Last week Audi North America President Johan de Nysschen was quoted as saying the Chevy Volt was a ”car for idiots.” This led to an explosion of web controversy.
Finding this comment hard to believe, and as an ardent Volt enthusiast, I sought the truth direct from the source, and had a half hour informal conversation with Mr. de Nysschen as an interchange of ideas.
Business Case Idiotic, Not People
De Nysschen underscored the debacle of his quote by noting the tragic irony that a senior executive two weeks before the launch of his own company’s electric car would be calling people who would by them idiots.
“I don’t think the Volt is a car for idiots,” he said. He claimed the headline was a journalist’s misinterpretation, and that his point was that the Volt was “an idiotic business case,” and not how he would refer to people.
“We might as well have been taking about the Tesla,” he said. “I am not an enemy of the (Volt) concept.” But he argues that we should not think of it as a magic bullet.
He thinks the business case for an electric car is idiotic because buyers “cannot amortize their incremental fixed investment in the cost of the car to the savings in fuel consumptions.”
And for those who are willing to supplement the cost through affluence for the sake of the environment, his opinion is that benefit is not clear either.
Questions CO2 Emissions Benefit of Electric Cars
de Nysschen said that he “cares very, very deeply about the planet, what we are doing to it and how our activities of today are shaping tomorrow.”
A prominent fallacy he says is that electric cars cause zero emissions, and said he was “astonished” such “misconceptions” are even held by people in positions of power who make legislative decisions and are close-minded to other options.
He is troubled that coal-fired power plants and related efficiency losses eventually release more CO2 than burning diesel, and referred to a CARB report that says electric power cars are second only to hydrogen powered cars in terms of the well to wheel emissions because of the way US gets its power. Though he did admit that it would be a different equation if electricity were created by renewable sources.
I asked him if he was aware of the EPRI-NRDC study from 2007 that showed CO2 emissions from EVs supplied by current powerplants would be less than if those cars were gas powered. He admitted he was “not familiar with that study.”
Agrees Energy Independence Important
As he had never mentioned it, I told him what I’ve noticed about Volt fans, and told him I have a list of 50,000 people, is a common theme of a desire for energy independence; that people don’t want energy from foreign sources.
He agreed that “that is a very worthwhile argument.”
But, “getting people to understand the benefits of clean diesel is important,” he said. He argued that if 30% of new cars sold in the US were to be clean diesel (the number right now is 50% in Europe), we would save as much oil annually as we import from Saudi Arabia, which is 1.5 billion barrels of oil per year.
Thinks Other Alternatives Should Come Before EVs
He says waiting to get to the “promise land” of EVs will lead to a lot of “dirt in the atmosphere” and instead feels we should move to complementary technologies sooner, including clean diesel, new generation gas engines, and biofuels.
He admitted diesel still comes from foreign sources and won’t make us independent, but less dependent. He argues it would do so because we would “need less of it (than gas) because diesel engines are more efficient.”
To get that diesel, he explains, when a barrel of oil is cracked it can be varied to produce more diesel than gasoline by tuning the distillation process. He also says diesel engines, being more efficient, produce 25% less CO2, have “beautiful power characteristics,” and are more economical.
He points out that the US has the world’s largest resources of natural gas, and argues that we could use it to power some of the power plants, though notes it’s more expensive than coal. He suggested the government should subsidize the use of natural gas in powerplants.
He also argues the natural gas could be used to produce clean diesel in a gas to liquid process, though admits it’s still a fossil fuel and not renewable.
He suggests another good option is using ethanol, not from corn which he called “an outrage”, but from new technologies creating it from waste material. He admits this wouldn’t result in vehicles which themselves do not produce emissions.
Electric Cars
He does believe electric cars “are the solution in the long-term,” but thinks we won’t get to that point for 20 years.
If we want EVs, he says, we face potentially “staggering” investments including cleaning up coal-powered plants and generating new capacity. Simply switching to EVs right now, he says, without cleaning up power generation is just “adding more pollution to the environment.”
