Today GM announced it would begin a pilot program to test an all electric version of its popular compact car the Chevrolet Cruze. The Cruze EV demo fleet will be deployed in Seoul, the capital of South Korea.
The fleet will actually consist of both electric Cruzes and electric Daewoo Lacetti Premieres. The lithium ion batteries will be supplied by LG Chem and propulsion systems will be supplied by LG Electronics.
The Cruze EV will contain a 31 kwh lithium ion battery which is floor-mounted, leaving the trunk space unaffected. It will have a 150 kw motor allowing the car to accelerate from 0 to 60 in 8.2 seconds. Top speed is 102 mph and electric range will be 100 miles.
This test fleet deployment is a key component of GMs global electrification strategy and compliments the Chevy Volt commercial production program. The trial will allow GM to approve its core competencies in vehicular electrification and will provide real world feedback to use in future projects.
“This Cruze EV demonstration project reinforces GM’s commitment to being a leader in the development of electric vehicles and green technologies, building on our portfolio of hybrids and the Chevrolet Volt,” said Karl Stracke, vice president, GM Global Vehicle Engineering. ”We’ll apply the learnings from this and our other demo projects to help us deliver the world’s best vehicles for our customers.”
The Cruze EV can be recharged at 220-v in 8 to 10 hours, and the vehicles will be equipped with quick-charge capability.
The program is set to begin next month.
“Although there is much more work to be done, our ability to develop this vehicle in less than a year offers a peek at the very promising plans we have for our customers in Korea and around the world,” said Mike Arcamone, GM Daewoo President and CEO.
GM has been planning a global EV deployment program. A pure electric Chevrolet New Sale is also under development in China, and a pure electric Chevrolet Spark is being developed for India. Additional EV fleets throughout the world will be announced later this year.
GM still intends for the Chevrolet Volt to remain its key electric vehicle for the US market but hasn’t ruled out the possibility of a US-based pure electric urban car in the future.
Source (GM)
This entry was posted on Sunday, September 19th, 2010 at 12:01 am and is filed under BEV. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+40
Sep 19th, 2010 (12:13 am)Bring the Cruz Electric to the U.S.!!!!
+26
Sep 19th, 2010 (12:43 am)Wouldn’t the Cruz-EV be the perfect competition to the LEAF? Why doesn’t GM bring this to the U.S.?
-2
Sep 19th, 2010 (1:18 am)OT (but personally very relevant). Highly recommended viewing if you did not watch it Saturday Night on the National Geographic Channel. ‘Collapse’ based on the book by Jared Diamond. You can DVR it Monday at 11AM EDT. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/collapse-based-on-the-book-by-jared-diamond-4436/Overview And before I mention anything else, the program discusses all manner of previously collapsed civilizations and even goes on to parallel how the Roman’s dilution of gold for its currency matches what current governments do to prop up our bubbled economies. But even in this broad spectrum of history and the globe, each of you can get to experience a horrific moment in my life right up there on center stage.
I got several negs yesterday with my commentary on Palin, but my point was more about the environment than politics. There are MANY here who still think global warming is a hoax. This TV program discusses many issues contributing to possible collapse, with climate change being the thing beyond water, food and population that could tip the scales. (Climate change doesn’t get discussed until 3/4 of the way through the program and is used to tie previous issues together.) I believe that many more would be believers if they had lived in Florida during 2004 when 4 hurricanes struck us in 6 weeks.
This ‘Collapse’ program uses footage from this remarkable video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeM-cjTEEA8 filmed 4 miles from my house on August 13, 2004. In fact, just about EVERY program discussing hurricanes these days uses this video. I have seen it used repeatedly in programs about Katrina, as well as other hurricanes, because there is little footage available that gives the shock power shown starting at 50 seconds into this youtube clip. I still suffer from PTSD every time I see this. And yes, that is a roof you see blowing down the street, followed immediately by another roof disintegrating as you watch. [As an aside, it turns out the storm chaser’s life was spared, as his car was destroyed while he was filming this. And while he was filming, I was standing in my upstairs home office with both hands on a wall unit air conditioner, preventing it from blowing into the house and opening up a 5 sq ft hole, while watching out the window to see my 12,000 lb boat collapse off its lift and smash through my concrete dock and seawall] Oh, and the storm’s fury is just the beginning of the fun (100+ degree heat indexes and no utilities for WEEKS).
I am so used to seeing this clip that I now expect it and sure enough, WHILE Diamond is explaining to you that it is only within the last dozen years that we have realized our greenhouse gases are to blame, there is my little home town again as the poster child (look for the ugly purple building 1:22 into the program). Global warming skeptics, watch and rewatch that youtube clip (in Full Screen mode). Hurricane Charley to this day has fascinated meteorologists because it went from a Cat 2 to a Cat 4 in under two hours- right before it hit us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_deepening Picture that as YOUR neighborhood. And if you are anywhere on the Gulf Coast or Eastern Seaboard, it could be. Many scientists believe that it is not the frequency but the INTENSITY that will be amplified in a warmer future. And while no hurricanes hit this year, the warming is just so evident. Our routine pool temperature was the hottest it has ever been over the summer and even relatives in Buffalo, NY had their pools in upper 80s for much of the summer.
Also, interestingly enough, I pointed out in my Palin commentary about methane seeping out of the thawing ground in Alaska. Well, in ‘Collapse’, shortly after the hurricane video, folks are shown punching holes in the ice and lighting the methane on fire. To me, it seems ridiculous to argue; all qualitative evidence portrays a (rapidly) warming globe. The time for action (including an EV future) is NOW!
BTW, I was living in Charleston, SC in 1989 when Cat 4 Hugo struck there. It sucks to be me…at least until I get my Volt.
+3
Sep 19th, 2010 (1:21 am)This is fantastic news! GM has a car to compete with the Nissan Leaf. Don’t concede a share of the domestic electric car market to Nissan by default.
The electric Cruze must cost less than the Volt because the big ugly gold Chevy bow tie is much bigger than the Volt’s. Take a cue from the past and use Chevy emblems from the Sixties as a starting point to design a great looking one for the future.
World class cars deserve a world class emblem. I was on a British automotive website and they were bitching about the ugly oversize Chevy Gold emblem on an SUV sold as a Chevy in Britain.
Somebody should start a site like this one to promote Thorium. I have talked to scientists and engineers about it. They all know is that it is an element, but nothing about its potential to be part of the energy solution. A site like this one would really raise public awareness and keep track of the progress. As it stands now the true Thorium reactors are not scheduled to come on line until 2020 or 2030.
I hope the day comes soon when I can drive my Thorium charged Chevy Banshee with a great looking multicolored Chevy bowtie with racing flags and lightning bolts that sounds like George Jetson’s car. The future has the potential to be great!
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (1:41 am)And in the ‘Collapse’ program I discussed in #3, it looked like Nuclear was being portrayed as an ultimate salvation (even more so than wind, solar). Nuclear was described as better based on its power output/sq unit of land usage. DVR it if you can.
+20
Sep 19th, 2010 (1:59 am)What is wrong with GM? Bring out the electric Cruze to America idiots! This car would be the perfect competitor against the Nissan Leaf and I mean it!
+6
Sep 19th, 2010 (2:07 am)That’s an attractive EV! Too bad it’s just a Korean “inside” EV.
I was hoping that this was yet again another sign of GM marching towards the electrification of transportation. This is more like a Korean initiative to find a market for their batteries and power electronics.
Come on GM, get serious!
+2
Sep 19th, 2010 (2:25 am)How about we first figure out what to do with the nuclear waste we have now? Then we can think about making more.
Thorium reactors are about as far out as commercial nuclear fusion reactors – always 50 years in the future.
Let’s keep this simple concept in our minds – the ONLY thing coming into our planet is solar energy. Period. It will keep coming to Earth until the sun burns out in an estimated 4 billion years. When the sun dies, so does this solar system.
Why keep messing around with things that are only going to waste time and generate massive negative consequences including environmental disasters and nuclear proliferation? The sun is here, will always be here and the Earth with its delicate ecosystem are already acclimated to the incoming energy. All we have to do is harness it. That fusion reactor is already running!
But no. People want to figure out crazy energy production schemes instead of developing better ways to store the energy that is ALREADY being delivered to our doorstep! Crazy, when you think of it that way.
Talk about energy potential. When we figure out how to practically use the sun energy that is coming to Earth, we can always branch out until we figure out how to harness all of the sun’s energy (Class II civilization). This amount of energy is almost incomprehensible.
+2
Sep 19th, 2010 (4:01 am)Finally, a true EV announced.
Though I still like the Focus more for the hatch option.
Interesting how GM needs 31kWh to go the same estimated distance Ford and Nissan need 23 to do.
Does this mean a more realistic 100 miles or that the Cruze isn’t as aerodynamic as it could be?
+6
Sep 19th, 2010 (4:04 am)Err.. Thorium reactors exist and can be used today if wanted.
