Since the Volt was introduced in January 2007, many EV programs and EV concepts have emerged. President Obama was elected and pledged to put 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015. The hydrogen car future has been put in doubt. Oil reached nearly $150 per barrel. The world economy nearly collapsed. GM and Chrysler entered and left bankruptcy. US Car sales went from nearly 17 million per year to rates below $10 million. Rick Wagoner lost his job. A123 Systems went public. EEStor still hasn’t shown us anything.

All the while, GM-Volt.com and you, its audience of EV early adopters, have chugged along.

At this point GM admits there are over 50,000 people waiting for a Volt as this site can attest, and Nissan claims more than 20,000 will pre-order its LEAF EV next Spring.

Nissan’s CEO Carlos Ghosn thinks 10% of car sales will be electric in 2020. A very recent Credit-Suisse report predicts 1.1% of global cars sales will be electric by 2015, and that EV sales will be worth $400 billion by 2030 and sales of lithium ion batteries will reach $100 billion by the same year. It is also predicted widespread adoption of EVs will reduced petroleum consumption by 4 million barrels per day by 2030.

There are several factors which are at work to promote electric car adoption, especially a growing interest in reducing reliance on petroleum for social, environmental, and economical reasons.

Similarly, forces resist the change such as image, range limits, cost, and recently lower gas prices.

So what is the true demand for EVs?

From October 19th to 21st the first ever “Business of Plugging In” conference will take place in Detroit which will attempt to answer and discuss this and other relevant issues. It will bring together many influential people in the electric car industry for a series of workshops and discussions. Speakers will include such people as Wesley Clark, George Pataki, Bill Ford and Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. Executives from A123 Systems, Kleiner-Perkins, GM, Fisker, and Think will join many others.

One particular session will be called “The Consumer: Who, When and Why?” and will include Tony Posawatz of GM and Felix Kramer of CalCars.org. You can join them here today in a multi-blog livechat in the box below at 3:30 EDT, and help start the conversation.

At that time its growth was slow, as this site had very little reach. I remember projecting it might be possible to collect 50,000 names by the time the car would be launched at the end of 2010, though I imagined such projections were overly optimistic.

Turns out I was way off. We just passed the 50,000 mark on September 13th, 2009.

We have people in all 50 states and 93 countries of the world on this list. People who want the car enough to put down their name address and email, and to share their degree of enthusiasm, and the price they would be willing to pay.

So see a break down of the list updated in real time click here.  To update your demographics, or see your “place in line,” type in the email address you signed up with in the box on this page.

The average enthusiasm for those who were willing to express it on a scale of 1 to 10 is 9.2.

The average price people were willing to pay for the car $31, 314.

If everyone on the list actually purchased a Volt at $40,000 it would represent sales of $2 billion dollars.

The primary goal of the list was to demonstrate to GM and the world just how many people there are who would want a Volt. In the beginning, GM had nowhere near committed to production so the list served as a tool to compel them to build it. Later, after production was approved in June 2008, the list has became an indicator of demand.

It continues to serve as a shining beacon to anyone who would look that there are very very many of us who want to break our oil addiction, and achieve energy independence and a better world.

Along the way of this list’s growth and recognition I received gentle pressure from GM. Their legal department once politely requested I change the name from waiting list. You will now notice it is called the Want List, simply indicating that these are people who want a Volt.

I have tightly and securely guarded the privacy of everyone on this list and and I have not and will not share it with any third parties except GM if they want it.

I do very occasionally email the group when an important story or event has occurred, such as this one.

Unfortunately, I cannot say GM will utilize the list as I had initially hoped. Most indications I have gotten from them have not suggested they will. However, the recent survey they have emailed to potential buyers asks if they have registered on the GM-Volt.com list.

So we shall carry on and continue to grow the list. Any ideas you have for what we can do with it, I am glad to hear in the comments below.

Clearly there is interest, but how widespread is it, and more so how many people are actually considering buying one?

Pike research did a study to determine just these facts.

In a web-based prospective study of 1,041 respondents, it was determined that 48% of prospective US customers would be either “very” or “extremely” interested in buying a plug-in car with a 40 mile EV range, like the Volt.  This was assuming electricity cost was 75 cents per gallon equivalent, home recharging, additional around town chargers, and the right features and price.  Less than 20% had little or no interest.

