates often wondered why my interest in the origins of the companies was so keen. When I retired they realized that I could write a book about all those experiences. Now in my retirement, I get to tell one of those stories now and then. I wish you many fond memories when you retire.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (5:28 pm)Even with the perfect battery, there are still problems. Fast charging a 300-mile BEV in 10 minutes is inherently dangerous, and battery swapping doesn’t make sense economically.
I believe the future belongs to EREVs and bio-fuels. EREVs can easily replace 80% of our gasoline consumption. Cellulosic gasification can replace up to 35% of our gas consumption, without any affect on food supply. Together that’s 115% – more than enough to completely replace gasoline.
Bottom line: There’s no need for BEVs. EREVs+biofuels gives us a 100% carbon neutral solution using our existing infrastructure of 110 volt outlets and liquid fuel filling stations, and FlexFuel makes the transition seamless.
The internal combustion engine has a long bright future…
Jul 25th, 2010 (5:37 pm)Yes, well said, +1
I would make it a floor tax. Once peak oil hits, we won’t need a tax to raise prices.
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:01 pm)That works for passenger cars. What about the rest of the economy where most oil use occurs. Might be losing some viscosity in the larger economy with $10 a gallon gas.
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:06 pm)How are we going to get any sleep knowing that the price announcement is just 48 hours or less away? Tap. Tap. Tap. Tap. Tap. Tap. Tap. Tap. Tap. Tap. Tap. Tap. (my foot can’t take much more of this)
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:08 pm)I guess it depends on what you define as a problem. In the long run will personal vehicles running predominately on electricity be efficient enough to be sustainable with billions of new drivers hitting the roads?
And of course some think this may be a problem using energy dense liquid fuels…
-1
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:16 pm)That is just your opinion. Gasoline engine is inherently more dangerous than any battery.
That is just a myth. There is no reason to believe any biofuel is truly EROI positive or that it can be scaled up in a fossil fuel deficient world.
See “Renewable Fuel Pretenders”
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5733
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:18 pm)I just got one of them feelings that the price will not be announced. I think EV World got some bad information and poor Lyle ran with it. My guess is that GM will announce how & what the car will be rated for mileage. I hope I am wrong…
I would further bet that GM will give Lyle a heads up when they are announcing, and either give him permission to publish or swear him to secrecy (which he would honor).
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:23 pm)I’ve heard various comparisons relating to the size of the oil spill. They are all meaningless. What really matters is not the quantity, it is the toxicity, and the oil spill is really only in one area of the gulf. Here is one, if the oil spill was anthrax, and your body was the gulf of mexico, well you can figure out the rest. We don’t really care about beer in Cowboy stadium and it is in now way comparable to oil
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:34 pm)Since we’re there, the EPA rule on transferability is wrong. So if I make a Hummer but put in soybean seats, that’s OK?
How about instead make a car that will last longer, so you don’t use up so much energy in the manufacturing process. (Well, I think I know the answer….$…). Seriously, carbon fiber bodies wouldn’t rust, wouldn’t get crushed and dented, and a GOOD engine can go forever and ever…
EVNow:
That is just a myth. There is no reason to believe any biofuel is truly EROI positive or that it can be scaled up in a fossil fuel deficient world.See “Renewable Fuel Pretenders”http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5733
You are a myth. I do agree that without some energy input you can’t plant or harvest the plants needed for fuel. But the sun is the factor which makes it EROI positive, and your input could be bio to start.
+1
Jul 25th, 2010 (7:49 pm)Speaking of anthrax…
The New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services confirmed a case of gastrointestinal anthrax in an adult female. The CDC investigated the source and the possibility that it was contracted from an African drum recently used by the woman taking part in a drumming circle. (Dec 2009)
Note to self… Save the world. Eliminate use of oil & tell the local coffee house to quit sponsoring drumming circles on every third Wednesday of the month!
-1
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:02 pm)DaveG,
So, if someone comes up with a safe and economical way to quick charge a battery with a scale equivalent to current gasoline stations, will EREV’s still be the future? Is this the ONLY issue that is stopping the BEV from being deployed throughout the nation?
Do you truly believe the good science and engineering cannot solve such a basic issue within a fairly short order?
I guess the guy who said that you could never replace the versatility and efficiency of the horse, with some new fangled machine called an automobile, that he may have been a little hasty and short-sighted.
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:07 pm)Ditto
Be well,
Tagamet
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:11 pm)Double Ditto that.
“Stay Tuned!” (Sorry, just could not help myself)
Jul 25th, 2010 (8:22 pm)It happens (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:01 pm)The problem with Bio-fuels such as Ethanol (Corn, sugar beats, switch-grass, etc.) is that Ethanol is hard to transport efficiently from the refinery to the terminal and to the gas station. In Wisconsin/Midwest, it is much easier, but still a problem. Ethanol does not travel well through pipelines like normal gas does to the various terminals. In Northern winters, E85 is really E70 as alcohol does not burn efficiently and more gas needs to be added. People can argue the energy input and food supply points all day, but there are other hurdles as well.