CANDU reactors can run on a whole host of fuels, unlike other reactor types out there.
Though Solar & wind are great options if placed on existing land. E.g. panels on home and business rooftops and windmills on farmland between crops.
No billions of dollars in outlay and no mining for fuel needed.
And I know people tend to hate hydrogen here, but anywhere with nuclear power is a viable region for hydrogen production.
The local university is researching the CuCl method for H2 production. It’s ~45% efficient with no outside help (all energy is sourced from electricity), but using external waste heat (i.e. the 70% from nukes dumped into lakes) that efficiency can be vastly increased.
And being sandwiched between two nukes, what better place to research that?
Sep 19th, 2010 (4:05 am)I think GM is doing it right. Start where gasoline prices are highest. It’s better for GM to produce an EREV crossover and get a million 20mpg vehicles off American surface streets. The regular 36 mpg Cruze is a very good start for the American market.
=D-Volt
+3
Sep 19th, 2010 (4:48 am)Hey, a battery from an unsellable Cruze would power a pontoon boat as good or better than one from a Leaf.
/OT
I was talking to a neighbor who partially makes his living from the equity and financial markets. I asked him what he thought about the idea of a total collapse of the economy. He gave it about a 10% chance of happening, and said he has guns and ammunition stocked, just in case. I told him I see more and more people talking about the idea. He said “I’ll bet it’s from people selling gold.” I thought 10% was a high percentage, I expected him to say “not a chance.”
+2
Sep 19th, 2010 (5:23 am)The Cruze is very aerodynamic.. the big pack is to handle the high performance of this car.. really who needs a 0-60 of 8.2 secs and top speed of 102mph?. If you drive in a moderate fashion you should be able to easily get 125 miles of range, and much higher in slow stop and go city traffic.
The Cruze in white looks very nice, it hides those odd looking metal creases in the front wheel well.
The Cruze sedan probably has more usable storage space than the Focus, Ford puts the battery in the wrong place.. if they ever build a Focus BEV.
Is GM going to offer a trailer hitch for a genset trailer?
+2
Sep 19th, 2010 (5:45 am)This looks more like a real EV.. big enough to make it practical and safe.
-2
Sep 19th, 2010 (5:47 am)You say they exist and we can use them. Why don’t we? When you dig deeply into reality (Google helps) you will find out that there are huge problems with Thorium reactors. They have tried a few and shut them down already. Why? Cost, complexity, poor performance, etc. Why else?
Also, when I say Thorium reactors I mean practical, commercial reactors. They are not even close. Probably never will be.
Let’s all not forget that currently we con’t need electrical power generation. We have more than enough, now that we are in a recession. What we will be needing is mobile fuels. We need to find practical, high EROI replacements for petroleum. Why? Because production has been flat since 2005. Yes, that’s five years on the plateau.
Oh, even if we did need the electrical power, any commercial reactor needs at least 10 years to get one light bulb lit. Not exactly speedy power.
So, fix transportation energy problems first, then we can divert that effort towards other fossil fuel substitutes. We will burn every thing we have, everything. We will turn our skies black, pollute our rivers, whatever. Why? We will rationalize life over environment. Those that think we won’t are delusional.
-9
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:41 am)GM needs an offering in this market, but a 100 mile range vehicle with a 4 – 8 hour recharge time has poor utility.
+6
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:59 am)Nuclear is clearly the best power option for today. For the mass community, the cost is significantly lower than trying to power with Solar. You are not going to drop a set of solar panels on a high rise building in Dallas, NYC or Boston, etc and power the building. Yes there are places for solar in the energy puzzle, but not anywhere near the degree you believe.
+2
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:07 am)GM, how about a EV HHR, in red, here, now, and at the same price as a gas one?
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:13 am)Interesting how they added the pcb traces to the paint job. Some engineer is smiling…
+2
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:25 am)Agreed, I am all for getting off of imported oil.
AN EV powered by coal would be a benefit to our causes.
Of course there are alternative methods for electrical production that could and should be utilized.
+3
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:29 am)Funny how the Saab and Cruze have similar 0-60 times and similar battery size. Looks like there is some kind of sedan-sized EV that manufacturers think is the sweet spot. (And Volt is similar sized as well.)
As far as charge times; 8 hours is for a full charge. These cars won’t take any longer to charge than a Volt if you drive less than 40 miles per charge.
+7
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:33 am)And you won’t need to debate CS with anyone.
=D-Volt
+5
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:40 am)What he said!
+23
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:45 am)Just wanted to add, GM will need this car to run up against not only the Leaf, but the Ford Focus EV in 2012. So Bring it!
+9
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:46 am)Very Nice. It is obviously a complete and total ripoff of the Nissan LEAF. But at least GM is playing smart and finally realizes the EV they should have created from the start. Better late than never.
GM +1
Nissan +2
Note: Carlos was right all along. Mr. Ghosn may be another Steve Jobs in the making. Boom.
-2
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:49 am)“The lithium ion batteries will be supplied by LG Chem and propulsion systems will be supplied by LG Electronics.”
Bit disappointed that it’s not based on Volt motor, t-shaped battery, and control electronics.
+3
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:49 am)Very interesting.
I’d like to see some detailed tech info / cutaway drawings of the battery pack, temp controls and the chassis.
+26
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:50 am)GM really needs to get a pure EV to market so they don’t get left behind. I’m guessing that GM won’t trademark ‘Range Anxiety’ anymore.
+14
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:04 am)Actually the T-shaped battery is a very big weakness in the GM design because EV are in smaller cars that need all the interior space they can get and the T shape greatly reduced interior volume putting the GM vehicles at a considerable disadvantage to the more advanced battery design in upcoming competitors who are poised to pounce on GM’s mistakes.
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:06 am)For those who didn’t know it, LG is short for Lucky Goldstar. I remember using Goldstar CGA monitors in the early 1990s.
Raymond
+4
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:12 am)Could this be the car Robert Lutz had in mind from the start ?
Instead of the severely compromised vehicle that eventually became the Volt.
I think it is. I think it is. This could be Maximum Bob’s original vision coming to light.
-6
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:17 am)Deep breath …
Say it with me …
Range …
Anxiety …
Aaaaaaahhhhhh …
So relaxing …
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:19 am)Wrong answer buddy. LG stands for Life’s Good according to the company itself. Contact them they will tell you.
+16
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:22 am)Is this really GM?
How cool would it be to have a Volt, Cruze EV, and the Equinox FC in the driveway.
Can any other company match that?
ps. Also, you can also actually buy the only 5,300 and 6,000 lb vehicles that get 21 mpg from Chevy too!
+14
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:37 am)Cruze EV looks to me like a very nice car. Would do well in the USA.
+16
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:45 am)…but, boy, would I love to see that 31 kwh battery in the Volt!
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:04 am)Very little is being said about Bob Lutz, “Transmission like you haven’t seen before”. Last year one of the builders of the Volt transmission danced around the subject. And offered just enough info to get an idea about it. After reading the statement it appears the ICE drives a shaft. The shaft has two clamp systems (clutches?). With an infinite number of pair combination.
With the latest report stating the Ampera has three operating rpm set points. This clamp system would turn the three basic rpm set points into six set points. A six speed transmission. With clamp tension combination pairing making the gearing infinite. The main gears being 1200 rpm, 1200 rpm + clamp, 2800 rpm, 2800 rpm + clamp, 3000 rpm, 3000rpm + clamp.
Noting official, just food for thought.
=D-Volt
+6
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:05 am)I would point out that this is NOT like Bob Lutz suggested, just take the ICE out of the Volt. Finding space to put that much battery is not simple. And the electric motor is pretty comparable to the Volt’s, but the performance is different – because you have a lot more battery weight, and yes, less ICE weight. This is not a trivial exercise. I’d say that this will take some fine tuning and I suggest that is what the South Korean experiment is all about. Folks, you need to chill out a little and be patient. All good things come to those that wait (or something like that). What you CAN do is show your interest to GM and keep that interest at a high level for the long run. It is a good thing, potentially.
+2
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:09 am)GM to the US consumer:
No Cruse EV’s for you!
Test fleet? The time for test fleets has long, long gone.
+12
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:09 am)Yeah, they say “Life’s Good” now, but it did used to be Lucky Goldstar… I bought a few CD drives back in the day and they were LG, Lucky Goldstar. Same bold “LG” logo as used today.
Do a little research, you’ll find that’s the case from years ago.
http://www.articlesbase.com/electronics-articles/lg-is-is-a-lucky-goldstar-or-a-lifes-good-1384982.html
join thE REVolution
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:18 am)If you’re right then I feel sorry for the Leaf: Up to 20 hours to recharge!
+6
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:22 am)You may have also noticed that on GM’s ‘official’ Volt page in the photos section, they are still posting images of the Volt MPV5. Now why would they do that if that project was cancelled? I think we are in for a pleasant surprise for the 2012 Volt model year!