The study also showed most buyers were willing to pay a premium for such a car.  49% said they would pay a 5 to 10% premium over a comparable gas car and 17% were willing to pay between 20% and 50% more.  One-third said they would not pay a premium. The average premium people were willing to pay was 12%.

Of those who would not consider buying a PHEV-40, 45% said they wanted to technology to be more proven and 33% said 40 miles was insufficient.  29% disliked the idea of plugging in and thought it would be expensive, 28% thought the cars would be unreliable, and 25% felt the cars would be of lower quality.

The study also found that 82% of respondents drive less than 40 miles per day, with an average of 27 miles, and that 85% would consider fuel efficiency as an important factor in choosing their next vehicle.

Source (GreenCarCongress)

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.”

The rush of negative press forced Mr. de Nysschen to issue a statement on the Audi Facebook page, in which he claims not remembering saying those words to the writer. Where have I heard that one before?

Anyway, we’ll let him speak for himself:

An online report today, subsequently picked up by various other forums, left an unflattering sense of my feelings toward electric vehicles and the people who support their development. Let me clearly state that, in my opinion, electric vehicles will be part of the future transportation of society – but only if we go about it the right way. In fact, Audi is working on electric vehicles.

I do not specifically recall using the term “car for idiots” during my informal conversation with the writer. It was certainly not my intention to leave the impression that I’m opposed to electrical vehicles, and if I was unclear on either of those points then I need to eat crow.

What I do recall is the essence of my contention, namely that the feasibility of the Chevrolet Volt as a concept is questionable. And that policy decisions – and the industry’s reactions to those decisions – are leading us toward a technology that may sound tempting on the surface, but, as of now, also contains many deep and unsolved economic and technological compromises.

“Mass electrification” of the vehicles on American roads could lead to problems like a strained electric grid. Large-scale utilization of electric vehicles will require massive investment in new power stations that are much cleaner than the ones in use in the U.S. today. Otherwise, it could merely shift greenhouse gas emissions from the tailpipes of cars to the smokestacks of coal-burning utilities. That’s not just my opinion. The California Air Resource Board this past April concluded that electric vehicles presently are second only to hydrogen cars in greenhouse gas impact when measured on a well-to-wheel basis.

Returning to the Volt, my point was simply one of its economic feasibility today. The 50% or so price increase that the Volt represents over a similar gasoline car cannot be offset through the savings from reduced fuel consumption. The only way to offset the extreme premium for the Volt is through taxpayer-funded subsidies. So I question if that makes economic sense.

Does that mean the Volt and other electric vehicles are forever impractical? Of course not.

In recent broadcast interviews, discussions with journalists and meetings with policy makers I have asserted that the future of automotive transportation lies not in any one “silver bullet”, but in a range of technologies that meet different needs – all while lowering emissions and fuel consumption. That includes plug-in electric cars when technological and economic hurdles make them more practical. It includes hybrid vehicles. And it includes clean diesel along with substantially more efficient takes on today’s gasoline internal combustion engines.

Admittedly I am a passionate advocate for the role that clean diesel technology can play in easing this nation’s challenges. Cutting through misperceptions about clean diesel and other technologies can be frustrating. If you’d like to hear my thoughts on these issues, go to a video of my recent remarks at www.audiusanews.com. Meanwhile, know that we are working toward a more sustainable future.

-Johan de Nysschen

So it seems he is focused on the old already refuted claims that electric cars will  cause a “strained electric grid” and shift greenhouse gases to coal plants, despite studies by EPRI to the contrary.

He also seems to still be missing the point that the first generation price premium being offset by government incentives is necessary for GM and the industry to be able to ramp up to less expensive future generations.

Finally, he neglects the critical element that electrification of the automobile will allow America to become energy independent from foreign sources of oil.

And unless I missed it, no apology.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk once called the Volt with its mix of gas engine an electric motor “neither fish or foul” but went on to wish the car well.

This new particular insult though is really over the top, and unfortunately in my opinion is unnecessarily derogatory.