Though he thinks the Volt’s business case is “troublesome” it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t go down that road, he said. In fact, he actually supported it saying “how else would we learn and get experience and expertise (in EVs),” such that “the next generation is better.”
For that reason, in fact, he admitted “Audi too is working on electric cars and on the verge of making announcement about electric cars of their own.”
He believes in particular dense urban conditions such as the US West Coast, it makes sense to have cars that produce zero emissions where they are used. Here he says he sees “a massive role” for electric cars and “cars such as the Volt.”
The Chevy Volt
Doesn’t Work For Him
Asked why he thinks it will take 20 years for EVs to take hold he said one issue is the cost of the batteries, and the other is the limited amount of energy that can be stored in them.
I pointed out that the whole point of the Volt is it has the smallest battery possible that would allow most people to drive all of their daily needs without gas, thus minimizing battery cost and maximizing electrical driving.
He claimed the information Audi has is that the range available with these batteries is that if you are in heavy stop and go traffic with max 10 mph speed you could get “a tolerable amount of range.” But he said if you are doing highway driving 30 miles each way, as he does personally, it is his opinion that “he would have to switch to the gas motor long before he gets to work,” and that “even after he gets to work the infrastructure isn’t there to charge the battery.”
He would then have to drive the car home on gas too, in which case, he says ”the whole issue becomes a little bit moot, because if he’s driving mostly on the gas, it doesn’t work for him.” He admitted “it might well work” for other people with shorter commutes and different driving conditions.
He actually said “we should not summarily dismiss the (Volt) technology.” He admits “there is a role for it.” The people that buy the car will have to be “a particular subset of the total commuting public.”
Questions Value Proposition
I asked about why he thinks the Volt doesn’t offer what it should at $40,000.
To be fair he said, “I have never obviously driven a Volt” but admits “he has always looked at the car with great interest.” He even sat in it at an auto show, and said “it’s not exactly a Cadillac.”
He considers it very similar to the Saturn Aura which he thought was a “fine GM car,” and actually said he was “sad to see Saturn’s demise.” He then said the Volt would not be a better car but cost twice as much.
What you are getting, he says, is in his circumstance is half time zero emissions, zero fuel emissions. This is why he thinks if most people did the math they would have to find another reason why they would buy the Volt, it won’t be to save money.
I argued that the first generations of new technology always have to be subsidized by the well off who may have many different reasons for buying it.
“You are right,” he said, all new technology always cost more. He noted that was why luxury cars usually lead the way with groundbreaking technology.
I asked if he believed that that Chevy Volt design doesn’t match a high end car. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” he said. “I don’t find it an unattractive car.”
“Its not a premium car feel,” he said. “But it’s got a premium car price.”
I argued it may not be a value equation but that there is the $7500 tax credit to bring it to $32,500.
He says this issue is his main point, whether this government expense is “the best way to clean up the environment,” and that there might be a better way to apply those tax credits to incentivize the utility companies to clean up the power stations.
Audis’ Electric Car Plans
I asked if Audi was planning a production electric car or an EREV and he did not actually provide an answer. He said what Audi and all car companies need to do is to continue to make gas and diesel engines for “many, many years in the future,” but they have to also produce hybrid cars and plug in electrics.
I asked if he thinks the idea of driving electrically with its smooth instant torque and driving pleasure was of value. He said he thinks it is a “very interesting driving experience” and admitted he has driven Audi’s own electric car prototypes and that “it’s very different.” He thinks it will be part of the engineering challenge to still “maintain an exhilarating driving experience and not seem like driving a golf cart.”
Asked specifically if he thought the Volt was a reasonable piece of the puzzle, he said “Oh absolutely, and even a required piece of the puzzle.”
For what its worth I told him I was the de facto number one Volt fan. He said “I certainly would never want to call you an idiot.”
Finally I asked him for information about Audi’s upcoming EV. He said he would “love to” tell me, but it would remove the fanfare from Audi’s announcement in Frankfurt, “so we’ll have to wait on that one.”