+14
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:23 am)Thought for the Day:
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:42 am)The best thorium site is http://energyfromthorium.com/ The problem is that although this site is excellent, it is not mainstream interest. LFTRs need to be promoted on sites with more general audiences and get the word spread.
Really? I didn’t know anyone was actually building a “true” thorium reactor. which I consider to be the LFTR as shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk
India is building half way measure thorium reactor which is a conventional LWR uranium reactor with thorium added to gain extra power at low cost.
If you know of any project building a LFTR please provide a link.
If you think another design qualifies as a “true” thorium reactor please provide a link.
Thanks
Join thE REVolution
+4
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:52 am)I have seen a few of these ‘Collapse’-type programs (as discussed in #3). I used to avoid them until my wife talked me into watching one and I realized that they normally portray a way out as well as the problem itself. And I have always been a fan of the concept of learning from history to avoid the repeat problem. This particular installment discussed things I had not known about previously failed societies. Specifically, how tomorrow’s resources were often squandered for the benefit of current living. One example given for the Mayans was the abundant use of plaster (of all things). It’s creation requires lots of energy (burning wood). As time went on, and forests were denuded, plaster use dropped of drastically (but hey, they kept using it anyway- remind you of oil?)
The more that I thought about it, the more I realized that my efficiency improvements were my insurance policy should a collapse occur. I installed 7500 gallons worth of cisterns when I built my house (nature’s rain is free, clean and abundant in FL). I put in rooftop solar. And now I’ll buy a car that doesn’t need oil and can be powered by that solar. The Volt is a smart choice for soooo many reasons.
-4
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:01 am)You mean like you are going to drop a nuclear reactor on top of that building? Did you even think before you wrote your post?
Obviously, you got your cost information about nuclear power at the local beer hut, after an all night binge. Was the name of your source Bob?
+5
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:03 am)JIM @ 4 says: “big ugly gold Chevy bow tie…”
That bow tie is known and respected all over the world.
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:07 am)What about Bill Gates’ TWRs?
+6
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:08 am)SORRY, but raymonjram is closer to being right. Lucky Goldstar is where the LG name originally came from before the company used Life’s Good as an advertising slogan.
“The LG Group was a merger of two Korean companies, Lucky and GoldStar, from which the abbreviation of LG was derived. The current “Life’s Good” slogan is a backronym. Before the corporate name change to LG, household products were sold under the brand name of Lucky, while electronic products were sold under the brand name of GoldStar (Hangul:금성). In January 2009 LG was able to buy the domain name, LG.com, placing it among the companies who own their two letter brand’s domain name.”[7]
+4
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:09 am)ha ha. they may say that, but history says otherwise. the company now known as BP would like us to think it stands for Beyond Petroleum but of course it never did. I agree with original poster- LG is lucky goldstar. and really why do they care? it seems like a fine name
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:13 am)“Who killed the Electric Car” is on the Sundance channel now!
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+6
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:14 am)Even if the MPV5 is a 2012 offering. Will be selling in China, not in the U.S. or Canada. Hope you’re right CG.
=D-Volt
+4
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:16 am)I don’t disagree with any of your discussion. I have rooftop solar. And yes, to the detractors of renewables (the sun and wind aren’t 24/7), we need to work on storage infrastructure.
The joint problems of nuclear- lengthy construction and waste disposal- are mostly matters of choice. Regulatory issues and slow, non-redundant fabrication cause US implementation to occur at glacial speed. Yucca mountain has been waiting for waste for years, but lawyers and NIMBY whiners have caused disposal to become the nightmare it is. The French have mastered nuclear http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html and we can learn so much from them. From the article, “From the beginning the French had been recycling their nuclear waste…The volume of the ultimate high-level waste was indeed very small: the contribution of a family of four using electricity for 20 years is a glass cylinder the size of a cigarette lighter.” Nuclear, along with solar, wind, etc. represent ‘birds in the hand’ solutions to avoid collapse. We just can’t keep sticking our heads in the sand for much longer. Urgency is required.
+5
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:16 am)Hey, good one CorvetteGuy!
I really enjoy and look forward to your “Thought for the Day” posts!
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:18 am)before: BP = British Petroleum
after: BP = Beyond Petroleum
=D-Volt
Hey CG. How about a video of the day where a 5 year old child hears the clicking of a tightening gas cap and asks, “What’s that sound?”?
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:25 am)Since the Tesla Model S will be sold with several range options, the EV Cruze will be a competitor with the least expensive Model S.
After visiting the Auto Show recently, the challenge for GM will be to make the Cruze feel better behind the drivers wheel than some of the Ford products. I have always been a GM fan, but when sampling the competition, GM does have room for improvement. I will reserve judgment until I test drive the cars while renting on business trips.
+6
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:01 am)I spent the day yesterday at the Route 66 Car Show in San Bernardino where I got to drool over some of the best looking “bowtie” cars in the entire state. And a few cool Fords. Ya’ know… They don’t write songs about them ‘classic Toyotas’ now do they…
+3
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:05 am)I’m with you, Texas! Why your count went negatively higher after my +1 I don’t understand.
You are right on about the Suns energy being the only sorce that doesn’t pollute; it is most pratical source of power we have here on our plant that as you say comes to the plant every day.
A few Home construction companies are now offering an option of solar panels systems tied into the grid. They may not be as cheep as generating power through Coal, National Gas fired or Nuclear Plants but rapid progress is being made where they will be competitive very soon.
I have considered this one of my top priorities as well as owning an EV, preferably a Volt. With all the chatter about small businesses generating new jobs, this idea would create plenty of jobs; the Solar Systems Installation business would be booming. Look at the millions of homes that are potential sales. In Texas, you are fortunate to be in one of the planets strongest wind corridors. Between Solar Power and its companion, Wind Power we should be able to generate enough electricity to eliminate the need for coal fired plants until we know how to and can create clean coal burning electric generating plants. With Wind Power alone, we can generate about 20% of our needs. The current rush to build Wind Turbans has resulted. A report, Industry and Trade, for the period from 2003 to 2008, indicates how this industry has grown:
http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/ITS-2.pdf
Companies like Danish Vestas are making major investments in the United State. They are building $66 million Headquarters in Portland, Oregon.
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/08/oregon_portland_help_wind_turb.html
Finland based Moventas is expanding its gear based service for wind turbans; “Expanding the existing facilities in Portland for wind gear assembly is our first step. ”
http://7thspace.com/headlines/357703/finland_based_wind_gear_manufacturer_moventas_will_build_up_wind_gear_assembly_capacity_in_usa.html
The same goes for Solar Industry. We should and are investing in the Solar Industry. More than ever, we need to transition to green energy sources now!
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:09 am)Wow, somehow I missed the whole MPV5 release on this website. I don’t post nearly as often as I read, I’m kind of shocked that I missed it.
Seems to make a lot more sense to have GM release this MPV5 in the US instead of China. Maybe they’re just being sneaky to confuse the competition?
Hopefully it’ll come to the US so more people will buy Voltec and get off foreign oil. I personally don’t need an MPV5 though, my Volt will do me just fine.
join thE REVolution
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:11 am)/OT (today’s topic), but fresh news: the Volt will make a guest appearance on a TV show…
Chevrolet Volt makes guest appearance in new FOX comedy Running Wilde
The Chevrolet Volt makes a guest appearance in the FOX comedy “Running Wilde” when the series’ Steve Wilde (Will Arnett) presents eco-friendly Emmy Kadubic (Keri Russell) with the car as a gift in order to win her affections. The series premieres next Tuesday, Sept. 21 at 9:30/8:30c, and the Volt will appear in an upcoming episode later in the season.
Link: http://chevrolet.posterous.com/
+7
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:14 am)Here’s a big ‘bow tie” I would love to have. It’s as old as me!
+13
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:32 am)I don’t think Nissan would be so absentminded as to accuse GM of a complete and total ripoff of the Nissan LEAF:
But some random blog commenter ?
Yeah, I bet they would be so absentminded…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:34 am)There’s one about making love in a Subaru.
+3
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:37 am)Unfortunately, this is a true statement. But for completely different reasons. Fusion has turned out to be much harder that originally thought and many billions $ have been thrown at it. Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors, are a proven concept, deliberately suppressed by the government because they were more interested in making bombs and uranium reactors are best for this purpose. There is no physical or theoretical impediment to LFTRs, only political.
LFTRs can burn up the waste created by LWRs but slowly, not at the rate LWRs can produce waste.
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:42 am)Texas, good observation.
Strange, Jimza, multinational company after multinational company has done exactly the opposite of what you say; huge solar arrays have been and will be installed to use the free energy of the sun because they are far more affordable over the life of the system. Far cheaper than installing nuclear that you suggest. And no problems with the grid going down.