Apparently Audi’s president of North America Johan de Nysschen who is an advocate of diesels is no fan of the Volt nor all of the government and regulatory effort going in to promoting EVs.

He dismissed the Volt as “a car for idiots.”

He is said to believe very few people will be willing to pay $40,000 for a car that competes with $25,000 sedans, and is not itself a luxury car.

“No one is going to pay a $15,000 premium for a car that competes with a (Toyota) Corolla,” he said. “So there are not enough idiots who will buy it.”

He argued that the Volt is simply “for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are.”

Of course describing the same individuals as both intellectuals and idiots simultaneously doesn’t speak well of this fellow’s logic, which is flawed.

Critical logical flaws include ignoring the importance of an expensive first generation to get to more affordable second and third generations with the early technology being subsidized by well-to-do early adopters. Also missed is the fact that the true cost of the Volt will be more like $32,500 after tax credits. Important all the more is the need to wean this country off of oil which has a different value all its own. It could also be easily argued that the Volt doesn’t compete with a Corolla either.

I, Mr. de Nysschen, may be a lot of things, but an idiot isn’t one of them. I will also say it is commonly accepted good business practice not to speak poorly of your competitors or their customers.

I can say at least now I know of one car brand I won’t be buying.

Source (MSN) via (NY Times)

The focus of the story was the fact that despite the global financial meltdown and the particular decimation of the auto industry, online automotive writing and publishing has actually continued to increase. So people may be buying less cars but reading about them more.  This is interpreted as meaning America’s love affair with cars remains strong even if they can’t be afforded.

It was noted that the number of online auto sites is nearly 5000, and the number of online automotive writers has increased to 2700 from 1600 in 2005.  The total number of auto sites increased around 2% in 2008, the same year car sales slumped 30%.

It is also clear that auto shoppers are increasingly turning online for research, with 75% of potential car buyers conducting online research in 2008, up from 70% the year earlier.

This site was mentioned in the context of the increasing popularity of sites particularly devoted to electric car coverage.

I was quoted as saying “This Web site has just added a whole new dimension to my life.” You can say that again.

Source (Wall Street Journal)

I have some mixed feelings about this. GM made me aware it was coming, and I actually was briefed on the project in person at a meeting at GM’s headquarters which included people from GM communications, social media, and Chevrolet marketing.

As anyone reading this is likely aware, being a Chevy Volt social media portal is actually, well, the exact purpose of GM-Volt.com. For two and 1/2 years I have tirelessly built this site to be what it is today and with much thanks to all the wonderful readers like you.

When GM-Volt.com began, I saw myself as the ambassador to GM, working to bring the details and news of Volt and EV development out into the public eye, and to compel GM to move the car from concept to production. That line has been crossed long ago, and now we are only slightly more than a year away from launch.

GM has seen the value of this site, its readership, and what it represents and they have decided they want to “tell their own story.” Such is the birth of ChevroletVoltAge.com.

I of course shall carry on here, doing my best to interpret the news, developments, and discussion as it happens. We here have the tremendous advantage of unfiltered and uncensored information and discussion, without corporate cleansing.

It is my hope that both sites can coexist and bring value to one another. You will notice GM-Volt.com is linked out from the Chevy site and considered a friend. Content from here will also appear in their news feeds.

And the reality is my and our hope and dream for a world less dependent on oil has come one step closer.

Feel free to let me know what you think about this development, and any ideas you have for our future direction. I greatly value your opinions. While you’re at it, enjoy the Volt IVer production video GM has put up to launch the site:

Lutz has taken that author to task in his latest FastLane post. “Let me say this clearly: There is no ambivalence on my part – or on the part of anyone at GM – toward the Chevy Volt. None. Zero,” writes Lutz.

Lutz confirms the Volt program is “the most exciting program I have worked on in my entire career.”

“The Volt can literally change the face of automotive transportation as we know it,” he writes “Who would be ambivalent about that?”

Lutz goes on to say the advent of the Volt and other smaller cars that GM has in the pipeline does not mean the end of performance car. He likens their arrival to a grocery store that first begins to offer organic vegetables, “doesn’t mean it shuts down the meat counter.”