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:25 pm)Good news for the planet. The oxygen I’m interesting in seeing cut off is the oxygen of the Middle-East hate mongerers. Buying a BEV or EREV as soon as available. Proud American, proud to see the end of these terrorist funders spewing hate at our country, freedoms, religion, civil rights, they are pretty much the antithesis of this country.
Jul 25th, 2010 (9:29 pm)Electric is here to stay. As soon as the economies of the world pick up again, and the price of oil is well above the last high of $147 a barrel, these cars will be hot sellers. Until we can put as much oil back into inventory as gone everyday, the inevitability of the end of oil will have to come. I’d rather this happen before $30 trillion is in the hands of Oil barons. They now own 7% of all of American, from land, to stocks, to utilties, to companies. The pace is accelerating.
Jul 26th, 2010 (12:47 am)Yep. Amongst folks who still have jobs and aren’t worried about the end of the economic and financial world part II.
-1
Jul 26th, 2010 (2:17 am)GWP is pure garbage.
Not an ounce of legitimate scientific proof of global warming (man-made or otherwise).
You peoples need your head examined.
Quack Quack Quack
Jul 26th, 2010 (3:10 am)Considering hundred of millions or so are on the razors edge nutritionally worldwide, if food prices see sudden spikes, I wouldn’t count out the possibility that many will eventually “roll over and die due to peak oil issues.” Could be a really important issue for millions at some point.
“A dangerous mix of the global economic slowdown combined with stubbornly high food prices in many countries has pushed some 100 million more people than last year into chronic hunger and poverty,” said FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf. “The silent hunger crisis — affecting one sixth of all of humanity — poses a serious risk for world peace and security. ( http://www.fao.org/news/story/0/item/20568/icode/en/ )
The world is facing a hunger crisis unlike anything it has seen in more than 50 years.
1.02 billion people are hungry.
Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That’s one child every five seconds.
There were 1.4 billion people in extreme poverty in 2005. The World Bank estimates that the spike in global food prices in 2008, followed by the global economic recession in 2009 and 2010 has pushed between 100-150 million people into poverty. ( http://www.bread.org/hunger/global/ )
So I wonder, does buying a Volt have an effect on lessening hunger?
Jul 26th, 2010 (4:10 am)Good morning! Rise and shine, gm-volt.com (g).
I wonder what interesting info Lyle will grace us with today?
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****Victory Red, spring, 2011!
Jul 26th, 2010 (4:44 am)I’ve got a better experiment for you. Take a glass of water and add 380 ppm of strong dye to it… and watch it dramatically change color. Now do the same thing in a fresh glass of water with a relatively weak, pale dye and watch the color change be less dramatic. Of course that does not PROVE anything by itself, other than the fact that differences in in the ppm range can in fact be visually obvious if you conduct a more applicable experiment.
Jul 26th, 2010 (4:54 am)I am shocked at some of the quasi-science being spouted here today (comparing chemical concentrations to visible surface area of paper, comparing the effects of an oil spill on the size of a beer in a stadium, etc.).
By the way… Did you know that it is ok to be shot in the head, since the bullet’s size (relative to your body) takes up less space than your car in a WalMart parking lot? Your car doesn’t damage the parking lot, does it?!? No it doesn’t. Fascinating.
Jul 26th, 2010 (5:09 am)Ordering a Crystal Red Metallic Volt? The fuel tank size has been given at 9 gallons. The Chevrolet Volt page still mentions “up to 300 miles in CS”. Nine gallons into 300 miles = 33.3 mpg CS.
Think GM is doing this to maintain a smoke screen? Is the CS figure being held until the day before the GM IPO? Will shoppers order a Volt before the mpg is known? Does GM want buyers to pass on the first model year and buy in 2011?
=D-Volt
Jul 26th, 2010 (5:42 am)Yep! On a list in MD for the red Volt (papers signed) – hopefully in spring of 2011. Given that no one (here) knows the actual *answers*, I’ll still cling to my optimism and the belief that GM is being very wise by holding their last cards very close to the vest. The CS mode mileage will be a HUGE item, as will the MSRP. The one thing that we know for sure is that we won’t have to wait much longer to get the answers.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****Victory Red, spring, 2011!
Jul 26th, 2010 (7:58 am)That’s like saying “if 2+2=3, then…”. In other words, I disagree with the premise of the question.
No. Building a new infrastructure is a huge deal. You would have to cover everywhere with fast charging stations. Things change much more slowly in rural areas.
Yes. In other words, certain things have to do with the laws of physics, and no amount of science and engineering can change them.