Skeptic, as you are, nuclear has the same problem as petroleum – environmental impact. Until we solve the problem with nuclear waste, I say go green with solar and wind power. Solar and wind will impact many more lives because they provide an avenue of economic viability for many people whereas nuclear power plants only make a few rich. And leave us all to worry about stepping on radioactive ground in the future! No way you can convince me that nuclear is cheaper. Like the ICE, the age of nuclear as it is currently marketed is without a future. We can give incentives for new home buyers to opt for solar panels on the roof; in fact that is what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. As far as nuclear power, the only real hope is nuclear fusion; ITER is not the answer; but there are efforts like Focus Fusion that offer clean easily distributed electric power through hydrogen boron (pB11). They offer the solution that the rest of the nuclear industry lacks: cheap affordable and clean nuclear energy!
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+2
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:44 am)Absolutely, totally 1000% agreed.
I watched Modern Marvels last night. They were talking about security and how they are burying all this waste. There should be a better way.
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:48 am)Let’s all not forget that currently we con’t need electrical power generation. We have more than enough, now that we are in a recession. What we will be needing is mobile fuels. We need to find practical, high EROI replacements for petroleum. Why? Because production has been flat since 2005. Yes, that’s five years on the plateau
Texas
That may be true in your local but it is not true in CA where I live and have had my AC cut off 4 times this summer even though we have had 13 days less than last year over 100 degrees F. We need more generation and charging during the day will be expensive until we have more. I would guess it will be in excess of 50cents per KWH as time of day charges now put you in a tier of 57cents if you choose that method of billing. We have one of the largest wind farms in the country where I live but it is not relibable and solar does not cash flow yet for most of us so in my humble opinoin nucular is the way to add it for now.
Roy
Roy
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:49 am)..if the Leaf is fully discharged, and if L1 charging (110V) is used, rather than L2 or L3.
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:52 am)I suggest you check this out:
http://focusfusion.org/
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (1:07 pm)Nice to see Chebby doing a BEV – too bad it ain’t HERE – in both senses.
Did you ever see a nice new Camaro and say to yourself “Man, that’s a nice looking Mustang.”?
Sep 19th, 2010 (1:16 pm)I’d pay top dollars for EREV CUV/MPV in 3 years when we have to replace our CUV.
Sep 19th, 2010 (1:23 pm)I’m guessing more battery buffer to protect the battery. Until we know the usable KWh, all we can do is guess.
Sep 19th, 2010 (1:52 pm)Perhaps some of thorium catching on has to do with the lack of investment by the government since it didn’t produce good bombs, but I wouldn’t say the government actively suppressed it. There are also still technological hurdles to overcome. A nice (seemingly) unbiased summary is listed here:
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Thorium_based_nuclear_energy
I will admit there are more pros listed than cons, but some of the cons may be hard to overcome on commercial scales. (Example: The high reactivity of fluoride molten salts and its effect on containment units that hold it.)
join thE REVolution
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (2:00 pm)I agree too, I’m not a proponent of something that produces waste that lasts thousands of years.
Sadly, though, the waste picture could be better than what we’re used to, though still not perfect. I’ve heard that a 55-gallon barrel drum of waste can be reduced to a coffee-can sized container of waste by reprocessing it and using most of it up in various kinds of reactors again. However, there is public perception that doing anything with that waste is scary dangerous, as well as cost hurdles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
join thE REVolution
+2
Sep 19th, 2010 (2:06 pm)I will add my two cents here since I see much of this from an inside perspective.
There are many of these “popular science” reactor schemes. Some of which have already been demonstrated. None of them are as easy, clean, and safe as they are sold to be. We are not looking for things that can be demonstrated but things that can run for decades with minimal risk. The devil is in the details and these high level discussions don’t even scratch the surface of the real risk factors and problems with the different designs.
Basically, nothing is as simple as it looks and there is not conspiracy to keep good reactors from coming on line. In fact, due to non-proliferation issues, the US govt is trying to develop reactor designs that are not good for making the bomb.
Sep 19th, 2010 (2:10 pm)Well said.
join thE REVolution
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (2:31 pm)Me too. Any day I don’t have time to read all the posts, I look to see if you (CG) have posted a “Thought for the Day.” Pretty close to “make my day.”
Sep 19th, 2010 (2:38 pm)I posted this yesterday. If you go back to comment #43 yesterday, you’ll see the picture. Repeating it is probably good, since there weren’t too many online here yesterday.
I just hope that since it is a comedy, they don’t make a joke of her getting it, or not liking it, or the cost, or . . . Otherwise, all PR is good.
Sep 19th, 2010 (2:46 pm)Given that it is not in production, they could have only gotten it from GM (or at least with their permission). I am sure there were stipulations. I can only imagine that the result will be either positive or neutral for Volt image.
-7
Sep 19th, 2010 (2:47 pm)Don’t know about you – it only takes me 30 seconds to recharge. 15 to plug it in at night, 15 to take it out in the morning.
I’m guessing you will be a very poor salesman for EVs.
Sep 19th, 2010 (2:51 pm)Hope so. Phil Colley is the one who posted the little story.
-4
Sep 19th, 2010 (3:00 pm)Agreed.
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (3:03 pm)Funny. You guys always quote the ‘slowest’ figures for the Volt, but you can’t take it when someone does the same for the Leaf or the Prius. Any electric car is going to charge in less than 4 hours on 240V; the Leaf, the Volt, and even the Plug-in P..OS.
If you want to quote the ‘fastest’ charge times for the Leaf in your argument, then do the same for the Volt.
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (3:50 pm)Funny thing, I never said put a nuclear reactor on a building. I further challenge either of you to name a high rise building powered completely by solar. Yes, you see a few companies dropping some panels on their roof, but they are only getting a small amount of power from that. In some cases, they are not directly using the power, but sending it into the grid.
France is 78% nuclear and sells extra nuke energy to several countries including Germany and Italy. Nuke power is the lowest cost source in Europe. We need to pattern our power sources like the French do it.
That said, I am glad you and Texas have your houses running completely on solar and apparently are off the grid. Not using any power from Nuclear, Coal, Oil, and NG.
So far the only one here that can make the claim is flmark. And after seeing his system, via youtube, you will see it is higher cost and takes personal commitment. My hat is off for his resources and desire to accomplish that. 90% of the population will not either have financial resources or the personal commitment to go solar at this time.
Sep 19th, 2010 (4:04 pm)So you want to drive 150 miles to attend that Joan Baez concert. How does that work? Oh yeah… You bum your friends ICE car.
At this point GM is only looking at EV for Asia. The culture in Korea, Japan, China will allow for low cost pure EV to be successful. Until batteries can power a car 250+ miles (350 better) and be charged in 15 minutes, the VOLT is the superior technology at this time.
The American culture is freedom to cruise the open road at any beckon whim. You may not like this culture. But it is what it is and I suspect you participate in it as well. Less than 5% of the U.S. society can or will live with a 100 mile leash around its neck.
+2
Sep 19th, 2010 (5:08 pm)After seeing today’s topic I had to meet a friend who also volunteers in Florida’s “Lakewatch” program to collect water samples we send to the University of Florida for analysis. On the way, I once again turned over in my mind the main things that puzzle me about BEVs vs EREVs, which (in an admittedly over-simplified way) are as follows:
1) A Volt has a 16KWh battery vs a BEV Cruze with a 31KWh battery; this means the BEV’s battery should cost 31KWh/16KWh x $8,000* = $15,500 ($7.5k MORE)
2) A BEV Cruze has control electronics for a 150W motor; ditto for a Volt — ~WASH
3) A motor generator is used for regenerative braking &/or battery CS by both — ~WASH
Therefore, unless Volt’s 1.4L ICE costs >$7.5k, a BEV Cruze should cost MORE than a Volt!
…So even if Volt costs the same, it’s EREV capability makes it a much higher value! SO WHY EVEN BUILD/SELL A 100mi BEV if Volt CAN BE BUILT/SOLD FOR THE SAME MSRP?
/…OR PERHAPS THE QUESTION SHOULD BE, “WHY CAN’T A VOLT BE SOLD AT THE MSRP OF A 100 mi BEV?”
//*Assumes Volt’s battery cost is $8,000
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (5:18 pm)GM: The questions in #86 are those you should be asking yourselves re: Gen II Volts!
+2
Sep 19th, 2010 (5:42 pm)Dude that’s the dumbest thing I have heard in years.
Nuclear cost 36 billion to build 1 plant which takes 10 years to build and start running. You can build 5000 megawatt solar plants in every state in the country with no pollution waste and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. for 36 Billion Dollars. In Ohio there is a 20 year backlog of nuclear waste sitting in containers still waiting for some place to be buried. The EPA and the other branches don’t know what to do with the stuff.
So its put out of site and out of mind! The Government should not be allowed to build any more
until they find a safe and cost effective way to deal with radioactive waste!!!!!!!! Also it will cost 4 to 5 billion to deal with the current waste at hand which the gov does not want to spend on it and hasn’t spent on it.