Source (FastLane)

And for your viewing pleasure, the world’s first high resolution images of the Chevy Volt in black are below. Click to get to the high-res versions, and Enjoy!

The story begins pointing out that the Chevrolet Camaro SS is GM’s latest muscle car that flies in the face of all the environmental talk going on these days. “Sexy with charisma,” says Lutz, but admits “Some people don’t care for those kinds of descriptions today — it’s a different time.”

Lutz counters “But we have new vehicles, too. We have the Volt. We are committed to the electrification of the automobile. We know this is the time.”

Extensively described is how the Volt came to be. The author confirms what we already know, Lutz didnt commission the Volt to fight global warming which he calls a ‘crock.’

“If you look at most of the mainstream media, you get the impression that 95 percent of Americans today want a vehicle like the Chevrolet Volt or a [hybrid such as the] Toyota Prius,” says Lutz. “And that, by God, the reason General Motors is in trouble, is that we have not offered a vehicle like that. But when you look at the reality, at today’s fuel prices, most Americans still want a conventional car.”

Lutz says why the Volt was really developed, “Because it is an important symbol. We need it. It has a chance to change our image.”

However, Lutz intends the Volt to lead the way for a pure electric future. He says the Volt not only represents GM’s commitment to change but call it “the first generation of an electric vehicle from GM” leading to successively more enhanced Volts eventually resulting in a pure electric with more than 150 miles of range.

Lutz recounts what happened when Toyota first introduced the Prius in Japan in 1997. The GM board met and asked if they should do the same thing.

“Somebody said, ‘Do we have [hybrid] technology?’ ” recalls Lutz. ” ‘Oh, yeah,’ was the answer. ‘Oh, yeah, we got the technology. We’ve been building hybrid prototypes since the late ’60s.’ ”

However, it was decided the cost, then about $600 to $700 million wasn’t justified as it was expected the cars would lose money. Wagoner decided ‘We can’t do that’ and the decision to not go forward with a hybrid program was made.

After watching the Prius’ halo effect drive sales of other Toyota cars and make the company a media and environmental sweetheart, by 2006 Lutz had finally had enough.

He told GM VP Jon Lauckner, known as ‘the Wizard’ he wanted a “game changing” electric car that would leapfrog the Prius and deliver 150 miles of pure electric range. Lauckner said it would be “too expensive” and furiously scribbled calculations that would be his solution of the Volt’s range extender design.

It is written that GM’s plan to build a limited first year run of 10,000 copies of the Volt at around $40,000 exudes caution. Lutz isn’t worried though. He expects all 10,000 cars to be purchased quickly by “well-heeled electric car die-hards.” This will lead to economy of scale cost reductions that will eventually get the car into the $25,000 to $30,000 price range he says.

Producing the car he feels is an absolute necessity for GM. “We’re talking about our image here — about remaking GM; it is essential to get this done,” says Lutz. “We can’t make any mistakes with the Volt.”

Lutz believes an artificial market is being created for electric cars driven by “influential environmentalists and the intellectual establishment” who want electric cars to succeed, and Obama’s stated goal of 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.

Lutz although excited about the Volt is already mourning the loss of the high-power, gas-guzzling, dazzling machines of old. “In time, the government is going to legislate out of existence cars like the Camaro, the Corvette, the Cadillac CTS — all these acclaimed vehicles that have lately gotten rave reviews from the automotive press around the world,” predicts Lutz. “So, ultimately, we are driven by legislation into the kind of excitement provided by the Volt.”

And for demand. He says “it’s probably just 5 percent of the public that desperately wants something environmentally sound and is willing to pay a premium for it,” and notes “the customer will never recover the premium paid for the hybrid system in fuel economy.”

Lutz believes the electric car marketplace is skewed to the coasts. “I would say the East and West Coast intellectual establishment kind of lives in its own world. When you get to the broad American marketplace, excitement is still kind of defined in the way it used to be.”

And with that the 77 year-old Lutz set off on his 60 mile drive home saying “nice afternoon for a drive.”

Lutz, GM, and the country it appears are thus ambivalent about the greening of the automobile.

Source (Washington Post)