Specifically, charging a 300-mile BEV in 10 minutes takes around 500,000 watts. Connecting a half mega-watt to a car covered with snow is inherently dangerous. Yes, you can test for shorts before applying power, and ramp the power slowly, but if the water in the connector happens to short after you’ve ramped up to full power – kaboom!
Right. My vision of the future is different than yours, so I must be backward.
How do you propose we replace diesel and jet fuel? Are closed loop algae bio-reactors and cellulosic gasification old-school?
My point is that pure BEVs aren’t necessary. We can have a 100% carbon neutral, renewable, energy independent solution with our current infrastructure of 110 volt home outlets and liquid fuel filling stations. And that’s the key point for me. If we have to wait for a new infrastructure, then we’ll be waiting a very long time.
+1
Jul 26th, 2010 (8:28 am)Yes, this is true.
It’s fast charging that’s dangerous, not the battery itself.
And to be clear, I’m talking about fast charging a 300-mile BEV in 10 minutes. Charging a 100-mile BEV in 45 minutes is no problem.
-1
Jul 26th, 2010 (11:35 am)DaveG got some negative hits at post 16 for the oil drop off graph.
Different readers interpret that different ways of course.
The way I would like to interpret that graph is that
***we won’t need the stuff***
because electric motoring even into trucking might change the need by 2060.
Just a positive hypothetical thought for DaveG’s graph.
Jul 26th, 2010 (11:42 am)Regarding HFO1234yf refrigerant:
GM’s bringing all the very best environmental techs to the forefront also accelerates GM’s right to recognition
in looking out for our futures.
This new refrigerant which degrades safely in 4 to 11 days is quite a benchmark compared
to the old R-12 refrigerant days which has an incredible lifespan to do ongoing damage even today and in addition to a far time into the future still.
R-134a is 5% as damaging as R-12 as I remember it being described, and yet still needs to be phased out.
Excellent topic today, (and as always), Lyle. Thanks.
Jul 26th, 2010 (7:57 pm)But how efficient is it at actually cooling the car? If it isn’t very good at it, it may actually be worse for the environment–kind of like the 1 gpf toilets that you have to flush two or three times to get all the stuff down the drain. They defeat the purpose!
Jul 28th, 2010 (9:29 am)#8
FYI, there is no such thing as a drop-in refrigerant. To say drop-in with mods is like saying it’s the same but a little different. lol.
#12
The article stated that the new refrigerant will be in all GM vehicles beginning 2013. Why are you attacking just the Volt when it’s all their vehicles? lol.
FYI, GM is likely still in the R&D process, considering that they still have 2.5yrs to get it in all their vehicles.
Also, quit being such a wimp. The car has been in developement since 2007 (am I wrong?). 4yrs of testing should be enough. lol. Besides… don’t you get a warranty with it?
#13
If you consider all the millions of cars that are crushed within a certain number of years and consider all the refrigerant being released into the atmosphere, it’s actually more considerable than you may imagine (assume that all the science behind it is true).
#18
Prob just gaskets and fittings. I believe that’s all that is required for the R-12 to R-134a refit.
#36
Boone is trying to all the trucks (18-wheelers) on natural gas, an insanely abundant resource within our borders. He disected the idea and it’s relation with imported oil on his website about 1.5-2wks ago. I highly recommend it.
#124
I’m sure it’s going to be within approx 90% as efficient. But regardless how efficient it is, I find it impossible to be less efficient overall than current technology.
Jul 29th, 2010 (10:27 pm)Aside from the fact that the presence of greenhouse gases is why we are all here, the current coolant was a replacement for , I believe, R12, which was apparently a rather potent ozone depleter. Although data from the EPA is hard to come by (and suspect in most cases), we can assume that the current coolant is NOT a significant ozone depletion agent. I think anyone who thinks they know the significance of the effect of R134 as a greenhouse gas should provide
evidence of same. At this point in tiime, the evidence concerning climactic temperature change is so suspect that any actions taken are more in line with a religious, rather than scientific basis.
We simply don’t have any reliable historical data concerning whether the earth’s temperature
has changed, even in the past 100 years, much less in the time span of thousands of years that would be required to make any educated estimate of wehre we are going. And when I hear morons like RFK Jr, claiming that Katrina was due to global warming, and no news media
intelligent enough or with enough courage to blast such statements as pure nonsense, then
it’s obvious that the public is being fed a lot of BS over this issue. Mix science and politics and
the result is always the same – pure crap. Scientific inquiry is very much like a court trial –
there has to be competent folks on both sides of any issue and a judge must rule what
is acceptable evidence and what is not (like the silly examples Gore provided in his film)
and often the conclusion that must be reached is that there simply isn’t enough evidence
to come to any conclusion, and more data is required. I’m tired of listening to unqualified
amateurs arguing this issue. I refer to the current generation in this country as the Dumb Generation. They don’t seem to know anything about anything. Especially science.