Sep 19th, 2010 (5:56 pm)I am with you on all statements. I hadda laugh when the statement was made about putting a reactor on top of a building; you were obviously not making that claim. As noted, I already put in a comment about how the French do nuclear right and we can learn from them. I should have put more commentary about the nuke waste for a family of 4 after 20 years taking up the space of a cigarette lighter. Yeah, no one likes ANY toxic waste, BUT imagine that same footprint in coal. How much does the environment suffer from strip mining that amount of coal and how about the toxic fly ash left over? We all point out the carbon footprint, but there is much more to consider. I want as much solar and wind as we can, BUT there must be energy storage for WINDLESS…NIGHTS. Nuke energy, done right, can solve a PORTION of our energy picture. [But right now, until French-style nuke is adopted, we are stuck in neutral in the US]
Regarding my solar investments, I agree that my investment is extensive, and out of reach, for many, BUT, if these states would stick with proper incentives (FL owes me $52,000 in UNFUNDED solar rebates), solar becomes a no-brainer, as the payback becomes just a few years. This is, of course, on a personal scale- someone (via taxes, etc) is paying for the rebates (when they actually fund the programs, that is). As with nuke, someone else got it right (the Germans, via feed in tariffs). If our idiot legislators would get on the ball, we could get BOTH solar and nuke adoption on the fast track to making coal a dead animal. My referal to watching that ‘Collapse’ program (in #3) is to get people to realize JUST HOW CLOSE we are to EITHER complete salvation OR complete destruction. The solutions are just so close. If only…. Lord knows, I’ve written enough letters to the powers that be. Others need to do the same. Only when these idiots fear being voted out of office do they actually accomplish anything. They must FEAR the electorate. But right now the electorate is, hoe hum, just snoozing.
So all I can do for now is to tell people that my money is where my mouth (er, heart) is. I made a commitment to visit a Navy buddy while he was stationed in Naples, Italy. Well, that commitment came and went. My trip to Italy will have to wait. My priority became zero footprint for home and business. If others would have this sense of urgency (watch the ‘Collapse’ program), we could fix our world in time to actually HAVE the opportunity for leisure and luxury later- and at least ensure that our grandchildren are not thrown back to the stone age.
Oh, and one comment on your last item. Yes, America is different than the rest of the world. But it is not just about getting up and roaming. Our IMMEDIATE families are spread out (parents here, children there). Every time I envision a pure EV, I think about my daughter who lives 100 miles away, or my father who winters 140 miles away. For some time to come, a pure EV is just not in my deck of cards.
Sep 19th, 2010 (5:57 pm)Shouldn’t the wording be more along the lines of “you should have been asking yourselves re Gen II?
I’m probably just picking nits, but I hope that they have addressed this (at least intellectually), before now!
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:00 pm)You need to read information on this link: ANALYSIS OF THE BENEFITS OF PHOTOVOLTAIC IN HIGH RISE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/6820/ESL-HH-00-05-49.pdf?sequence=4
“To offset our predicted energy shortage, research and application of BIPV systems have been aimed at integrating PV elements directly into buildings (Ashley, 1992). Projected to provide up to 70% of a building’s electric demand when designed for their optimal energy production, we can provide electric energy at the point of demand using BIPV systems. These systems convert sunlight into electricity and integrate with the energy use and structure of buildings as weathering skin, sun shading, and roof and window systems. Because they provide a viable alternative and renewable method for generating electric energy, BIPV systems can improve and secure our economic growth by reducing our dependence on non-renewable energy.”
Please visit these links on solar high rise buildings:
http://www.solaripedia.com/13/133/fkp_building_solar_high-rise_%28brisbane,_australia%29.html
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/uni-goes-solarsmart-with-revolutionary-highrise-20100626-zaiy.html
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:17 pm)Not so dumb. Read what I wrote in #53 as well as #89. The French get 3/4 of their electricity from Nuclear and reuse most waste. The only reason your statements are true is because lawyers and NIMBY whiners in this country have made it so. This country’s approach to nuke is in dire need of a fix. If ALL toxins were held to the same standards as nuclear waste, you can bet that your coal fired power plant, with all its fly ash byproduct, would be an even bigger nightmare than what you describe with nuclear. Research the French model; the US is too screwed up to validate your arguments. Nuclear CAN and DOES work elsewhere.
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:20 pm)As I have posted many times here before, and perhaps you have read what I said, home construction companies have begun offering solar panel systems as an option to buyers.
The Report on high raise buildings that I posted before mentions conservation steps that are being equally applied to residential buildings. Most people are just thinking about putting solar panels on their roofs but when conservation methods are applied to new homes together with PV the costs becomes very reasonable. When you consider the 35% tax rebate under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009., now is the time for home owners to take advantage of this opportunity. Employers making over $250,000 have the money to invest in such home improvements. Plus those of us who are lucky enough to have secure investments on the stock market and cash savings should also consider doing the same. I have a friend who operates many businesses who is building a new home; he had a large barn that will be extended to hold solar arrays large enough to meet the needs of the main house. He is installing cisterns to gather rain water to a large under ground tank plus auxiliary tanks for temperature conditioning and separate ones to supply hot water for showers, etc. He is also installing wind turbans on the property; a business he is considering going into besides all of his other enterprises. We are all going to see a major shift in how we fulfill our energy needs; solar and wind will be two sources that home owners are now able to consider.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:31 pm)Yeah, I was in Charleston, SC also during HUGO. I was active duty USN at the time. I had to put to sea and the wife and infant daughter were left to fend for themselves. Evacuated north I-20 to Columbia.
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:34 pm)I will not dispute any of your information; there is much to like about high rise buildings incorporating design elements into the skin of the building- assuming that there is not another high rise blocking the sun.
and
I have come close to creating a zero footprint with both my home and business via solar, so I am a big fan.
but
Think about this entire country in the same darkness ALL AT ONCE (which happens every night). And, btw, one big high pressure system is sitting over the midwest, so all those (future) wind turbines are still.
Something MUST supplement my solar. Either this country gets to work on creating huge storage infrastructure (which indeed SHOULD be part of the solution) Or we still embrace SOME nuclear [and yes, get rid of all fossil fuel burning]. I am as green as you can get, but I come from a nuke background. I see its merits (and its drawbacks). If we fix our broken US system, we can make nuclear an effective piece of the energy pie.
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:36 pm)There are scrubbers and other apparatus that can be installed on our current coal burning boilers that will eliminate those pollutants. If you remember it was Nixon who signed the Clean Air Act, some 31 years before Bush gutted it. I am confident that this administration will see to it that this inequity is corrected plus many others that Bush enacted, much to the detriment of this nation and its citizens. This country has great reserves of coal. I am hopeful that our scientists can and will find ways to use coal cleanly in our power plants.
http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/030822.asp
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:49 pm)Militarily, the Americans think the French are a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
Health care ? Socialist, surely long waits and substandard care. Pay no attention to France.
Nuclear power ? Ah, far-sighted, clear thinking engineers, good men. We can learn from France.
——————–
France doesn’t “reuse” the waste, they merely try to take out the uranium and plutonium in it (the rest of Europe is thrilled with France making the English Channel and the seas of Western Europe radioactive during reprocessing – saving money on that nuclear power are we, Pierre ?)
http://www.chuckmore.com/post/45219142/what-does-france-do-with-its-nuclear-waste
Unfortunately, fission power breaks down big fuel atoms (uranium, plutonium) randomly, producing such nice waste as:
cesium-134, cesium-137
strontium-90
curium-244
americium-241
A toxic mix of different half-lives and different radiation levels.
France is concentrating the most radioactive waste to decrease its volume, and they hope to decide what to do with it, and the more voluminous medium-level waste, in 2016:
http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/what-france-plans-to-do-with-its-nuclear-waste/2345/
They might actually have a long-term geological repository for their nuclear waste by 2025.
Clearly the role model for the USA – piss off your neighbors, put off the problem.
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:49 pm)#3 flmark Said:
This ‘Collapse’ program uses footage from this remarkable video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeM-cjTEEA8 filmed 4 miles from my house on August 13, 2004.
This is why when hurricane Andrew passed over my house in Miami, in 1992, I made sure all my windows and glass doors were covered with at least plywood. Thank goodness we were 15 miles from the eye, so only got 110 mph.
+2
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:49 pm)I agree, your comment is pretty dumb.
A plant costs no where near 36 billion. The true cost is somewhere in the 7-10 billion range.
As for the waste, the govt knows exactly what to do. They are legally bound to take it and they built and readied Yucca mountain for that purpose.
The place has been paid for twice already and the DOE has put together thousands of pages of documents to demonstrate that the science is solid and the place is safe. Literally thousands of scientists agree the science is settled.
The activists currently running the Govt, who claim to be guided by science but actually are treating this as a political issue, have dumped the application and are trying to kill Yucca for good.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/07/AR2009030701666.html
They have also installed Harry Reid’s unqualified science advisor to head the NRC to ensure that they get there way.
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/commission/jaczko.html
+2
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:51 pm)Ummmmm… I think you proved my point. UP to 70%. Not 100%. Then if you look at the buildings in the links…
Example 1; is a concept drawing with NO buildings or obstructions around it. It clearly states that this building is for remote areas away from the grid. NYC, Boston, LA, Dallas…. I don’t think so. Example 2; Built in the city. 24 stories tall and no real obstructions. If several 50 story building go up next to it… oh, oh…. However I am sure zoning prevent that. Example 3; The study of Houston, LA, etc. Did you really read it completely? You have to pick and choose office buildings that are unobstructed. So yes you can modify a few building here and there.
Once you upgrade your house the way flmark did, and have a tv news company put it on your website, I will give you a little more credit. Once you successfully document a high rise in the NYC, Boston, etc. that is 100%, I will give you extra credit.
It is very easy to grab a line or two out of a report that leans to your opinion. It is quite another to actually understand the full extent of a report.
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:52 pm)Then you and I were out to sea together during that time. I was on the Holland. Recall being anchored off the VERY DARK coastline for several days. It was EERIE!! That was probably the only time you ever got to see a submarine swinging at anchor. We were the second ship to go through the jetties (remember the navigation buoys washed up on the rocks) and the first one up the Cooper to the Weapons Station. We had priority because they needed our 10 diesel generators for power. I was on watch in CIC when all the COs had their daily radio sessions. Hopefully you weren’t on the Petrol. Ships that small in seas that big are pure vomit coffins.
We lived on the Weapons Station. The ‘authorities’ told everbody to sit tight- right up until the rooves were dismantled. My wife said the Weapons Station CO came around and just apologized to everyone (for being so STUPID). One experience she got though (that I didn’t get with Charley because the eye was so small) was to go out and look up at all the stars as the eye passed over- deadly silent. She said it smelled like Christmas with all the broken pine trees. Morning brought a different reality. Three weeks without power. Well, with Charley it was only two. Better days.
Ah, the memories…
+6
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:56 pm)This thread has wandered more than Moses in the desert….
Be well,
Tagamet
Sep 19th, 2010 (6:56 pm)Okay, my two cents…
We can’t solve our energy crisis with any one option. Right now we do that for transportation: gasoline. We’ve seen what can happen. How many people here buy a single stock with their retirement savings?
The best thing to do with our energy crisis is to have a very diverse portfolio, that never relies on one commodity alone. Second to that, the more we can reduce our environmental footprint, the better. We can argue about nuclear waste versus carbon footprint ad infinitum, but in reality, we need a diverse portfolio to meet our needs and keep the nation secure from what the engineering world would call a single point of failure.
For the US, I would gladly accept more wind, more solar, and more nuclear. My nuclear comes with a caveat though: We should have a plan for how to deal with that waste that’s more logical and well thought out than just burying it. We can reclaim and reprocess lots of it to greatly reduce the waste. The remaining waste should be properly stored with facilities built for this storage.
If windmill installations need to have a decommissioning plan for their end of life, complete with financing, then each nuke plant should also have a plan complete with financing for responsible storage of the waste.
join thE REVolution
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:03 pm)Seems fitting on a Volt site to talk about times like hurricane aftermaths when you would play hell recharging an EV.
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:13 pm)This is my only issue.
—
My solution is extremely expensive.
Build a giant space barge, load it with the waste product, and send it into the sun.
A good idea but not with current technology. Maybe in a few hundred years.
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:14 pm)Are you really sure that you want to quote “chuck”????
Be well,
Tagamet
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:16 pm)I commend you on your effort to go green. Although it has cost you much, you are far ahead of the curve. I wish you the best in getting those rebates from Florida.
I believe you missed my comment under post#69. Here is the link:
http://focusfusion.org/
Having a nuclear background, you will understand much better than I what is going on in their experiements. From what I read they are ahead of most efforts to prove net energy by means of nuclear fusion. We should know by the end of the year if their method is successful. From their statements, much of the theory behind achieving net energy using Hydrogen Boron11 has been validated by experiments. If proven correct and net energy is proven by the end of the year, they say commercial fusion reactors will be seen by 2020. That would be far ahead of ITER (2050) which is costing $billions while DPF reactors could be built for $500,000! They would be far more efficient than current boiler/turbine/generator technology; final design of a DPF plant would eliminate the need for turbine/generators entirely since the ion beams and electron beams would be converted into an electric current. Take a look at it and give me your opinion. TIA.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
P.S. If you would be able to donate towards their research, they could use a little cash. It does depend on what you think of their progress so far.
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:21 pm)And Gen II may well feature vehicle-to-home (grid), so that once the hurricane is gone, you’d be able to power your house with your car. It’ll be a life-saver.
Be well,
Tagamet
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:21 pm)I would like to elaborate on that. MUCH money is made from the guys who sell storm shutters. IT’S A BOONDOGGLE!! Andrew was LATER determined to be Cat 5 and most damage came from shoddy construction. Good for later folks though. The improved building codes were VERY evident with little structural damage from Charley on homes built after mid 90s. [Even new mobile homes! Old mobile homes from the 70s, though, were tombs] Back to the windows. The key is IMPACT resistance. One must look out windows to determine if there is anything out there to impact it. Things fall to ground and then blow along (at much reduced speed). I had just one small broken pane on my second story- from neighbors antenna fragment. A larger, thicker pane would have actually been unscathed. My wife (who sees LOTS of people in her profession) would ask everyone who mentioned the (subsequent) installation of storm shutters, “Did you have any broken windows from Charley?” Virtually universal answer was ‘No’. Her response was, “Then why put shutters in NOW?” Because it made them feel better. I would not discourage JUDICIOUS use of shutters where appropriate. But look out the window and see if something (neighbor’s roof tiles, tree, etc) actually has a chance of hitting it. Not only do these shutters waste an awful lot of money, many jerks leave town for the season with the shutters up (all at the same time). Makes the area look like a freaking nuclear fallout zone. And nothing saws ‘ROB ME’ like this situation. And then there are the people who actually LIVE inside the shuttered up house throughout the season. Can you say, ‘burned to death’? (in case of fire).
I’ve been through TWO Cat 4 storms and I still don’t own any shutters. (No broken windows from Hugo- but part of the roof was torn off) In front, I have the street. In back, I have a canal. And on both sides with neighbors, I have almost no windows that concern me (I did it for privacy, but it had the side benefit of this impact thing). I could show you the scars on the sides where concrete roof tiles hit. Yes, if glass is there, cover it up. But common sense must rule.
+5
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:22 pm)It frustrates me, Tag, how, too often the last several hours of a topic here seem to almost always wind up as a “wandering in the Sinai desert”. More specifically, this evening’s topics remind me of the impassioned, brilliant, unsanctioned speeches from Speaker’s Corner in London’s Hyde Park. Interesting? Yes! Appropriate? NO!
Please, fellow bloggers, respect the leader of this “discussion class”, Dr Lyle Dennis, who so generously contributes his time, effort, dedication and expert guidance daily to establishing an appropriate topic of discussion for gm-volt.com. ….And try harder to adhere to his topic, OK?
/BTW, as a Floridian I also suffered monumental, life altering damage thru the 4 hurricanes in 2004
//Also, I have an extensive background in nuclear physics/engineering and a Q clearance as a result
Are either of these topics appropriate —or do they even contribute to today’s subject?— NO THEY DO NOT!!!!
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:28 pm)Nissan Leaf for $32,500?
-5
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:30 pm)It cannot be avoided with Volt.
Cruze official estimates are now available too.
28 Combined is what the EPA has listed for the 1.4 liter Automatic MPG.
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:32 pm)It might be just a rumor, but I heard that GM may come out with an electric vehicle called the Volt…. (Amen, Nasaman).
Be well,
Tagamet
/but we *are* a passionate group!
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:35 pm)Good answer, Chuck. But unless you’re leasing the Volt to take advantage of the full $7,500 tax rebate, the real comparison is the Volt MSRP of $41,000 which is substantially more than the Leaf’s MSRP. My question to GM is WHY??? Do you really believe a Volt EREV is NOT a truly significant advancement over the EV1 and current BEVs (like the Cruze BEV) in terms of both manufacturing cost and capability?!?!?!
-1
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:36 pm)Didn’t really miss anything you stated. I have been hoping fusion would succeed (…for decades). Clean. No terrorist issues. What’s not to like? But, I find it difficult after all this time, to expect that the situation will change. Let’s say we actually sustain fusion long enough to get energy from it. Then what will we learn about the drawbacks of containing such high temperatures for sustained periods? Like embrittlement within conventional nuclear vessels, I suspect that more headaches are yet to come. We aren’t even to step 1 and then there are a few more steps after that before this is scalable. This is just too far into future to bank on with respect to solving our current dilemma. Maybe fusion will be around for my grandkids, but it just has no real bearing on solving our current issues. I would only invest in this if it was at a scalable stage- not at a theoretical one.
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:51 pm)I agree Volt technology is worth a premium over an EV. If/when GM makes a 100 mile range EV, I would expect it to sell for less than not more than the Volt, as much of Voltec tech will be unnecessary.
+3
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:53 pm)Nasaman (#110)
Anyone is free to hit page down and move on- I often do. I come here EXACTLY because things expand onto tertiary details. I learn a bit about global trade, labor unions, renewable energy, etc with each visit. There is only so much to discuss on a DAILY blog about something none of us even have. Today’s topic is about a car NONE OF US WILL EVER OWN. While I have an issue with Prius trolls trying to sell us on their cars, otherwise I often note that the number of comments are always very limited when only the topic at hand is discussed.
Sep 19th, 2010 (7:53 pm)This may all be possible in the near future. I draw your attention to partitioning and transmutation of nuclear waste. Try this link for some information on what our government laboratories are attempting to achieve:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-2/text/radside1.html
I have presented several pathways to achieving a cleaner economy and some links to various methods and current state of research. Cold fusion was once considered a scam but now has been seem to actually work in our natural environment and is now believed to be the one force which cases natural decay of radiative isotopes. A Google search of “transmutation of nuclear waste by cold fusion patent” nets several interesting links. One of them is very technical but be interesting reading for you.
http://www.rexresearch.com/adept/aa9col.htm
This link has much to digest. It will provide further links worth study. Muchof this is theoretical but is a strong indication of what the future may offer.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:00 pm)I’m not suggesting we don’t attract many gifted, experienced people with diverse backgrounds. And I agree that those offended by ‘Playboy’ or anything else can simply “patronize another newsstand”. My only hope is that —as in even a graduate school class— we could try harder to confine comments to the topic at hand so we don’t wander aimlessly down too many aisles in the library.
/BTW, I have many friends in Korea and am genuinely interested in the Cruze BEV
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:05 pm)…and what you said. +1
Though, this brings up one HUGE issue with the coding authorities- my solar array is disabled if the grid is dead. I am forced to be battery back up OR grid tied. I can’t use a battery to power my inverter and still be on the grid. What a waste. Think of the advantage of post-hurricane solar array charging your vehicle!!! A classic scene after a hurricane is ALL the people lined up at gas stations. When will the electric coding authorities see the folly of this picture? With EVs and solar, post hurricane life COULD be a breeze. (sarcasm and pun intended)
+2
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:25 pm)When the V2G feature is added, the vehicle should (by then) be E85 capable. THEN all you’d need to add to your setup would be a still to make the alcohol! Down there, you could even grow the oranges to feed the still! Charge the car with the solar and/or use the solar to run the still. At night (or to travel) you have your trusty Chevy Volt. Sounds like a very doable plan!
Be well,
Tagamet
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:25 pm)Here’s a (maybe cheaper?) solution that doesn’t involve any space launches…
Glassify/pelletize the waste for simpler transport. Then place it in durable tubes built something like the casks like they use to transport nuclear waste. Deliver the tubes to an appropriately-located, actively subducting tectonic zone.
Next, start drilling deep holes into the sea floor, with enough volume to hold the waste tubes. When you get as deep as necessary to ensure entombment, deposit the waste tubes in the bore holes. Cap with several hundred feet of reinforced concrete to prevent anybody from retrieving the waste for nefarious purposes.
As the fault subducts, the Earth will reclaim and swallow up the waste. It won’t be “seen or heard from” again until it’s decayed down to background radiation levels.
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:30 pm)Sounds like you need to change your “authorities”. Although I’m not a single-issue voter, with YOUR vested interest, solar friendly authorities would certainly be important.
Be well,
Tagamet
-1
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:32 pm)Eh…be a sport.
My wife has Facebook.
I have this place.
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:33 pm)I may be a bit older than that Iconic Classic, but I still like the color..
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:39 pm)I remember well the 1957 Bel-air. My neighbor (an Architect) had a red and white one with red interior. One day I sat in the back with his son (my playmate) and the back seat still had the plastic covering on it. So I am older than you, Corvette Guy!
Raymond
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:43 pm)I like the idea, except that subduction zones are likely to have both earthquakes and (more worrisome) volcanic activity. That’d make for an exponentially more dangerous volcano!
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:45 pm)The hybrid Chevy Silverado has that feature. The ad places that 120 VAC capacity as available on remote construction site for small electric tools (about 1.8 KW). I hope GM adds that feature to the Volt and to every other EREV.
Raymond
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:46 pm)And we’re lucky that you do.
Be well,
Tagamet
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:51 pm)Yeeeehaaaawwww!!!
Now that’s my Vibe-a-Volt
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:51 pm)Nice hubcaps on that car!
Color is nice too
Sep 19th, 2010 (8:54 pm)Why can’t you add a transfer switch to isolate the grid from your home setup, so you can use the inverter? I have one for my (cough!) ICE (cough!) genset , and I switch it manually when to power grid goes out. As an EE, I installed this setup in 1996 for Hurricane Georges , and the last time I used it was when Earl passed by last month. If I can save enough, I will begin to put up photovoltaic panels to supply my own energy, and sell the gas genset.
Raymond
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:19 pm)Ah! The old “The government is hiding the 100 mpg carburetor” defense.
I noticed you didn’t mention cost. A competitive business model is very important, wouldn’t you agree? It’s well known that only governments can afford the crazy initial capital expenses and insurance that goes with nuclear power projects.
Just search Amory Lovins Nuclear Congress in YouTube and watch the video on why nuclear is falling so far behind. It’s the costs!
+1
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:19 pm)For something new and related to EVs, I am posting the URL to our local newspaper (in Spanish) that printed today a two-page article on a EV charging station project near my home in the city of Bayamon (west of San Juan), Puerto Rico:
http://www.elnuevodia.com/bayamonenbuscadesuautonomiaenergetica-782325.html
At the second last paragraph, the article mentions the name of Josen Rossi, who is President of the Board of Directors at Aireko Construction, and who is the owner of the only Tesla Roadster in Puerto Rico. The printed article in the newspaper shows the “Solar Zone” project that has three charging stations with the Tesla Roadster parked at one station and plugged in. I saw this red Tesla two weeks ago near my workplace (across the street) and I took two pictures of it. I was hoping that the electronic version of the article had the charging station picture as it does in the printed newspaper. I sent an email to the author and asked that a picture be added to the online article. If the picture is added, I will write again.
I didn’t know that the Mayor of my city had this charging station built, but now that I know where it is, when I get my own Volt, I will take it there!
Raymond
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:21 pm)Haha, hey I thought of that years ago actually, guess I should’ve patented that idea!
Even if we could at least utilize existing reprocessing technologies, it could drastically reduce the amount of waste we have to deal with. I fully except, however, that I’m not an expert in the subject matter, and something beyond public concern and higher costs could be in play.
join thE REVolution
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:25 pm)What do you mean for now? Do you realize it takes 10 years to build a reactor and get it through all the planning and qualification steps? Ten years!
Also, Google ENRON and California. You will read up on why California is in such a mess.
+3
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:25 pm)Bob Lutz mentioned a Volt transmission unlike any in use. Andrew Farrah said that the generator produces just enough energy to power the electric motor. A recent Ampera demo drive mentions that there are three rpm set points for the ICE. A GM transmission builder mentioned an infinite combination of setting on the Volt transmission. A recent Milford report mentions that the ICE runs ‘when needed’ during CS. A GM technician mentioned a high of 3800rpm on the ICE in mountain mode.
So how is generated power metered to the electric motor?
If the ICE simply supplied the electric motor directly it would be revving and slowing continually to meter just the right amount of power supply. So this isn’t the case. If the ICE ran at a steady rpm and the battery buffer was raised at times for later draw use then a single generator would be enough to support this. This isn’t the case. The ICE must have three fixed power delivery settings. And three CS variable power settings. Example below:
gear 1 > 900rpm ICE used at very low cruise speeds, perhaps 5 to 20 mph.
gear 2 > 900rpm ICE with a secondary collar engaged to provide 100% more electricity flow to the electric motor. The secondary collar is not fixed, but engages and slips via computer control to provide just enough flow beyond the collar #1 fixed flow rate.
gear 3 > 1800rpm using collar #1 only. This fixed rpm may provide enough flow for the Volt to cruise at 40 mph.
gear 4 >When the Volt is cruising faster than 40 mph the secondary collar engages. Providing a variable feed up to 100% more delivery to the electric motor.
gear 5 >The secondary collar disengages and the ICE rpm raises to 3800rpm. At driving speeds over 80mph the secondary collar engages via computer monitor and delivers up to 100% more flow to the electric motor. Enough for 104mph on level ground.
gear 6 > Mountain mode. This used both collars, full feed at 3800rpm. Plus increases the battery buffer by 20% (?). Used only in extreme climb conditions.
This is the simplest way of doing it. And is definitely possible using advanced computers, a step tuned 1.4L ICE, and lithium battery cells. Maybe this is why we hear the word “tuned” used so often by GM reps. If a 200HP electric drive motor is used rather than a 150HP. 0-60 times would rival anything on the road. But, fuel efficiency CS would drop 25%. And initial battery range would drop to 30 miles.
30/30 are pretty good numbers for a truck.
=D-Volt
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:25 pm)Hopefully someone will make some wheels that pay homage to the EV1.
I would if I could…
Sep 19th, 2010 (9:42 pm)Thanks LRGV… I’ve bookmarked both links and plan to look at them this week.
join thE REVolution
+3
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:05 pm)Cool picture from the Volt Nation get-together!
Be well,
Tagamet
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:20 pm)Your welcome. That makes me feel better knowing that I have contributed in a meaningful way to the discussion. I should hope that there will be greater tolerance here with regard to the broad range of topics. The way I see it, the information we discussed has a lot to do with whether or not the Volt will be a reality in the future.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:29 pm)/night all. Discursive, yet interesting day. (g)
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:37 pm)Have you looked at Raser Technologies EREV Silverado?
http://www.rasertech.com/media/videos/plug-in-2010
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Sep 19th, 2010 (10:49 pm)Ok then whats wrong with not building 5000 megawatt solar plants for the same price and putting people to work today. Hell I lost my job 9 months ago and I wish something good like this would come and revive the economy. Money has to circulate otherwise any economy will fail.
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:08 pm)That’s nice GM that you market a pure battery electric to a FOREIGN COUNTRY but not the US.
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:13 pm)I’m willing to read opposing citations if someone is willing to do the research and find some that says reprocessing the spent fuel doesn’t release some of the many radioactive byproducts that are not uranium or plutonium atoms, and other countries aren’t concerned about France doing all this processing close to their waterways.
Note that Chuck gave you this citation:
Sounds like Chuck did some homework.
But I’ll wait and see if anybody can prove him wrong.
Sep 19th, 2010 (11:23 pm)LG and Korean products sure have changed.
If this were 20 years ago LG just might stand for “Lucky if it works” and “Goldstar if you can fix it” before I throw it away.
Sep 20th, 2010 (12:15 am)COOL. GM previously stated they were staying out of EREV for these vehicles. Guess they’ll have to reconsider-…or sue these folks for saying ‘range anxiety’.
Sep 20th, 2010 (12:28 am)By all means!
I wrote every freaking representative about this SAME concept over a year ago. You know what? I was a SAGE!! Why? Because I SPECIFICALLY cited BPs GULF OIL DRILLING and the $170M average cost for deep water well EXPLORATION. I commented on how many homes that $170M could get off the grid with solar. Little did I know that not only were the funds extravagant, but that our FL beaches would soon be scarred as a result.
Solar is but a trickle from an energy production standpoint right now. It would take years to make a real impact. We should be working CONCURRENTLY on all these options (nuke as well). Screw health care! Did our legislators solve any real problems? I pay the premiums for our small business employees and I can see that these DC idiots wasted an entire freaking year for nothing. They could have started WHERE IT COUNTED and gotten you and a lot of others working- much the same way FDR did with WPA-type projects in the 30s.
Maybe I ought to run for office. Nah! I don’t know how to lie well enough to actually get elected.
Sep 20th, 2010 (1:08 am)It does…
…and it shouldn’t.
That’s the problem!! If our legislators put their minds to it, they could solve this problem and rewrite the process. Let’s dig up Rickover and clone him. It took just 12 FREAKIN YEARS to go from the first sustained chain reaction in 1942 (AS A LAB EXPERIMENT!!!) until the launch of the first nuclear powered submarine (USS Nautilus) in 1954. Within several years of this, we had produced a couple dozen more. It’s PATHETIC how far down the bureaucratic ladder we have fallen. Understand that the technology is not to blame, nor the implementers of the technology- it is idiots standing in the way. From self serving lawyers, to paranoid law makers to NIMBY whiners. During the Cold War, our paranoia motivated us to embrace nuclear power generation and rapidly advance adoption. Our current energy and climate crisis COULD do the same.
Sep 20th, 2010 (1:22 am)Yes, I have the gas generator. Yes I can plug it in to supply the whole house. However, the need for gas after the storm is EXACTLY the problem. Now, I have a 5KW solar array on the roof. I could live in the survivalist mode and buy batteries and charge them during the day. But grid tied is far superior 99.9% of the time. Excess solar production is not lost. You can’t run out of juice from the grid like you can from batteries. Batteries wear out. The only time the battery method is superior is in extremis. My point of discussion is that you cannot, by code, combine the two. The utility will not allow you to be grid tied if your inverter is not powered from the grid. Therefore, when the grid is dead, all that solar production sitting on the roof is of no use. The code weenies should allow for alternate inverter power so that you can run your array during disasters and provide electricity to your own house- WITHOUT GAS.
Sep 20th, 2010 (4:33 am)I had a Goldstar color TV back in the early 1980′s. Worked well for many years, which was not always the case w/ color TVs back in the day.
+2
Sep 20th, 2010 (5:15 am)Side-note on nuclear charging of EVs. Someone involved with nuclear industry once told me that what Three Mile Island actually did was prove that the safety systems on a nuclear plant do work. As usual the media blew it all out of proportion.
Sep 20th, 2010 (9:10 am)Yeah. I was trying to think “outside the box” here, but as it turns out, when I started Googling the idea after posting this, it’s been considered many times before and has some pretty serious unknowns involved. Earthquakes among them!
Sep 20th, 2010 (9:31 am)I don’t know wheither or not you will get to read this post. You should read the history of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Wikipedia. “Studies in surrounding countries indicate that over one million people could have been affected by radiation.” There is a reason that it takes so long to build a nuclear plant. Regulations were written in the hope that they would result in few if any accidents. I was involved in the importation of nuclear valves for some of the TVA projects; a lot of testing and documentation goes into the components of a nuclear plant. Xrays are taken to insure the integrity of the components. This adds to the time needed to manufacture them. The regulations are there to protect the public from the health hazards in the event that a nuclear accident were to occur. Safety systems are designed to limit the release of radiation into the atmosphere.
Two Mile Island was the worst accident occuring in the United States. Fortunately, design engineers figured out what to do in time to shut down the reactor. That wasn’t the case with the Soviet Unions Chernobyl disaster. “Studies in surrounding countries indicate that over one million people could have been affected by radiation.” which did not include the people who were victims of ARS. “As of December 2000[update], 350,400 people had been evacuated and resettled from the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.”
You should be thankful to the “self serving lawyers, to paranoid law makers to NIMBY whiners.” There is a very good reason for all the regualtions governing the nuclear power industry. It not an issue of mind over matter! It’s a realization of how dangerous this industry is and remains even to this day.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Sep 20th, 2010 (2:14 pm)It was Three Mile Island – 50% worse.
Sep 20th, 2010 (2:48 pm)Actually, the company name comes from “Lak Hui Goldstar”. It was anglicized to Lucky Goldstar in the 1960′s. It then became known as LG. Strangely, the company has officially rebranded the LG to “Life is Good”, which also happens to be the company motto.
Sep 20th, 2010 (5:28 pm)Amen brother!!
Sep 21st, 2010 (12:10 am)And I hope you get to read my response, as well. I could write you VOLUMES on my knowledge of things you can only BEGIN to read on Wikipedia. Inside knowledge! I even worked with several folks whose employer was the NRC. As serious as THREE (not Two) Mile Island was, there were no fatalities or REAL significant consequences (to anything other than the containment building itself). The only REAL incident this country ever had was SL-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1. We have learned much since then and yes, regulations, certifications and testing exist for reasons. However, the delays of which I speak are not SAFETY delays. They are bureaucratic wastes of time. Yucca Mtn is the poster child of stupidity in this regard. I have read all about Chernobyl. It wouldn’t happen here. And hopefully, the world learned enough that it won’t happen again elsewhere either. ‘There is no such thing as a free lunch.’ Dirty fossil fuels are killing this entire planet in ways that nuclear incidents can’t even touch. I LOVE my solar (and other renewables), but there are few close, and practical, alternatives to the 24/7 backup offered by nuclear. Yes, I hope someday we can do things like submerge turbines out in the Gulf Stream and harness fusion. Until then, nuclear is a SMART option.
Sep 27th, 2010 (9:16 am)Amaze, I’ve found some terrible lists on the net, but this one takes the wedding cake. bdougs creates some nice ideas, but what about an oscar earning song in Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah? Overlook the American stigma against the film “Song of the South, ” this song, along with many older classics, trumps almost everything against your list.Solution to do your analysis.